Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Sandwiched in between Don Shula’s dynasty from 1970-1974 and the playoff years of 1978-1979 was a pair of 10-4 Miami teams that got edged out in the AFC East by Baltimore and missed the playoffs in the 1 wild card era but would have been a playoff team in future postseason formats.

The 1975 team remarkably wouldn’t have made it even with 2 WC’s (10-4 Houston would have had H2H tiebreaker) but had there been 3 WC’s ala the 90s they would have had a round 3 with the Colts.

1977’s version would have been the 2nd WC had the format come around one year prior would have gotten in.

Which if these almost but not quite Fins squads was better?

Could either of them have made a run ala 75 Dallas/80 Oakland?

The 1975 season is one reason why I believe Bob Griese made the HOF ...

Despite missing the playoffs, the Dolphins could have given up on their season after ownership let Csonka, Kiick and Warfield walk but despite average statistics, Griese led them to 10 victories with Strock helping as well, with Morris gaining less than 900 yards rushing and Nat Moore being their leading receiver with 705 yrds and just 4 TDs. On top of that, All-Pro Dick Anderson missed the entire season! A remarkable coaching job by Don Shula ... had Warfield and Csonk been there, they would have won the division but lost to Pitts or Oakland in the playoffs but you never know?

With Jake Scott going to Washington in 1976 and Anderson succumbing to injuries, the Dolphins struggled the rest of the decade. Had Anderson not gotten hurt in 1975, he would have been in the HOF awhile back. He deserves the "Terrell Davis" injury argument more than anyone because from 1968-1974 he was a dominant player ...

Whats interesting about the 1977 season for Miami, was how well they ran the football with a no-name platoon of running backs led by Benny Malone. The offensive line had a great season as Griese made the PB with 22 TD passes but 6 came in a Thanksgiving Day blowout of the Cardinals. Did this blowout embarrassment on national television to the Dolphins cost Don Coryell his job as much as the 7-7 record? I think it did ...

The Dolphins could have won the division but a tough, close loss to the Patriots gave it to the Colts.

CSKreager wrote:Could either of them have made a run ala 75 Dallas/80 Oakland?

I don't see the 75 Dolphins beating either the Steelers or the Raiders, much less both teams. The 75 Dolphins had many players with postseason experience, but so did the Steelers and Raiders at that point.

I could see the 77 Dolphins making a run to the Super Bowl, but I think they lose to Denver even if they managed to get past Oakland/Pittsburgh. Denver's defense was really impressive; perhaps the most 'swarming' defense I've ever seen. Not sure if Miami would have been able to move the ball against the Broncos. JMO

Whats ur take Bryan ... Do you feel Anderson or Scott could make the semifinal list for seniors the next two years, or did they not play long enough? Has the HOF elected too many safeties recently and may have fatigue?

Brian wolf wrote:Whats ur take Bryan ... Do you feel Anderson or Scott could make the semifinal list for seniors the next two years, or did they not play long enough? Has the HOF elected too many safeties recently and may have fatigue?

Ripped from the headlines!

I think Anderson and Scott were arguably the greatest safety tandem in NFL history, but I wouldn't put either guy in the HOF because they simply didn't have HOF careers. I'm not sure what actual player on those No-Name defenses is being overlooked by Canton. Those teams were extremely well-coached and had smart players who played physical and didn't make mistakes. They showed that you can have an effective defense even without an overabundance of talent, and I think Miami's success with a heavy reliance on zone defense did more to bring about the 1978 rule changes than a super-gifted CB like Mel Blount. Not every team had players like Mel Blount, but every team did have players like Mike Kolen and Curtis Johnson. Zone defense with smart, physical safeties is what brought about the offensive "drought" in the 1970s, not Mel Blount IMO.

Haha ... I read that but cant remember the thread ... Leonard's copy and pasted threads buried alot of them ... Youre probably right but I felt either safety was better than Captain Crash and as good as Donnie Shell ...

Brian wolf wrote:Haha ... I read that but cant remember the thread ... Leonard's copy and pasted threads buried alot of them ... Youre probably right but I felt either safety was better than Captain Crash and as good as Donnie Shell ...

I sometimes am looking for something in an old thread, read a random post and think to myself "wow, I feel exactly the same way", then look more closely and realize it was one of my own postings from 5 years ago. Makes me question myself.

Bryan wrote:

Brian wolf wrote:Whats ur take Bryan ... Do you feel Anderson or Scott could make the semifinal list for seniors the next two years, or did they not play long enough? Has the HOF elected too many safeties recently and may have fatigue?

Ripped from the headlines!

I think Anderson and Scott were arguably the greatest safety tandem in NFL history, but I wouldn't put either guy in the HOF because they simply didn't have HOF careers. I'm not sure what actual player on those No-Name defenses is being overlooked by Canton. Those teams were extremely well-coached and had smart players who played physical and didn't make mistakes. They showed that you can have an effective defense even without an overabundance of talent, and I think Miami's success with a heavy reliance on zone defense did more to bring about the 1978 rule changes than a super-gifted CB like Mel Blount. Not every team had players like Mel Blount, but every team did have players like Mike Kolen and Curtis Johnson. Zone defense with smart, physical safeties is what brought about the offensive "drought" in the 1970s, not Mel Blount IMO.

I would agree that the zone was a safeties' defense. To the extent that cornerbacks were overshadowed in many cases, as they were with the Dolphins. It kept getting worse and culminated in the post 1977 rule changes.

Jay Z wrote:I would agree that the zone was a safeties' defense. To the extent that cornerbacks were overshadowed in many cases, as they were with the Dolphins. It kept getting worse and culminated in the post 1977 rule changes.

What Miami was able to do was play cover-2 ... back then it was called "double zone" in a lot of publications ... it was a 5 under 2 deep. There was also a 4 under 2 deep where the SAM backer would take the TE man-on-man (Cover-2 latch) . ... Steelers and Bud Carson is also credited with it.

It's hard to know how much they did it, and how much they mixed it in with their cover-3 stuff

With Lambert the Steelers added the Tampa-2 thing...with the MLB takeing the so-called hole.

Side note there is one shot of a similar thing in the early 1950s...I think it was one OLBer
going to the hole and looked like 4 under, 2 deep with the OLber in hole...

Back to Miami---Scott and Anderson - with their abilities they could cover 1/2 the field...that allowed them to run more cover-2 IMO