Best Dolphins team of the last 30 years?

Virginia99

Scout Team
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
394
Reaction score
114
I agree we wouldn’t have beaten SF in the Super Bowl, but the 1994 team was the last reasonable chance this team has had to get to the Super Bowl. They fell apart against the Chargers, but had the FG been made at the end, the team was certainly capable of beating Pittsburgh (not that it was a lock or anything).
Anyone mention the 93 team? I think they were ready to make run before Dan got hurt. Started out 4-1 with Dan before he blew out his heel in the 5th game. The team had so much talent and made it to 9-2 before being decimated by injuries. Dan, Troy Vincent, and a bunch of others went down. They started 4 QBs that year! But injuries are part of the game, so I think 90, 94, and 2002 are the best teams. I give the edge to 90 because their D was legit (except against the Bills) and Marino gives them distinct edge over 2002.
 

EJay

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
1,360
What do you think is the best Dolphins team of the last 30 years?

I’m basing my picks on performance on the field during the season. So, whether or not the 2002 team was stacked, I’m not going to name them one of the best when they couldn’t even get a win when they needed it to secure a wildcard. I’m not asking what the most talented team on paper was— I’m asking about the team that was the best when the games were played.
If your criteria is strictly performance based i.e., results based, then there’s really not much subjectivity to it.

Just list the teams that advanced furtherest and/or competed closest in the postseason followed by the non-playoff teams with the best record in descending order.

Done. ;)
 

Adam Strange

Question Authority
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
1,627
Age
46
Location
Melrose, MA
If your criteria is strictly performance based i.e., results based, then there’s really not much subjectivity to it.

Just list the teams that advanced furtherest and/or competed closest in the postseason followed by the non-playoff teams with the best record in descending order.

Done. ;)
There’s still subjectivity to it. Both the 90 and 94 teams lost in the divisional round, but the 90 team had a better regular season and the 94 team had seemingly more talent. So that’s a toss-up. And the 1992 team had a worse regular season than the 90 team and less marquee talent than the 94 team, yet got to the AFC championship (though their poor showing there hurts them).

Plus that’s just my criteria. If someone thinks the 1991 team is the best, or the 1996 one, they’d certainly have trouble convincing me, but I’d love to hear it.
 
Last edited:

Dolphins3

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
471
Reaction score
185
The 2002 team was a 11-12 win team that won 9 games (they should have been so much better). I think the best was the 1990 team. 1993 would have been the best had Dan and a host of other players not gone down to injury. I can't name the 1994 team. Top me, that loss to San Diego was tougher to take than the loss to Buffalo in the AFC championship in 1992.
 

EJay

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
1,360
There’s still subjectivity to it. Both the 90 and 94 teams lost in the divisional round, but the 90 team had a better regular season and the 94 team had seemingly more talent. So that’s a toss-up. And the 1992 team had a worse regular season than the 90 team and less marquee talent than the 94 team, yet got to the AFC championship (though their poor showing there hurts them).

Plus that’s just my criteria. If someone thinks the 1991 team is the best, or the 1996 one, they’d certainly have trouble convincing me, but I’d love to hear it.
I hear ya, but I still say it’s as easy as determining which team was more competitive in their playoff games(s). If that’s fairly equal, then regular season record determines it.

If you’re going strictly by performance based metrics, that is.

But, for me, I never look at it that way. As it’s possible for a team with a better overall record and even more accomplished to not be better than a lesser accomplished team.

Perhaps the lesser accomplished team played a much tougher schedule? In a season with a much deeper field?
Perhaps there were key injuries at the worst time that prevented more wins and better success?
Perhaps it was strike shortened season, changing almost everything?

There are just so many factors that come into play that need to be considered IMO.

So, for me, performance based results is only part of the overall equation.

But since you started the thread and laid out the ground rules, what I outlined in the first thread and the beginning of this one is more or less how I’d do it in order to follow your criteria.
 

coalesce

Dolphin Fan since 1974
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
727
Age
54
Location
Fishkill, NY
My problem with the 90 team is that they would get outmuscled on both sides of the ball by bigger teams, like the Giants and Redskins.
 

WCUPUNK

Active Roster
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
646
Reaction score
1,385
Age
35
Location
Charlotte, NC
2002 was a Super Bowl caliber team. Ricky Williams gave a competent offense a real chance to get over the hump behind a stacked defense. We went into that Broncos game where both teams were fighting for best team in the AFC, then together lost a half dozen starters to multiple week injuries neither of us made the playoffs. Best team I can remember us having in the last 30 years.
 

Adam Strange

Question Authority
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
1,627
Age
46
Location
Melrose, MA
2002 was a Super Bowl caliber team. Ricky Williams gave a competent offense a real chance to get over the hump behind a stacked defense. We went into that Broncos game where both teams were fighting for best team in the AFC, then together lost a half dozen starters to multiple week injuries neither of us made the playoffs. Best team I can remember us having in the last 30 years.
I think in a head-to-head matchup Marino, Shula, and those early 90s teams beat Wanny, Fiedler, and the defense that was at its worst under pressure. Sure Ricky was a beast in 2002, but that season proved that Ricky alone could not overcome the deficits at coach and QB, nor was he enough when the defense folded.
 

Adam Strange

Question Authority
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
2,100
Reaction score
1,627
Age
46
Location
Melrose, MA
'90, '92, '93 and '94 were all good teams. And each one of them disappointed me in their own way.
As Dickens would say, the early 90s were for the Dolphins the best and worst of times— of course those teams were never as good as the teams during Shula’s first fifteen years, but they were also not nearly as bad as the teams that we’ve seen in Miami in the last fifteen years.
 

royalshank

Not a Game-Changer
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
13,735
Reaction score
7,910
Location
New Jersey
'90, '92, '93 and '94 were all good teams. And each one of them disappointed me in their own way.
These were the 4 best teams IMO. The ‘93 team was really good before the injury to Dan and at 4-1 had already beaten Buffalo in Orchard. Injuries to Vincent, Offerdahl, Mitchell, Oliver crushed any chance of making the playoffs after getting to 9-2 somehow. I can’t take any of the early 2000 teams seriously because there was no way we were going to make any run w Jay Feebler at QB. I loved Ricky in 2002 and that meltdown at NE ranks as one of my hardest to stomach losses in franchise history. The ‘90 team went blow for blow w the Bills in the snow until a late fumble really did them in. That team was probably the best one. Too bad as we may have beaten the Giants in the SB as they were without Simms and OJ Anderson was 137 years old. Buff should have won that game. Not a very talented NYG team on offense. Defense yes. But offense no.
 
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Top Bottom