Don Shula's Best Teams

[CSKreager]

Haven't a number of players who were on both teams said that the '73 squad was better than the 17-0 group? Maybe that's anecdotal, but the '73 team had a notably tougher schedule and dominated its post-season opponents in a way the '72 team didn't.

Did they? I feel like their 1973 schedule's toughness is overinflated because of Buffalo winning 9 games.

PIT/OAK weren't as good as before/after 1973

[7DnBrnc53]

Haven't a number of players who were on both teams said that the '73 squad was better than the 17-0 group? Maybe that's anecdotal, but the '73 team had a notably tougher schedule and dominated its post-season opponents in a way the '72 team didn't.

Did they? I feel like their 1973 schedule's toughness is overinflated because of Buffalo winning 9 games.

PIT/OAK weren't as good as before/after 1973

The AFC East was trash from 1972-74. Nobody else was over .500 in 1972. In 1973 and 74, the Bills had winning records, but the other three teams finished .500 or below.

[NWebster]

Haven't a number of players who were on both teams said that the '73 squad was better than the 17-0 group? Maybe that's anecdotal, but the '73 team had a notably tougher schedule and dominated its post-season opponents in a way the '72 team didn't.

I think I'd vote 1973. Obviosuly 72 moesuccessful in meeting goal of not losing .. but pass rush better in 73, Griese more efficient ... close call but 73 for me.

I'd actually agree - in a magic world where the 73 Fins line up against the 72 Fins I think 73 win it. The 72 team played a historically weak schedule, too lazy to look it up but something like bottom 5 opponent winning percentage of all-time.

[Citizen]

For what it's worth, per Pro Football Reference, the 1973 Dolphins' strength-of-schedule rating was -0.47, with 0.0 being average (the lower the number, the easier the schedule). The 1972 team's was -4.27, by far the easiest in the NFL.

[Ten Minute Ticker]

The 1967 Colts are the fascinating team to try to parse. No playoff run upon which to judge a one-loss team.

Do they go to Green Bay/Milwaukee and win in place of the Rams? Those Colts had more playoff experience than the Rams did. Do they then beat the Cowboys in Baltimore?

The whole trajectory and future perception of the Colts of that period might be different if they had won that tiebreaker.

[Halas Hall]

The 1967 Colts are the fascinating team to try to parse. No playoff run upon which to judge a one-loss team.

Do they go to Green Bay/Milwaukee and win in place of the Rams? Those Colts had more playoff experience than the Rams did. Do they then beat the Cowboys in Baltimore?

The whole trajectory and future perception of the Colts of that period might be different if they had won that tiebreaker.

So true. From Tom Callahan's 2006 book on John Unitas:

"For a remarkable stretch that almost no one remembers -starting on December 18, 1966 and ending on January 12, 1969 - Shula's Colts played a total of thirty football games and lost two. In (1967) the Colts led the NFL with over 5000 yards gained. They allowed fewer than 200 points."

[RichardBak]

The 1967 Colts are the fascinating team to try to parse. No playoff run upon which to judge a one-loss team.

Do they go to Green Bay/Milwaukee and win in place of the Rams? Those Colts had more playoff experience than the Rams did. Do they then beat the Cowboys in Baltimore?

The whole trajectory and future perception of the Colts of that period might be different if they had won that tiebreaker.

So true. From Tom Callahan's 2006 book on John Unitas:

"For a remarkable stretch that almost no one remembers -starting on December 18, 1966 and ending on January 12, 1969 - Shula's Colts played a total of thirty football games and lost two. In (1967) the Colts led the NFL with over 5000 yards gained. They allowed fewer than 200 points."

Speaking as a huge Unitas/Colts fan back then, Callahan's book was disappointing in many ways. Still waiting for the Johnny U book to be written.

Anyway, Callahan's math is off. In the time period he mentioned, Shula's Colts played 31 games, not 30, and while it's true they lost only twice, they also tied twice. So, 27-2-2 with a .931 win pct. If you count ties as half win/half loss (they didn't back then, of course), the pct. would be .903.

Shula's Dolphins had an even more brilliant streak. Over 33 games from Dec. 19, 1971 through Dec. 3, 1973, they were 31-2 (.939) with no ties.

As successful as Shula was, I'm like a lot of older fans in that I remember him more for those blown opportunities in '64, 65, 67, and '68 than for the back-to-back Super Bowl wins and the 17-0 season. On my death bed I'll probably still be seeing a wide-open Jimmy Orr jumping up and down, waving his arms, trying to get Morrall's attention in SB III.

[74_75_78_79_]

I don't know. First, the '67 Colts had to beat the Rams at all in the finale to even get the opportunity in the first place! But not only did they not win, but they got blown-up!

In my opinion, I think that during that brief unique 3-year era in the NFL of four divisions each beginning with the letter 'C', that if two teams (or, possibly, more) tied for first, that there should have been a tie-breaker game(s) the week(s) before the actual playoffs even began.

But, you know what? That wasn't the case. So a finale, in such a case, should be known by both teams that the playoffs already started. Both HCs, as HOF-worthy-in-the-end that they actually were, struggled in the post-season. So someone had to win, and someone had to lose, so it was Allen that not only won that game, but won it and won it BIG!! And that may assist to explain why Miami, despite being unbeaten and united, were still not favorites in SBVII five years later.

Considering Shula's inability to punch-in titles at that moment of his career - ’72 & ’73, of course, being the only two seasons he’d do so - I sadly have a feeling that he would have still found a way to lose to Lombardi's Pack if "found a way" should even be applied (serious, Packers may have been better anyway with their 9-4-1 record only being because they had things wrapped up going into their last two games). IMHO, Packers win-it-all anyway no matter what. They beat Rams in LA anyway as well as Colts at Balt anyway IMO.

Shula and Landry, to me, are TIED at whatever All-Time position both are in. Both are similar to NC's Dean Smith. Long, superior careers but just two championships. Is Shula 'better' than each, one may ask, because of his back-to-back titles as opposed to Tom and Dean not accomplishing such a feat? But then there's Landry besting Shula in SBVI. Does that balance that out? I personally won't delve in. I think that Shula and Landry are still 'equal' anyway (and, I guess, Dean Smith in an all-around sports-wise sense is right there with them as well).

You all tell me. But, again, no disrespect but '67 Colts don't surpass the Pack either in a hypo no matter where the game would be played. 1967 (no more Taylor, no more Hornung) an excellent example of Vince's rightfully-so Legendary status!!

Shula and Landry are Superior first-ballot HCs. But (in chrono) Brown, Lombardi, and Noll have just recently now, with me, been placed as the Absolute Holy Trinity of HCs! Neither of the three ahead of the other two. It's them and then everyone else.