What If?? Dolphins Vs Cowboys In Sb 27 | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

What If?? Dolphins Vs Cowboys In Sb 27

SF Dolphin Fan said:
I would have also liked to see the 1974 team that lost the Sea of Hands game to the Raiders face Pittsburgh at home in the AFC title. I feel that Steelers team was beatable and Miami matched up well.
Click to expand...


Super Bowl IX would've been ours. But, that would have been the end of our run. Pittsburgh the next year was the start of their truly great teams.
 
Last edited:
I love debates like these, though knowing these answers is not possible- sometimes it's torture to think about.
That same year the Bills beat us in the AFC Championship game, remember that is the year the Bills came back from 35-3 to beat the Oilers. Let's say that doesn't happen, and we play anyone else at home, and we win.
Remember also, that year, Jim Kelly had some injury issues. Remember he didn't make it through the whole Super Bowl debacle vs Dallas. Remember also this: The Bills had lost 2 Super Bowls in a row, and there was A LOT of pressure on them not to lose a third. There were a couple of odd bounces early in that Super Bowl that went Dallas's way- and the game snowballed away from Buffalo; that pressure on them could not have helped, and when the ball took some quirky bounces in Dallas's favor, that is when everything just fell apart. So, in large part, we must ask: Did Dallas destroy Buffalo because they were just that much better, or did Dallas destroy Buffalo because they were a great team, but also because they were playing a damaged opponent who folded to the pressure of the inevitable "here we go again"? Because, for those of us who were around, there was A LOT of that talk. No team at that point besides the 71-73 Dolphins had ever been to three Super Bowls in a row. And having lost the first two was such a talking point leading up to the game, that the pressure of Buffalo was unique and heavy.
My point being, the 92 Dolphins going into that game would not have had that kind of pressure. There would have been some talk about Marino getting his ring finally, all that- but I don't think Miami gets destroyed the same way Buffalo did. That score is misleading due to the pressure on a team that finally snapped. Would we have won? No idea. But I think it likely would have been a better game. Shula would not have been bothered by the pressure. Marino was not a guy bothered by pressure. It would more have been could they have kept up with Dallas's speed.
 
SF Dolphin Fan said:
Honestly, that game wasn't even as close as the final score. That first half was really something and the electricity in the air at the Orange Bowl was unbelievable.

Could Miami have won again? Absolutely. I think a lot would come down to how Chicago adjusted to Miami's offense. Buddy Ryan was a stubborn man. I feel like he would have gone with a very similar game plan thinking there was no way the Dolphins could be as successful a second time around.

A couple of other factors. The game would be at a neutral site and Jim McMahon would be back. I feel like the Bears offense would definitely try to run Miami into submission.

Would have loved to see that one. A lot of fans talk about 1994 as Miami's last hurrah so to speak. That playoff loss to San Diego was one of the hardest to take. That said, I don't think the Dolphins would have beaten the 1994 49ers. Great chance against Minnesota in 1974 if Miami beats Pittsburgh at home.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. I'm extremely comfortable if it becomes a shootout and its Marino vs. McMahon. I'm very confident if its a close game. My on reservation is whether our defense could hold up. In the end, that team was just another of a long line of teams that played ball control offense through the running game, and a stifling defense of fast guys who didn't have the greatest stamina. Since we had demystified the defense, it would have been up to Walter Payton and their running game to keep Marino on the sideline … and that's a real possibility. But I'm confident that in a high scoring game, we're the easy victors.
 
Goin` Deep said:
Super Bowl IX would've been ours. But, that would have been the end of our run. Pittsburgh the next year was the start of their truly great teams.
Click to expand...
Agree. That team took it to the next level as Bradshaw emerged as a legitimate quarterback and the defense took off. Plus, Miami started to lose talent specifically Csonka, Kiick and Warfield to the World Football League.

As an aside, Bradshaw's quarterback rating in 1973 was 54.5, in 1974 it was 55.2 and in 1975 it was 88.0. To me, that was a factor that made them beatable early on in their dynasty.
 
Digital said:
Absolutely agree. I'm extremely comfortable if it becomes a shootout and its Marino vs. McMahon. I'm very confident if its a close game. My on reservation is whether our defense could hold up. In the end, that team was just another of a long line of teams that played ball control offense through the running game, and a stifling defense of fast guys who didn't have the greatest stamina. Since we had demystified the defense, it would have been up to Walter Payton and their running game to keep Marino on the sideline … and that's a real possibility. But I'm confident that in a high scoring game, we're the easy victors.
Click to expand...
Yep, the Chicago running game could have been a factor. In that regard, Miami's defense likely would have had to play one of their better games to stop Payton.
 
BlueFin said:
Hey look... those were excellent Buffalo teams loaded with hall of fame talent... very deep.

And they got blown away by Dallas!

Any given Sunday... and there is always the Marino factor... but my money would have been on Dallas.
Click to expand...
The Marino factor??? Like against the 49ers???
 
Digital said:
This was the one that would have given Marino a ring, IMHO.

Yes, the Bears were dominant that year … the key being "that year." Why? Because Buddy Ryan instituted a new type of defense that nobody knew how to stop, the overload defense. It has become a staple component of many defenses since then, including his sons Rob Ryan in Tampa and Rex Ryan in New York, Baltimore and Buffalo. But also, Mike Nolan in San Francisco and Miami. Essentially, you put so many pass rushers in one small area that the offense cannot possibly block them all, and like a jailbreak or a blitz, you scheme to get one guy unblocked to the QB, wrecking the play. It's hard to defend.

But the Dolphins ate the Bears for lunch. Why? First of all because there is no QB in the history of the NFL as good as Dan Marino at quickly analyzing the entire field of open receivers, flicking the ball out of his hands precisely on-target at the last second, and he was also very good at buying time and avoiding the rush. So, that pressure couldn't shut him down like it could most defenses. Also, Shula had built a team around Marino, so all of our TE's and RB's were good pass protectors who could pick up the most threatening of these overload blitzes. And, our entire OL was built to stop the pass rush, and Marino was regularly one of the least sacked or very least sacked QB in the NFL. He nullified the one dominant feature of the 1985 Bears.

I say the key was "that year" because the Dolphins tactics were studied in depth during the offseason, the one team that could beat the 1985 Bears was closely scrutinized, and the other teams started trying to duplicate it … and succeeded. The 1986 Bears defense was not nearly as dominant, because the Dolphins had given the league the blueprint.

Sure, that Chicago Bears team was stacked, great talent on both sides of the ball everywhere you looked. Dominant OL and HoF RB in Walter Payton. Good QB in Jim McMahon and a top WR in Willie Gault. The aforementioned defense was stacked with guys like Richard Dent, Steve McMichael, Dan Hampton, Mike Singletary, and Wilber Marshall. It was a good team. But only in that first year when Buddy Ryan could shock the NFL with his new overload schemes was that Bears team truly dominant … that element of surprise took them from a good team to a great team. That free rusher to the QB is what dominated opposing offenses. And, that defense was completely destroyed by Dan Marino.

Sure, the Bears love to point to one fluke play where a Marino pass deflected off of the helmet of a Bears defensive lineman, and fortunately landed in Mark Clayton's hands … that was a fluke. But they love to gloss over the fact that Dan Marino and the Miami Dolphins destroyed them, dominating the game and scoring on them at will. There was only ever going to be one winning team that day, and it was the Miami Dolphins.

Had the Dolphins won their home playoff game against Steve Grogan and the New England Patriots in our beloved Orange Bowl, it would have been different. Rather than the Super Bowl being a showcase for one of the Chicago Bears most dominant teams ever, it would have been a shrine to the Super Bowl victory of the NFL's greatest ever QB, Dan Marino, and another piece of glory for Head Coach Don Shula, and the yet another Super Bowl victory for the Miami Dolphins.

This whole artificial façade people want to place in front of Dan Marino's greatness to hide his production, would never have started. That Super Bowl trophy … should have been ours.
Click to expand...
100%. And I think you are giving the Bears offense more credit than they deserved. We would have beaten them again. No answer for Miami’s O. That fluke play happened late and that game was over at Halftime.
 
jfleag61 said:
The Marino factor??? Like against the 49ers???
Click to expand...
He played well that day to be honest. But the miners were so balanced and the better team at 15-1. If you haven’t seen the documentary of that game I highly recommend it. Shows the chess match and how it played out between Walsh and Shula. They both did all the right things. At the end of the day, when SF went to 7 and 8 DBs and we tried to run, our 5 couldn’t block their 3 and that made us 1 dimensional and put us in checkmate.
 
royalshank said:
He played well that day to be honest. But the miners were so balanced and the better team at 15-1. If you haven’t seen the documentary of that game I highly recommend it. Shows the chess match and how it played out between Walsh and Shula. They both did all the right things. At the end of the day, when SF went to 7 and 8 DBs and we tried to run, our 5 couldn’t block their 3 and that made us 1 dimensional and put us in checkmate.
Click to expand...

Hoping you could guide me to the location of this documentary please?
 
royalshank said:
100%. And I think you are giving the Bears offense more credit than they deserved. We would have beaten them again. No answer for Miami’s O. That fluke play happened late and that game was over at Halftime.
Click to expand...
Yes it was! We exploded out to an insurmountable lead by halftime … they were shell-shocked.
 
Digital said:
Yes it was! We exploded out to an insurmountable lead by halftime … they were shell-shocked.
Click to expand...
Yep. We even blocked a punt before the half and got points. They were shell shocked and the game was never close. I remember Allie Sherman predicting the outcome and “how” we were going to beat them on Monday Night Matchup. He was dead on and saw it all unfold as a great former coach would - before we all did. He said, Marino’s release is too quick and he’ll hit his WRs in the flats - who will be open and make the slower Chi corners miss. Something to that effect. It was spot on.
 
Phindog said:
I want to know if Marino and Co would have beaten the Chicago Bears a second time in 1985.
Click to expand...

that is the biggest "what if" as well. wonder how Buddy Ryan would have adapted his scheme following that beat down in Miami.
 
royalshank said:
Yep. We even blocked a punt before the half and got points. They were shell shocked and the game was never close. I remember Allie Sherman predicting the outcome and “how” we were going to beat them on Monday Night Matchup. He was dead on and saw it all unfold as a great former coach would - before we all did. He said, Marino’s release is too quick and he’ll hit his WRs in the flats - who will be open and make the slower Chi corners miss. Something to that effect. It was spot on.
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't remember that part. Always nice when the analysts know what they're doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom