Reply #23: Strength of schedule is not something you can accurately back fit

[Awsi Dooger]

Or predict ahead of time. I'm not a strength of schedule guy, especially in the NFL. The talent levels are so incredibly even and have been for decades. The best and worst teams in the league vary by maybe 14 points in the typical year. That is obscenely low. As someone who lives in Las Vegas and works in a sports statistical office, I can tell you point blank not one respected local oddsmaker, handicapper or analyst uses strength of schedule as a decisive factor in the NFL. In college strength of schedule is sometimes legit consideration. The teams can vary by 50+ points and some conferences are remarkably lopsided. You can look back at some unbeaten college teams that didn't sniff the national championship, like some early Penn St teams under Paterno. They had no claim at the title because the foes comparatively sucked.

The '72 Dolphins opened the season at Kansas City as a 4 point underdog. It was instant revenge for the Chiefs after the '71 Christmas Day home playoff loss in double OT. Kansas City was opening a new stadium. Almost every pundit was picking the Chiefs, some by big margin. Now, if someone wants to look back decades later and evaluate Kansas City's overall record and claim that wasn't a difficult game for Miami to play, it's completely ignoring the reality of game day. Miami won easily and didn't allow a TD until time expired.

A few weeks later the Dolphins were also underdog, by 3.5 points at Minnesota. The Vikings were welcoming back Fran Tarkenton at QB and it was an incredibly physical game, Miami's toughest of the season. It took a 50+ Yepremian FG in the middle of the 4th quarter and a Griese to Mandich TD pass in the final two minutes to pull it out 16-14.

The '72 Dolphins defeated 5 Hall of Fame quarterbacks -- Dawson, Tarkenton, Unitas, Namath and Bradshaw. I've read that is unprecedented, before or since. Granted, Unitas was at the end of his career and Dawson close to it. But those games were on the road, against all five Hall of Famers plus they also beat Namath at home. The AFC title game assignment at Pittsburgh was the most challenging and unfair test any of the legendary teams every faced in the playoffs.

I don't get the knocks on the '72 Dolphins. Not astute, IMO. They played 12 consecutive games with a backup QB after Griese broke his ankle against San Diego. Despite that, the stats are phenomenal, leading the league in both offense and defense. The offensive line was surreal, especially interior in Langer, Little and Keuchenberg. That gave Miami trump card capability against virtually any team in any era. Hardly a coincidence Griese only needed to attempt a handful of passes in both Super Bowl wins.

I agree with you on one thing, expressed in another post earlier in this thread. The '73 team was the same squad a year older and superior in many respects. More dominant in the playoffs, largely because Griese was healthy all year so the offense was in sync. Miami lost a very tough road game at Oakland 12-7 in week two and then gave away a game against a shitty Baltimore team on the road at the end of the year when nothing was at stake. For years Dolphin players said '73 was better, but once teams like Pittsburgh and San Francisco came around and stole the headlines, then oldtime Miami players and fans defaulted to the distinguishing aspect that survives subjectivity, that '72 donut in the loss column.

I can easily make a counter argument: if Csonka, Kiick and Warfield hadn't been snatched from the Dolphins by the WFL in their prime, more titles would have followed and the Steeler dynasty would not have existed, at least not as we know it. Miami's offensive line nullified the intimidation factor of the Steel Curtain. No one matched up against Pittsburgh like Miami did. The two smart and terrific safeties, Dick Anderson and Jake Scott, routinely outsmarted Bradshaw.