Somebody Stop me!

[Pappy13]

I am implying that Chicago ass raped the league before the Miami game and went on to ass rape the rest of the league after the Miami game, including playoff and Super Bowl beat downs that were of epic scale.

Which just makes it all the more incredible what Marino did.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

 

Maybe it's not a big game to anyone who wasn't a Dolphin or Bears fan in '85, but to anyone who was, it was a HUGE game.

Hence going back to the original point of this thread why it is not in the top 5.  It was a big game for the fans of the two teams who played in the game.  The fans of the other 30 teams don’t really consider that game all that special.  As opposed to the other games on the list which held the interest of fans from 32 team’s fan bases.

I agree in principle, but wouldn't call it a fluke that Miami beat the Bears. A fluke would have been some incompetent team (which Miami was not) beating them.

I will call it a fluke.  Much of the Dolphins solid record that year was there was NOBODY in the AFC that was very good that year.  The Giants, Cowboys, Redskins, Rams, and 49rs where each better than Miami, NE, Jets, Raiders or Broncos.  It really didn’t matter who the AFC send and who the NFC sent.  The NFC championship was the super bowl.

And keep in mind the Dolphins lost twice to a team that the Bears destroyed 46-10. (NE)

But that is what makes the NFL different from MLB, NHL or NBA.  There are no 7 game series.  And on given Sunday a weaker team can beat a stronger team. 

No rational person actually believes that the ’01 Patriots could beat the Rams in a 7 game series.

No rational person actually believes that the ’07 Giants could beat the Patriots in a 7 game series.

No rational person actually believes that the ’85 Dolphins could beat the ’85 Bears in a 7 game series. 

[Pappy13]

Hence going back to the original point of this thread why it is not in the top 5.  It was a big game for the fans of the two teams who played in the game.  The fans of the other 30 teams don’t really consider that game all that special.  As opposed to the other games on the list which held the interest of fans from 32 team’s fan bases.

So the '85 Bears really WEREN'T a good team?  Marino really didn't play all that well in the game?  It really WASN'T Marino's play that helped the Dolphins win?  It really DIDN'T stop a 12 game winning streak of a team that ended up losing only 1 game all year?

I challenge you to go back and read what the criteria they used was again and rate the game following that criteria.

If you're going to discount how big of an achievement going undefeated is to the rest of the NFL in '85 then you have to discount game 16 of 2007 as well.  Nothing Brady did in that game was more impressive than what Marino did in '85 considering the competition.  The '85 Bears were one of the best defensive teams ever that went 15-1 and steamrolled everyone BUT the Dolphins.  The 2007 Giants were a wild card team that got hot in the playoffs, but hadn't impressed anyone up to that point.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If you're going to discount how big of an achievement going undefeated is to the rest of the NFL in '85 then you have to discount game 16 of 2007 as well.  Nothing Brady did in that game was more impressive than what Marino did in '85 considering the competition.  The '85 Bears were one of the best defensive teams ever that went 15-1 and steamrolled everyone BUT the Dolphins.  The 2007 Giants were a wild card team that got hot in the playoffs, but hadn't impressed anyone up to that point.

Your missing the point.  Not breaking a record doesn't make the game a big game.  Breaking a record makes a game a big game.

What makes the 2007 week 17 game special is that the Patriots became the first team to win 16 games in the regular season.  They broke a record. 

The 2007 SB is not as significant as the '72 SB.  Because in one case a team created history, in the other game the winning team merely prevented history from being made (the only team to go 19-0 in a season.)

[Pappy13]

What makes the 2007 week 17 game special is that the Patriots became the first team to win 16 games in the regular season.  They broke a record. 

Only because the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85.

Can I ask you something Hoodie?  Did you actually see the game in '85?  Were you a fan of the NFL in '85?

The reason I ask is you seem to be from a later generation than I.  Back in '85 there was no NFL network.  Thursday night games didn't exist except on Thanksgiving.  I don't believe there were Saturday games, nor Sunday night games.  Sunday you usually were able to watch 1 or maybe 2 games and that was it.  Monday night games were huge.  It was the only prime time game.  It was the showcase game of the week and players and fans all knew it and while everybody watched their own team play every week, pretty much anyone who was a fan of the NFL watched the Monday Night football game.  I believe that game back in '85 had around 29 million viewers.  Compare that with the 30 something million viewers that watched the game 16 of the 2007 Patriots and it's just not accurate to say that game in '85 was only important to the 2 football teams involved in the game and not to the rest of the league.  I don't see how you could feel that way if you were watching it in '85.  Sounds like you saw Game 16 in 2007 and felt something special about the game.  No doubt the guys for ESPN who came up with list felt the same thing.  Well in my humble opinion if they had been there and watched the game in '85 they would have felt the same thing.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I watched the game, but was doing homework at the same time so I was not watching every play super close. It was my freshman year in college.  It wasn't really rooting for either side.

******

I will grant you on quality of opponent it should be a 10.  You got the other 3 wrong.

“Importance of game in which performance took place: Did it have playoff implications? Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? Was it in prime time? Was it against a rival? Divisional opponent?”

Playoff implications?  for half the teams. 

Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? no

Was it in prime time?  yes

 Was it against a rival? no

Divisional opponent?”  no

score 3.

“Impact of performance: Was it the main reason the player's team won the game? Did it have a high statistical value and/or historical significance? Did it occur in a comeback or dramatic victory?”

Mario threw an interception, 2/5 of the TDs came from rushing TDs, and the MAIN reason why the Dolphins won was the Bears threw 3 ints and fumbled the ball once.   The Dolphins lead the entire game and it did not come down to the wire at the end. 

Score 5, 6 at best.

“Miscellaneous factors: Was the player an extreme underdog? Was he coming off an injury? Was he playing in pain? Did the performance come in the context of a special season for the player's team? Did the performance take place in adverse conditions (hostile environment, inclement weather, etc.)? Was there a high "wow" factor?”

No, no, no, no, no, no, you get that one.
Score 3

[Pappy13]

We agree to disagree then.

Lets use your rankings on Brady's game just for grins.

Quality of opponent.

Score 5.

“Importance of game in which performance took place: Did it have playoff implications? Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? Was it in prime time? Was it against a rival? Divisional opponent?”

Playoff implications?  Neither.

Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? no

Was it in prime time?  no

Was it against a rival? no

Divisional opponent?”  no

score 1.

“Impact of performance: Was it the main reason the player's team won the game? Did it have a high statistical value and/or historical significance? Did it occur in a comeback or dramatic victory?”

Score 8

“Miscellaneous factors: Was the player an extreme underdog? Was he coming off an injury? Was he playing in pain? Did the performance come in the context of a special season for the player's team? Did the performance take place in adverse conditions (hostile environment, inclement weather, etc.)? Was there a high "wow" factor?”

No, no, no, yes, no, no. you get that one.
Score 3
 
That's a 21 for Marino's game and 17 for Brady's.
 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Only because the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85.

So by that logic, the rushing defense of Jax week 8 of 2003 was historic cause they held Jamal Lewis to a season low of 68 yards and had he had a game like had against cleveland week 2 he would have broken Dickerson's record.  And in fact is more historic than the games in which Dickerson played in '84.  

[Pappy13]

So by that logic, the rushing defense of Jax week 8 of 2003 was historic cause they held Jamal Lewis to a season low of 68 yards and had he had a game like had against cleveland week 2 he would have broken Dickerson's record.  And in fact is more historic than the games in which Dickerson played in '84.  

No, by my logic Dickerson's record is defined by the previous best record whomever held it when he broke it.  The Patriots beat the next best record which was 15-1 or 14-0 depending on how you look at it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

No, by my logic Dickerson's record is defined by the previous best record whomever held it when he broke it.  The Patriots beat the next best record which was 15-1 or 14-0 depending on how you look at it.

Okay so Dickerson should thank the Mia rushing defense of '73 which week 5 held OJ Simpson to 55 yards, because had Miami let OJ run 250 yards like he had against NE week 1, Dickerson would have never broken OJ's single season record.  Thus the MIA-Bills game is more historic than anything that happened during a Rams game of '84, when Dickerson in fact broke OJ's record. 

In fact to take it one step further....every game other than the game in which Adrian Peterson, rushed 296 yard is historically significant because had any team let another player rush for 297 yards, Peterson would not hold that record. 

[Pappy13]

Okay so Dickerson should thank the Mia rushing defense of '73 which week 5 held OJ Simpson to 55 yards, because had Miami let OJ run 250 yards like he had against NE week 1, Dickerson would have never broken OJ's single season record.  Thus the MIA-Bills game is more historic than anything that happened during a Rams game of '84, when Dickerson in fact broke OJ's record.

Where did I say the Bears-Dolphins game of '85 was more historic than the NE 2007 game?  I said the Bears were a better opponent than the 2007 Giants.  It was historic because the Dolphins were huge underdogs in the game and held the record the Bears were trying to beat.  Had the Giants beaten the NE Patriots in that game and the Giants were the ones who held the 14-0 record than it would have been a historic upset of the same magnitude of the Dolphins-Bears.  As it turns out the game itself was pretty much anti-climatic because although NE now has the best regular season record, it wasn't even a championship season because they failed to win the most important game.  Personally I'll take the perfect 17-0 season over NE's 2007 season.  Hell I'll take the Bear's 18-1 season over NE's 2007 season.

[Pappy13]

In fact to take it one step further....every game other than the game in which Adrian Peterson, rushed 296 yard is historically significant because had any team let another player rush for 297 yards, Peterson would not hold that record. 

That's called a converse theory and most converse theories don't hold true.  Just because you have a theory that can be proven, the converse of that theory doesn't always hold true.  In fact a lot of times it doesn't.  It's one of the many mistakes that people make when argueing.  They use the converse to prove it's false, but proving the converse to a theory fase doesn't make the theory false.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Where did I say the Bears-Dolphins game of '85 was more historic than the NE 2007 game? 

If Marino doesn’t do that against the Bears, Tom Brady’s game 16 that they selected as the 4th best game is MEANINGLESS Since it would have already been done TWICE!!!!

If you're going to discount how big of an achievement going undefeated is to the rest of the NFL in '85 then you have to discount game 16 of 2007 as well.

(Once again pretending not going undefeated is as sigificant as going undefeated)

Only because the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85.

So I count three times.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That's called a converse theory and most converse theories don't hold true.  Just because you have a theory that can be proven, the converse of that theory doesn't always hold true.  In fact a lot of times it doesn't.  It's one of the many mistakes that people make when argueing.  They use the converse to prove it's false, but proving the converse to a theory fase doesn't make the theory false.

That is what you are doing.  Engaging in the converse theory.  Saying that the Bears-Dolphins game is significant because it prevented the 14-0 and 17-0 records to fall to a 16-0 and 19-0 records and thus is just as significant as the game in which the 14-0 record fell to a 16-0 record. 

What I am doing is giving an example by way of analogy.  If what you state is true that the Dolphins stopping the Bears from going 16-0 and 19-0 is historically significant than every team who has held a running back to less than to 296 yards is also just as significant, which shows just how absurd your claim is.

[Pappy13]

(Once again pretending not going undefeated is as sigificant as going undefeated)

Nice try.  PREVENTING a team from going undefeated when they COULD have been undefeated is significant, not simply not going undefeated.  Everyone in the NFL does that pretty much every year.  Only the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85.  It was significant that the Patriots won 16 regular season games, I'm not taking that away from them, however had one team beat them that year, that game would have been significant for that very reason. 

Take for example the SB.  Will the '07 Giants be remembered for winning the SB or will they be remembered as the team who prevented the Patriots from going undefeated?  I'll bet you ask someone in 10 years who won the SB in '2007 and they won't remember, but if you ask who beat the Patriots to prevent them from being undefeated they'll have a better shot at remembering who it was.

You're not really going to argue that the Patriots winning 16 regular season games is as significant if the Bears had already done it in '85 are you?