1967 Green Bay Packers vs. 2007 Miami Dolphins (1 Viewer)

[scooterg61]

so.. maybe the terms of this game should be advertised before mouthing off on lombardi or anyone from 60's or from 07.. are these old packers coming forward and playing today with todays skills and training??? or are the dolphins going back to ole school with their training and playing??? if you take MADDEN game and put 07 dolphins vs 67 packers.. i dont think the scoreboard goes high enough.. packers kill dolphins.... you are correct in todays athletes are better today with preperation and skills... but if you take dolphins and put them back in time and give them what the old school guys had.. no contest.. pack wins.. if you bring pack forward and give them what todays athletes have... agaiin.. no contest pack wins.. but if you just take todays dolphins with all the steriods and training year round.. and put them against a pack team from the 60's that didnt play or train much... dolphins win.... but you need to put both on level ground.. level terms.... than again.. maybe take those dolphins and put them back in time.. and see if they can play the year with only 1 helmet or with what those guys had to endure and play with.... bet dolphins whine and cry like little girls by halftime because they arent being pampered

 

[phthalatemagic]

07 Dolphins would win by at least 50 points if they kept playing the entire game....seriously.

, according to the people that you must compare teams directly, which is ridiculous. But I think that's the point of this thread.

 

[Godsbrother]

Another ting to consider is what rules would they play by. The NFL has changed quite a bit since 1967. I doubt that many WRs of today would be able to handle the press coverages that were legal back then.

 

[yellowdog]

Another ting to consider is what rules would they play by. The NFL has changed quite a bit since 1967. I doubt that many WRs of today would be able to handle the press coverages that were legal back then.

I think think the Dolphins could win without throwing a pass.

 

[Sabertooth]

Another ting to consider is what rules would they play by. The NFL has changed quite a bit since 1967. I doubt that many WRs of today would be able to handle the press coverages that were legal back then.

I think think the Dolphins could win without throwing a pass.

You people crack me up. Best coach of all time vs. Cameron Cameron. One of the best QBs of all time vs. who again?

 

[sho nuff]

How many HOF'ers are on the Dolphins, Jason Taylor has an outside shot, who else?67 Pack HOFers:Herb Adderley, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Henry Jordan, Willie Davis, and Willie Wood

how many of those players would be HORers by today's standards????IMO this game would be a blow out...coaching alone....and yes I know that is the great lombardi I am talking about but the NFL has leaped miles from where it was back then...

How many would be? All of them.Coaching alone? Lombardi would kill Cameron.You don't think a guy that is considered the greatest of all time could adapt?The Packers would do what they did back then...tell you where they were going to run the ball...and see if you could stop it. And people couldn't.I think you overestimate what has changed and the size difference.And underestimate the type of preparation that the Packers had back then.

 

[yellowdog]

How many HOF'ers are on the Dolphins, Jason Taylor has an outside shot, who else?67 Pack HOFers:Herb Adderley, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Henry Jordan, Willie Davis, and Willie Wood

how many of those players would be HORers by today's standards????IMO this game would be a blow out...coaching alone....and yes I know that is the great lombardi I am talking about but the NFL has leaped miles from where it was back then...

How many would be? All of them.Coaching alone? Lombardi would kill Cameron.You don't think a guy that is considered the greatest of all time could adapt?The Packers would do what they did back then...tell you where they were going to run the ball...and see if you could stop it. And people couldn't.I think you overestimate what has changed and the size difference.And underestimate the type of preparation that the Packers had back then.

Size, strength, and speed would be the difference. Coaching would not be able to overcome it.You really think they would be able to block any NFL team's front 7? No way.

 

[sho nuff]

How many HOF'ers are on the Dolphins, Jason Taylor has an outside shot, who else?

67 Pack HOFers:

Herb Adderley, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Henry Jordan, Willie Davis, and Willie Wood

how many of those players would be HORers by today's standards????IMO this game would be a blow out...coaching alone....and yes I know that is the great lombardi I am talking about but the NFL has leaped miles from where it was back then...

Whoa.Cam Cameron isn't outcoaching Vince Lombardi under any circumstances, ever.

Do not blaspheme the immortal Lombardi.

OP must be about 17 years old.

Lombardi was one of the, if not THE best coach of his time.Cameron is one of the worst coaches of his time.

If you give Cameron a time machine and send him back to 1967, he is easily the best coach in the league.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone, but i would be better suited to repair a phone today. I think you get the point, and if you dont, all the explaing in the world isnt going to help you.

Ummm....no.

 

[sho nuff]

How many HOF'ers are on the Dolphins, Jason Taylor has an outside shot, who else?67 Pack HOFers:Herb Adderley, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Henry Jordan, Willie Davis, and Willie Wood

how many of those players would be HORers by today's standards????IMO this game would be a blow out...coaching alone....and yes I know that is the great lombardi I am talking about but the NFL has leaped miles from where it was back then...

How many would be? All of them.Coaching alone? Lombardi would kill Cameron.You don't think a guy that is considered the greatest of all time could adapt?The Packers would do what they did back then...tell you where they were going to run the ball...and see if you could stop it. And people couldn't.I think you overestimate what has changed and the size difference.And underestimate the type of preparation that the Packers had back then.

Size, strength, and speed would be the difference. Coaching would not be able to overcome it.You really think they would be able to block any NFL team's front 7? No way.

Again, I think some of you underestimate how strong and prepared those players actually were.Nitschke would easily be the best player on the field...meanest...toughest...and would drive any player Miami has into the ground.

 

[sho nuff]

The Packers and it's not even close.The Pack would be a well oiled machine with all 11 players doing their job, every play. Sure everybody would be undersized, but they would be the meanest, toughest SOB's on the field. No bling, fans with mist, no Gatorade.Pack 21Nancy Boys 7

dude....they were like midgets compared to today's players....and 99% whitei know they were great and but jesus...

Really? Jim Taylor FB 6ft 214 lbsForrest Greg 6'4'' 249 lbsBart Starr 6'1'' 197 lbsRay Nitschke 6'3'' 235 lbsHer Adderley 6'1'' 205 lbsWillie Davis 6'3'' 240 lbsHenry Jordan 6'2'' 248 lbsWillie Wood 5'10'' 175 lbsAnd this is just the HOFer's

oh just the HOFers....you mean just the guys that were all white and worth half a damn...

Talk about Ignorance.Willie DavisWillie WoodHerb AdderlyUmmm...they were all black.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Are we talking about mini-Packers or regular Packers. (A mini-Lombardi was, is, and will always be, better than Cameron).

If it is regular 1966 or 1967 Packers - the Packers win. The Dolphins may have better athletes, but this is still a team game. Teams win games, individuals lose games. Mini-Packers - and I'd call it a pick-em.

Just look back to the Patriots Super Bowl against the Rams (I know, why does everything have to be about the Patriots - and I am a Patriots basher!!). The Rams were two touchdown favorites, and clearly had the best athletic talent on the field. But, the Patriots were better coached, better prepared, and played better as a team than the vaunted Rams, and won the game.

Lombardi and his rag-tag Packers would be better prepared, have a better game plan, and would execute the game plan better than today's Dolphins. No question about it.

Just for reference - the 1966 Packs (Who I think you are really comparing) had 2826 passing yards in a running-era. That is more than the Dolphins will have in 14 games in a passing-era (2140 in 12). Max McGee had a grand total of 4 receptions for 91 yards on the season - so I think your comparison is a little bit off-base.

 

[The Jerminator]

The '07 Dolphins gave up 40 points to the NY Jets!!!

The '67 Pack would beat the '07 Fins TODAY, not the team from '67 instantly transported to 2007 but the same players TODAY, some dead, some in their 60s and 70s, coached by the corpse of Lombardi 13-7.

Write it down...

 

[phthalatemagic]

This thread has ADD

 

[Buckle]

Which 2007 Dolphins? Does it include a healthy Ronnie Brown and Chambers in the mix?

 

[yellowdog]

This should clear it up.

who would win???1967 Packers [ 31 ]   [50.00%] 2007 Dolphins [ 31 ]   [50.00%]

 

[Phurfur]

yeah that's right...the 1967 Packers who won Super Bowl I, coached by the great Lombardi himself against the 2007 Miami Dolphins who suck but are probably an average of 20 lbs. bigger per player and the game has evolved to favor them...who wins????

I guess I would pick the team that was playing because they love to play the game over the team that was playing just for the money. You are underestimating the value of heart and execution.By the way, this is a pretty dumb thread.

 

[stevegamer]

How many HOF'ers are on the Dolphins, Jason Taylor has an outside shot, who else?

67 Pack HOFers:

Herb Adderley, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Henry Jordan, Willie Davis, and Willie Wood

how many of those players would be HORers by today's standards????IMO this game would be a blow out...coaching alone....and yes I know that is the great lombardi I am talking about but the NFL has leaped miles from where it was back then...

Whoa.Cam Cameron isn't outcoaching Vince Lombardi under any circumstances, ever.

Do not blaspheme the immortal Lombardi.

OP must be about 17 years old.

Lombardi was one of the, if not THE best coach of his time.Cameron is one of the worst coaches of his time.

If you give Cameron a time machine and send him back to 1967, he is easily the best coach in the league.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone, but i would be better suited to repair a phone today. I think you get the point, and if you dont, all the explaing in the world isnt going to help you.

Actually giving Cam Cameron a time machine and sending him back to 1967 might make him WORSE. He has none of the technology to rely on, essentailly no staff, and is basically handicapped in every way, unless he shows himself to be a leader - which he's not.

If you put Lombardi in a time machine and went the other way it would work much better - he'd have stuff he didn't know how to use, but he could have a staff that did. He might actually work okay as a leader as well.

 

[stevegamer]

yeah that's right...the 1967 Packers who won Super Bowl I, coached by the great Lombardi himself against the 2007 Miami Dolphins who suck but are probably an average of 20 lbs. bigger per player and the game has evolved to favor them...who wins????

I guess I would pick the team that was playing because they love to play the game over the team that was playing just for the money. You are underestimating the value of heart and execution.By the way, this is a pretty dumb thread.

Yeah, but it' going to help people on both sides add to their ignore lists. And there's something to be said for that.

 

[mozzy84]

most players didn't even weight train back then and they had second jobs in the offseason. Not to mention the offense they ran is like high school stuff compared to what the pros run now. The homers in here don't want to admit it for some reason but the pack would lose and lose big.....

 

[Sabertooth]

most players didn't even weight train back then and they had second jobs in the offseason. Not to mention the offense they ran is like high school stuff compared to what the pros run now. The homers in here don't want to admit it for some reason but the pack would lose and lose big.....

I didn't realize that the Dolphins has an offense.

 

[Intergalactic Kegger]

Lombardi and his rag-tag Packers would be better prepared, have a better game plan, and would execute the game plan better than today's Dolphins. No question about it.

No they wouldn't. By 1967 standards, Lombardi had his teams very well prepared. By 2007 standards, his teams were woefully prepared.

 

[sho nuff]

Lombardi and his rag-tag Packers would be better prepared, have a better game plan, and would execute the game plan better than today's Dolphins. No question about it.

No they wouldn't. By 1967 standards, Lombardi had his teams very well prepared. By 2007 standards, his teams were woefully prepared.

Again...I think some of you underestimate how well prepared those teams were.

 

[-primetime-]

Lombardi and his rag-tag Packers would be better prepared, have a better game plan, and would execute the game plan better than today's Dolphins. No question about it.

No they wouldn't. By 1967 standards, Lombardi had his teams very well prepared. By 2007 standards, his teams were woefully prepared.

Again...I think some of you underestimate how well prepared those teams were.

players of today are much more phyiscally prepared....amazing...the poll is pretty much split right down the middle...IMO it doesn't matter how great of coach Lombardi is in this matchup....the size/strenght/speed of today's players are just too much to overcome...

 

[nibbomydaets]

Lombardi and his rag-tag Packers would be better prepared, have a better game plan, and would execute the game plan better than today's Dolphins. No question about it.

No they wouldn't. By 1967 standards, Lombardi had his teams very well prepared. By 2007 standards, his teams were woefully prepared.

Again...I think some of you underestimate how well prepared those teams were.

players of today are much more phyiscally prepared....amazing...the poll is pretty much split right down the middle...

IMO it doesn't matter how great of coach Lombardi is in this matchup....the size/strenght/speed of today's players are just too much to overcome...

And that is exactly why we can't take you seriously.

 

[-primetime-]

And that is exactly why we can't take you seriously.

apparently you haven't looked at the poll results...it appears as though i brought up a pretty good topic...you act as though I am being rediculous and that NO ONE here takes me seriously but take a look at the poll dude...it looks to me like over 50% of this site agrees with me...

 

[Papa Schnay]

I will do you all a favor.

Instead of speculate, defer to the so called experts.

Visit www.whatifsports.com/nfl/default.asp

Set the home team as the 67 Packers

Set the away team as who ever...through 2006 (no 07 teams yet)

That's close enough...

 

[pettifogger]

Interesting topic.

Some things mentioned:

Players today are bigger on average, do more tailored weight training and nutrition, have films and run more complex plays and defenses.

Some things not mentioned:

Teams in the 60s stayed together longer, no free agency, no parity rules. They may not have had films broken up on DVD to study, but there were only 16 teams in the NFL so they probably had more experience playing any individual opponent to know player tendencies.

Green Bay wasn't even the best team, the Colts and Rams each went 11-1-2 and each beat the 9-4-1 Pack. (The Colts missed the playoffs because they were in the same division as the Rams and there was no wild card!)

As one poster mentioned, the rules were very different. WRs could be bumped all the way down the field, intentional grounding could be called anywhere, linemen couldn't block with open hands, and roughing was called less frequently. Bart Starr had 9 TD passes and 17 picks, with a 54% completion ratio.

Just as a quick check I looked at the winning times in the 1968 Olympics and 2004 Olympics for track and field to get a statistical comparison. The winning times in the 100 meter dash was 9.95 seconds in 1968, 9.85 in 2004. In the 200 it was 19.83 and 19.79. In the 1500 it was 3:34.18 TO 3:34.91 (slower in 2004). Bob Beamon won the long jump with 8.90 in 1968, Dwight Phillips with 8.59 in 2004.

Track is not football, but I don't think athletes are THAT much faster in 2007 than they were in 1967. It's not like a 2007 athlete would run rings around a 1967 athlete.

So whose rules do you use? Do the Fins have to play with no radios from the offensive coordiator, OB calls his own plays, with leather pads (were they leather or plastic in 1967) and heavy leather, steel cleated shoes?

I'm not buying the argument that players today are tougher or work harder in practice. They do have a little better training. I think the biggest difference is medical science, players today can get arthroscopic surgery, lasik for their eyesight, etc. etc. I think the special teams game and kicking has advanced quite a bit.

Put them on the same field today, I'd go with the Pack. I think they would adapt to the rules imposed and the weight differences, and they are a better collection of football players.

 

[-primetime-]

Interesting topic. Some things mentioned: Players today are bigger on average, do more tailored weight training and nutrition, have films and run more complex plays and defenses.Some things not mentioned: Teams in the 60s stayed together longer, no free agency, no parity rules. They may not have had films broken up on DVD to study, but there were only 16 teams in the NFL so they probably had more experience playing any individual opponent to know player tendencies. Green Bay wasn't even the best team, the Colts and Rams each went 11-1-2 and each beat the 9-4-1 Pack. (The Colts missed the playoffs because they were in the same division as the Rams and there was no wild card!) As one poster mentioned, the rules were very different. WRs could be bumped all the way down the field, intentional grounding could be called anywhere, linemen couldn't block with open hands, and roughing was called less frequently. Bart Starr had 9 TD passes and 17 picks, with a 54% completion ratio. Just as a quick check I looked at the winning times in the 1968 Olympics and 2004 Olympics for track and field to get a statistical comparison. The winning times in the 100 meter dash was 9.95 seconds in 1968, 9.85 in 2004. In the 200 it was 19.83 and 19.79. In the 1500 it was 3:34.18 TO 3:34.91 (slower in 2004). Bob Beamon won the long jump with 8.90 in 1968, Dwight Phillips with 8.59 in 2004. Track is not football, but I don't think athletes are THAT much faster in 2007 than they were in 1967. It's not like a 2007 athlete would run rings around a 1967 athlete. So whose rules do you use? Do the Fins have to play with no radios from the offensive coordiator, OB calls his own plays, with leather pads (were they leather or plastic in 1967) and heavy leather, steel cleated shoes? I'm not buying the argument that players today are tougher or work harder in practice. They do have a little better training. I think the biggest difference is medical science, players today can get arthroscopic surgery, lasik for their eyesight, etc. etc. I think the special teams game and kicking has advanced quite a bit. Put them on the same field today, I'd go with the Pack. I think they would adapt to the rules imposed and the weight differences, and they are a better collection of football players.

so it is all based on what rules you say???well since I was throwing the complexity of today's NFL into the mix I would have to say today's rules...nice post and makes sense to me though...yeah I could see the Pack winning if it was by thier rules...it is just hard to comprehend given the fact that the Phins are so much bigger and faster on average....

 

[Tom Servo]

Interesting topic. Some things mentioned: Players today are bigger on average, do more tailored weight training and nutrition, have films and run more complex plays and defenses.Some things not mentioned: Teams in the 60s stayed together longer, no free agency, no parity rules. They may not have had films broken up on DVD to study, but there were only 16 teams in the NFL so they probably had more experience playing any individual opponent to know player tendencies. Green Bay wasn't even the best team, the Colts and Rams each went 11-1-2 and each beat the 9-4-1 Pack. (The Colts missed the playoffs because they were in the same division as the Rams and there was no wild card!) As one poster mentioned, the rules were very different. WRs could be bumped all the way down the field, intentional grounding could be called anywhere, linemen couldn't block with open hands, and roughing was called less frequently. Bart Starr had 9 TD passes and 17 picks, with a 54% completion ratio. Just as a quick check I looked at the winning times in the 1968 Olympics and 2004 Olympics for track and field to get a statistical comparison. The winning times in the 100 meter dash was 9.95 seconds in 1968, 9.85 in 2004. In the 200 it was 19.83 and 19.79. In the 1500 it was 3:34.18 TO 3:34.91 (slower in 2004). Bob Beamon won the long jump with 8.90 in 1968, Dwight Phillips with 8.59 in 2004. Track is not football, but I don't think athletes are THAT much faster in 2007 than they were in 1967. It's not like a 2007 athlete would run rings around a 1967 athlete. So whose rules do you use? Do the Fins have to play with no radios from the offensive coordiator, OB calls his own plays, with leather pads (were they leather or plastic in 1967) and heavy leather, steel cleated shoes? I'm not buying the argument that players today are tougher or work harder in practice. They do have a little better training. I think the biggest difference is medical science, players today can get arthroscopic surgery, lasik for their eyesight, etc. etc. I think the special teams game and kicking has advanced quite a bit. Put them on the same field today, I'd go with the Pack. I think they would adapt to the rules imposed and the weight differences, and they are a better collection of football players.

Nice job, PF.BTW, I will make a note to myself to run that game through What if sports after the season is over.

 

[mr. furley]

The Packers and it's not even close.The Pack would be a well oiled machine with all 11 players doing their job, every play. Sure everybody would be undersized, but they would be the meanest, toughest SOB's on the field. No bling, fans with mist, no Gatorade.Pack 21Nancy Boys 7

dude....they were like midgets compared to today's players....and 99% whitei know they were great and but jesus...

Really? Jim Taylor FB 6ft 214 lbsForrest Greg 6'4'' 249 lbsBart Starr 6'1'' 197 lbsRay Nitschke 6'3'' 235 lbsHer Adderley 6'1'' 205 lbsWillie Davis 6'3'' 240 lbsHenry Jordan 6'2'' 248 lbsWillie Wood 5'10'' 175 lbsAnd this is just the HOFer's

oh just the HOFers....you mean just the guys that were all white and worth half a damn...

fishing or just dumb?

 

[Sid]

What I'd be interested in seeing is a comparison of the height and weight of Miami's OLine vs. Green Bay's DLine, and Green Bay's OLine vs. Miami's DLine. That should give you a pretty good picture of how the game would go, IMHO.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I will do you all a favor.Instead of speculate, defer to the so called experts.Visit www.whatifsports.com/nfl/default.aspSet the home team as the 67 PackersSet the away team as who ever...through 2006 (no 07 teams yet)That's close enough...

First, I think the OP meant the 1966 Packers, who went 12-2, and played in the 1967 Super Bowl.Second, I ran the simulation 20 times - using the '66 Packers and '06 Raiders (closest I could get to the '07 Dolphins). 10 times with the Packers at home, and 10 times with the Raiders at home. The Packers went 7-3 at home and 9-1 on the road.So there you have it - Pack in a rout.

 

[Lash]

Miami would win and score over 150 points

fer chrissakes all the Packers would be 65+ years olds

 

[sho nuff]

Miami would win and score over 150 pointsfer chrissakes all the Packers would be 65+ years olds

Id take an old corpse of Nitschke to beat up Cleo Lemon all day long.

 

[moleculo]

Interesting topic. Some things mentioned: Players today are bigger on average, do more tailored weight training and nutrition, have films and run more complex plays and defenses.Some things not mentioned: Teams in the 60s stayed together longer, no free agency, no parity rules. They may not have had films broken up on DVD to study, but there were only 16 teams in the NFL so they probably had more experience playing any individual opponent to know player tendencies. Green Bay wasn't even the best team, the Colts and Rams each went 11-1-2 and each beat the 9-4-1 Pack. (The Colts missed the playoffs because they were in the same division as the Rams and there was no wild card!) As one poster mentioned, the rules were very different. WRs could be bumped all the way down the field, intentional grounding could be called anywhere, linemen couldn't block with open hands, and roughing was called less frequently. Bart Starr had 9 TD passes and 17 picks, with a 54% completion ratio. Just as a quick check I looked at the winning times in the 1968 Olympics and 2004 Olympics for track and field to get a statistical comparison. The winning times in the 100 meter dash was 9.95 seconds in 1968, 9.85 in 2004. In the 200 it was 19.83 and 19.79. In the 1500 it was 3:34.18 TO 3:34.91 (slower in 2004). Bob Beamon won the long jump with 8.90 in 1968, Dwight Phillips with 8.59 in 2004. Track is not football, but I don't think athletes are THAT much faster in 2007 than they were in 1967. It's not like a 2007 athlete would run rings around a 1967 athlete. So whose rules do you use? Do the Fins have to play with no radios from the offensive coordiator, OB calls his own plays, with leather pads (were they leather or plastic in 1967) and heavy leather, steel cleated shoes? I'm not buying the argument that players today are tougher or work harder in practice. They do have a little better training. I think the biggest difference is medical science, players today can get arthroscopic surgery, lasik for their eyesight, etc. etc. I think the special teams game and kicking has advanced quite a bit. Put them on the same field today, I'd go with the Pack. I think they would adapt to the rules imposed and the weight differences, and they are a better collection of football players.

you can have all of your fancy schemes that Cameron and the "modern" runs, but in the end, football is a simple game. All you have to do is two things: block and tackle. That's as true today as it was 40 years ago.Any team that has played together for a really long time, is well motivated, and full of "character" type players will be able to block and tackle infinately better than a team of superb athletes who are starring down the barrel of 0-16.