I asked Pro Football Hall of Famer Len Dawson if this year’s New England team would beat the 1972 Dolphins. I’m a big believer, as mentioned in passing here on this blog, that the game would not be close. I think the Patriots would destroy any team from 1972 (though I would like to point out that at this very moment, the Patriots are losing to the 2007 Eagles, who aren’t very good, so maybe I should reconsider).
Anyway, I asked Dawson, and he said, “Oh yeah, there’s no doubt. The Patriots would destroy that Dolphins team.”
“Really?” I asked, and I started feeling pretty good about myself. I mean, this man is a Hall of Famer. He PLAYED against that team. He would know.
“Oh sure,” he said. “I mean, Nick Buoniconti has had his hip replaced. Larry Czonka can’t run anymore …”
And, oh yeah, I felt sheepish. I fell for it. The oldest line in the book. I mean this is a variation of the Ty Cobb line, when he was asked by some clueless interviewer in the 1950s what he would hit against modern pitching. Cobb said, “Oh about .280.” When the clueless interviewer expressed surprise, he said, “Well you have to remember, I’m 70 goddam years old.”
All these years later, and now I’m the clueless interviewer.
Loading ...
5 Comments, Comment or Ping
antoniomo
Hey, that was a short blog….post…..whatever. And a good story.
Nov 26th, 2007
Pete Ridges
Another variation: the Irish national rugby team had only finished unbeaten twice, or something, in 1950 and 2005, or something. One of the old guys was asked how they would do against the current team:
“It would be close.”
“Why’s that?”
“Well, half of us are in our eighties and the other half are dead.”
Nov 26th, 2007
Captain Obvious
Whenever teams from different eras are compared, the olden days team is always imagined transported into the current age– and their lack of year-round training and their offseason day jobs and cigarette smoking and comparably poor nutrition and their youths spent playing all sports instead of focusing on one and their lack of HGH and steroids and their playing under some different rules are not adjusted for.
Why not try to imagine the current team growing up and training under the conditions of the past? It’s harder to imagine, but if you are trying to envision a fair comparison, then factors like those have to be considered. You can’t just take the team from the old days and plop them into the current league unadjusted, of course they will be smaller and slower, etc. And if you make them play against players who have many advantages and play them under current rules, of course they wouldn’t do well.
I wonder how well the Pats would do if they didn’t work out much in the offseason, didn’t take performance enhancing drugs, the offensive linemen had to deal with head slaps and couldn’t legally grab defensive players, and other teams could “bump and run” the hell out of Welker and Moss (in other words, knock them around for the duration of the pass route.) If the teams played under 70’s rules and 70’s conditions, who knows, maybe Brady would get belted in the head and spiked head-first into the dirt on the first play (with no flag thrown of course.) Matt Cassell vs, Earl Morrall?
These comparisons never seem to take those factors into consideration, they always put the team from the past in an unfair situation, because people always think that what’s happening right now is the best thing that ever happened.
Nov 26th, 2007
Clayton
As Joe Namath would say, there are at least five AFL/AFC teams from those days that would annihilate the Patsies. His Jets, the Dolphins, the Steelers, the Chiefs, and the Jets taxi squad.
Nov 26th, 2007
Tim Lacy
Joe,
Awesome post. Sometimes it feels good to fall for the old lines.
- TL
Nov 26th, 2007
Reply to “You got me …”