The 72 Dolphins werent that great

Discussion in 'Sports' started by ginscpy, Dec 28, 2011.

  1. ginscpy
    Offline

    ginscpy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,950
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +216
    Probably would have been beaten by the Raiders if Oakland had not been knocked out of the playoffs by the Immaculate Reception against Pitt (WHICH WAS AN ILLEGAL PLAY which would have been overturned by Instant Replay had it existed back then) )

    So let the old farts/greybeards uncork another one - they were slow then -the are even slower now.............................
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. deaddogseye
    Offline

    deaddogseye Carpe Ukraine

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    529
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    on the edge
    Ratings:
    +137
    First Im not a dolphins fan at all - but they are the only team to go undefeated. Im just wondering if you are reacting more to the fact that they werent very spectacular - they didnt have a lot of superstars if any and certainly none at the skill positions. But they were very good and solid. They ran the ball down your throat. You knew it was coimng and they knew you knew but it didnt matter. the approach seemed to be stop it if you can and no one could. The defense was excellent but again very unspectacular -- although the secondary was especially good and maybe one of the better units ever. So to each his own opinion but they do have the undefeated thing -- and some of them are as annoying as they were unspectacular about never seeing it broken, that is also indisputable.

    As for the Immaculate Reception -- the great weight of analysis seems to be that Tatum touched it making it a legal catch. From wikipedia:

    The critical question was: whom did the football touch in the Fuqua/Tatum collision? If it bounced off Fuqua without ever touching Tatum, then Harris's reception was illegal. If the ball bounced off only Tatum, or if it bounced off both Fuqua and Tatum (in any order), then the reception was legal. The rule stated in pertinent part that once an offensive player touches a pass, he is the only offensive player eligible to catch the pass. However, if a defensive player touches the pass "first, or simultaneously with or subsequent to its having been touched by only one [offensive] player, then all [offensive] players become and remain eligible" to catch the pass.[3][4] (This rule was later rescinded in 1978.) If the reception were illegal, the Raiders would have gained possession (via a turnover on downs), clinching a victory.

    One official, Back Judge Adrian Burk, signaled that the play was a touchdown, but the other game officials did not immediately make any signal.[2] When the officials huddled, Burk and another official, Umpire Pat Harder, thought that the play was a touchdown because Tatum and Fuqua had both touched the ball, while three others said that they were not in a position to rule.[5][6] Referee Fred Swearingen approached Steelers sideline official Jim Boston and asked to be taken to a telephone. Boston took Swearingen to a baseball dugout in the stadium. There was a video monitor in the dugout, but it was not used by Swearingen.[5] (Terry Bradshaw's assertion that a special television was rigged up on the sideline so that Swearingen could watch the replay[7] is not supported by other accounts.) From the dugout telephone Boston put in a call to the press box to reach the NFL's supervisor of officials, Art McNally. Before the call McNally had "an opinion from the get-go" that the ball had hit Tatum's chest, which he confirmed by looking "at one shot on instant replay."[4] In the press box the telephone was answered either by Dan Rooney, son of Steelers owner Art Rooney, or by Steelers public relations director Joe Gordon (reports vary), and McNally was put on the line.[5][8][9] According to McNally, Swearingen "never asked me about the rule, and never asked what I saw. All he said was, 'Two of my men say that opposing players touched the ball.' And I said, 'everything's fine then, go ahead.'"[5][10] After Swearingen hung up the phone Boston asked, "What do we got?" "We got a touchdown,"[5][11] answered Swearingen, who then went back onto the field to signal the ruling to the crowd. Fans immediately rushed the field, and it took 15 minutes to clear them so that the point-after conversion could be kicked to give the Steelers what turned out to be their final margin of victory, 13-7.

    Although this has been described as the first known use of television replay to confirm a call[12][13] (there was no instant replay review then), at the time the NFL denied that the decision was made in the press box or using a television replay.[14] An Oakland Tribune article two days after the game reported that Steelers publicist Joe Gordon told reporters in the press box that the decision had been made using the replay.[15] Gordon has dismissed this as "a total fabrication."[9] NFL officials Jim Kensil and Val Pinchbeck, who were in the press box with McNally, also deny that replay was used in making the decision on the play.[15][16]

    The play is still disputed by those involved, particularly by living personnel from the Raiders and their fans, who insist the Raiders should have won (in an NFL Films production about the play years later, Raider guard Gene Upshaw theorized that the real purpose of Swearingen's phone conversation was to see if there were enough police on hand to ensure the players' safety if the play was ruled incomplete, and was then called in the Steelers' favor out of fear). Tatum said that the ball did not bounce off him, both immediately after the game[13] as well as later;[2] however, in his memoirs, Tatum equivocated, stating that he couldn't honestly say if the ball hit him.[17] Raiders linebacker Phil Villapiano, who was covering Harris at the time, maintains that the ball hit Fuqua.[18] Fuqua has been coy, supposedly saying he knows exactly what happened that day but will never tell.[19]

    John Madden, coach of the 1972 Raiders, has said that he will never get over the play, and has indicated that he's bothered more by the delay between the end of the play and the final signal of touchdown than by which player the ball truly hit. After the game he indicated that from his view the football had indeed touched Tatum.[13] Although a few days later Madden indicated that the Raiders game films showed that the ball hit Fuqua's shoulder pads,[15] Jack Tatum has conceded that "even after we viewed the game films with stop action, nobody could tell who the ball hit on that moment of impact."[17] Years later Madden wrote, "No matter how many times I watch the films of the 'immaculate reception' play, I never know for sure what happened."[20]

    In 1998, during halftime of the AFC Championship game, NBC showed a replay from its original broadcast. The replay presented a different angle than the NFL Films clip that is most often shown. According to a writer for the New York Daily News, "NBC's replay showed the ball clearly hit one and only one man[:] Oakland DB Jack Tatum."[21]

    Pittsburgh sportscaster Myron Cope, in a 1997 article[9] and in his 2002 book Double Yoi!,[22] related that two days after the game he reviewed film taken by local Pittsburgh TV station WTAE-TV, and that the film showed "[n]o question about it -- Bradshaw's pass struck Tatum squarely on his right shoulder." Cope stated that the local film would be next to impossible to find again, because of inadequate filing procedures.

    In 2004 John Fetkovich, an emeritus professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University, analyzed the NFL Films clip of the play. He came to the conclusion, based on the trajectory of the bounced ball and conservation of momentum, that the ball must have bounced off Tatum, who was running upfield at the time, rather than Fuqua, who was running across and down the field.[23] Fetkovich also performed experiments by throwing a football against a brick wall at a velocity greater than 60 feet per second, twice the speed that Fetkovich calculated that Bradshaw's pass was traveling when it reached Tatum and Fuqua. Fetkovitch achieved a maximum rebound of 10 feet when the ball hit point first, and 15 feet when the ball hit belly first, both less than the 24 feet that the ball actually rebounded during the play. Timothy Gay, a physics professor and a longtime fan of the Raiders,[24] cited Fetkovich's work with approval in his book The Physics of Football, and concluded that "the referees made the right call in the Immaculate Reception."[25]

    Terry Bradshaw himself had made points similar to those of Fetkovich 15 years earlier, stating that he did not think that he had thrown the ball hard enough for it to bounce that far back off Fuqua, and that since Fuqua was running across the field, the ball would have veered to the right if it had hit him. Bradshaw opined that the ball must have bounced off the upfield-moving Tatum – if that had happened then "Tatum's momentum carries the ball backward."[26]

    Another widely held point of contention to the play was whether the ball had hit the ground before Harris snatched it and ran with it. The sideline views of both film and video gave no answer, as Harris had caught the ball out of frame, and came running into frame from the right side on his path to the end zone. The only other known NBC video was an end zone shot from above and behind the goalposts and, in keeping with the mystery of the play, one of the posts was exactly in the line of sight of Harris' hands and the ball. The best NFL Films shot of the play, from ground level, which is probably the most-often seen clip (along with audio of an excited Jack Fleming, the Steelers' radio announcer at the time) is a tight shot from the end zone of Harris snaring the ball, with his feet and the ground just out of frame below.

    Villapiano has also stated that he was illegally blocked by Steelers tight end John McMakin as he was pursuing Harris following the reception.[2][18] Raiders coach Madden echoed this complaint.[15]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    The fact of the matter is that they are the only team to go through the regular season and playoffs and win an NFL Championship without losing a game. Then the next year they won again losing just 2 games proving they were not a fluke.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,335
    Thanks Received:
    12,695
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,785
    negged
     
  5. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,321
    Thanks Received:
    19,835
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,379
    Those Dolphin teams were a very good team. Griese, Csonka, Kick, Morris, Warfield, Buonoconti, Scott

    But I think both the Steelers and Raiders had better teams in the 70s
     
  6. deaddogseye
    Offline

    deaddogseye Carpe Ukraine

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    529
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    on the edge
    Ratings:
    +137
    A lack of respect for them was common back then too -- people probably forget who was favord in that first super bowl -- the redskins. and they really were dominant in both those super bowl wins. the score of their first win doesnt look lopsided but football was different back then. they could have played the first one for a week and the redskins would never have scored against them (and they got their 7 points only on that goofy garo yepremian play). 24- 7 over the vikings was a blowout back then. and they had also made the super bowl the year before the undefeated season even though the cowboys beat them easily. but you are right that team was no fluke
     
  7. ginscpy
    Offline

    ginscpy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,950
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +216
    More analysis on that play than in the JFK shooting.

    I was a huge Raiders fan at the time.
     
  8. ginscpy
    Offline

    ginscpy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,950
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +216
    The 72 Dolphins beat a team in the SB that was even older and slower than they were - the Over-the-Hill Redskins. Won 14-7.

    Should have called it the Geritol Bowl.

    Their win over the Vikings in the next SB was a little better - but the Vikes were eternal losers anyways...........................................
     
  9. deaddogseye
    Offline

    deaddogseye Carpe Ukraine

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    529
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    on the edge
    Ratings:
    +137
    I dont disagree with you on this. What I think had happened is that the AFC / AFL had quickly become dominant and this was the start of it and people didnt fully appreciate it yet - it was a wave that would last most of the decade. And it wasnt just the super bowls -- look at the inter conferecne records back then. the afc dominated that too. They were just much better for some time just as the nfc dominate the super bowl in the 90s (i dont think they acheived the same level of dominance iner conference that the old afc had though)
     
  10. bayoubill
    Offline

    bayoubill aka Sheik Yerbouti... Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    8,167
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    Ratings:
    +930
    lol... when I saw the title "The 72 Dolphins werent that great" in the list, I said to myself, "bet that's another ginskippy thread..."

    and sure enough... ;-)
     

Share This Page