BRICKER's Column... P@#$ED me OFF!!!

[Califin]

what did he say that is so bad?

Nothing necessarily "bad", as much as seeking to demerit its meaning.

In other words "grumbling".
That buddy who comes over, and while observing your trophies, begins questioning or belittling what it took to attain it.
Many of us have had certain friendships like that, the same ones that usually dont last.

Not to suggest ofcourse our achievement should be above scrutiny, only that it officially waits until theres another to be compared against.

 

[bakedmatt]

his column is full of half-truths and overestimations. it's for the birds. but all this buzzing about it is only making him money.

 

[3Ply Stagliano]

I didn't think he was being very anti-Phins. I mean, he did write:

'What that team accomplished in 1972 was magnificent. Superb. Fabulous. Sweet. Brilliant'
​

I don't find that particularly offensive and the rest of the article didn't seem to be belittling the '72 Dolphins' achievements so much as making as much of a story as he could from the current Colts and their record.

 

[Kadiddlehopper]

Where would the colts be if Manning missed 8 games?

 

[furball4]

Anyone can play up an accomplishment by focusing on the adversity that one team has faced while ignoring all the adversities another has faced. How many games is it worth to have your star QB out for two thirds of the season? How much strength-of-schedule is offset by having to go on the road for the AFC Championship to play a Steelers team that would win four of the next six Super Bowls? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I actually emailed the author about it, and he suggested that strength-of-schedule is a relevant adversity to consider, but injuries are not! Injuries, he said, are "part of the game". Apparently the strength of your schedule isn't part of the game. WTH? They are both luck. The Dolphins got a bit lucky on one and got completely screwed on the other. The Colts have had a pretty level season luck-wise, but they do have to make it to 19-0 vs. 17-0 so I won't say a word againt the accomplishment if they pull it off. I just get annoyed when people try to compare. Perfect seasons should stand on their own.

 

[Disnardo]

I agree.

Dolphins got one of the easiest schedules in history that year.

...but others fail to realize that they faced the best and the cream of the crop in the Post Season in teams like Pit, Cleveland, and at the SB with Washington...These team had a combined 32-10 (.761%)...

Bottom line is, that Dolphin's team won against a weak schedule, then they they showed everyone in the Post Season why they were "UNDEFEATED."

 

[BIG_SIR]

...but others fail to realize that they faced the best and the cream of the crop in the Post Season in teams like Pit, Cleveland, and at the SB with Washington...These team had a combined 32-10 (.761%)...

Bottom line is, that Dolphin's team won against a weak schedule, then they they showed everyone in the Post Season why they were "UNDEFEATED."

Well, god, you had better be playing someone in the playoffs... that's sort of assumed.

Even with those teams in the mix, the teams they played were 35 or so games below .500.

 

[bigmiamifan]

If the Colts go undefeated, it is what it is and that may be a greater feat than the Dolphin's of '72 but, we were always the first ones.

Exactly, It would have been two more games, and in a salary cap era. Sorry, I love the fins and they'll always be the first, but if the COlts go undefeated there's no way you can say it wouldn't be a greater accomplishment.

 

[Itsdahumidity]

Well, god, you had better be playing someone in the playoffs... that's sort of assumed.

Even with those teams in the mix, the teams they played were 35 or so games below .500.

What....? So why don't we just put the proverbial asterisk on the entire 1972 NFL season since no one the Dolphins played were worthy enough to be considered very good. :shakeno:

 

[tcdrover]

I don't see anything offensive in that article. What he wrote is true.

I'm a Dolphan, I've watched them play since I was a kid. I used to got to the Orange Bowl and see Marino play in person, but I have zero attachment to that undefeated 72 record.

I didn't see any of those games, I don't know half of the players on that team. This is the reason why those Cowboy fans are always sooooo obnoxious, constantly talking about their 'gloried, storied' history. It's in the past, it's done and gone. What matters is today, what matters is the actual Super Bowl victories not the records and stats...

That said, I REALLY don't want to see the Colts in this Superbowl. (Or the Seahawks for that matter)...

 

[The Confessor]

For anybody to try to take anything away from the 72 team is ludicrous. There is a reason the record has not been broken in 33 years. Other teams have also had laxed schedules in the past 33 years... That being said, if the Colts win out, they would have to be admired as being the only other team to win out...

 

[jtoomuch]

Someone made a great point about where would the Colts be if Manning had missed 8 games. Besides, IMO this record CAN'T be broken, only tied.
You can only win games you play. And it is not over yet. If the Colts run the table AND win the SB I will take my hat off to them and consider the record tied.