Reasons the Dallas Cowboys of the 90`s are the best dynasty ever...

[Tickle Fiend]

Flock, c'mon my friend. You are making it seem like Brent Jones was a nobody. Brent Jones was a legit threat. He opened up the 49er running game. He helped keep defenses honest against Jerry Rice and John Taylor. You are saying all this about Novacek, but Jones was just as good or even better than Novacek. Look at the career stats I posted. You think Jones was nobody? C'mon dude, talk about clouded judgement.

Yes, Deion leaving hurt. Then again, he was only a 49er for ONE year. We are talking about the "dynasty" period. As for Barry Sanders, YOU KNOW and I KNOW Barry Sanders was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Emmitt Smith. Let's see if you can be honest. We are going to play the "what if" game. Do you think Emmitt would have the same numbers if he played in Detroit? Be honest. Do you think so?

Look at the numbers that RobAce put up. Looks like the 49ers were more dominant in their SuperBowl wins than the Cowboys and he is only looking at THREE out of the FOUR. Remember, the 49er dynasty lasted for a decade. The Cowboys only last a half decade.....

We have compared offenses. Do you agree or disagree on the following comparisons?

Montana is better than Aikman
Rice is better than Irvin
Emmitt is better than Craig
(I'm sorry but....) Novacek is EVEN with Jones
Taylor is better than Harper

You say my judgement is clouded, let's see if you can be objective....

I think you're forgetting that there are 22 people on the field, 11 for each side. You can say "this person was better than that person," but it doesn't mean that both weren't great. Montana is a HOF QB, Aikman is a HOF QB. Jerry is a soon to be HOF WR, the Playmaker is a HOF WR (who would've gotten in on his first try if it weren't for the media bias.) Emmitt is the all-time leader, while Roger Craig is Roger Craig. The fact that the 'Boys accomplishments came in a four-year window doesn't mean that they aren't a better team than those 9ers. And the Cowboys were the winningest team in the '90's.

 

[primetime]

Oh, I know there are 22 people on the field, 11 on each side of the ball. But why would the Cowboys be the "greatest" dynasty? Because of their offense? The 49er offense was more prolific and actually revolutionized football. I love Troy Aikman (UCLA baby!), but he's NOT Joe Montana. Michael Irvin (Mr. Pushoff) is a tremendous receiver, but he is not Jerry Rice.

We talk about Emmitt Smith being the all time leader, but I still doubt he would have been able to duplicate what he did if he played elsewhere. Emmitt never impressed me as a RB. He was good, but compared to other RB greats (Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders), there was nothing "special" about Emmitt to me. His first contact was usually 5 or 6 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. His O-line was tremendous, maybe the best ever. Everytime I watched him run, I never held my breath like I would watching the others. Bo Jackson is a better RB than Emmitt. I'm sorry, but Emmitt is a good back, I just can't say he is the greatest.

Roger Craig will not be considered "better" than Emmitt when comparing career stats. I believe Craig was a bigger threat because of his receiving abilities. He is only one of 2 RBs to ever rush and receive for a 1000 yards each. The 49er offense (West Coast) is not a "power" offense, but a "finesse" offense. That's why the 49er running game will never match the numbers of the Cowboys. 2 different styles of running the ball.

Defensively, the Cowboys had a really good defense, but the 49er defenses were no slouches either. They never got the credit they deserved. But when you got guys like Montana and Rice, people pay attention to the offense. People also seem to forget that after the "Catch", the 49er defense had to make the plays to win the game.

Coaching? Yeah, Jimmy Johnson was a great coach, but compared to Bill Walsh? Be honest, the 49ers have the edge in coaching.

Cowboy fans can talk about their 5 year span all they like. The 49ers did it across the decade and the Steelers won 4 in 6 years. Why is the Cowboy dynasty better than the Steel Curtain? Point is, no one can honestly say what the greatest dynasty is.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

I think you're forgetting that there are 22 people on the field, 11 for each side. You can say "this person was better than that person," but it doesn't mean that both weren't great. Montana is a HOF QB, Aikman is a HOF QB. Jerry is a soon to be HOF WR, the Playmaker is a HOF WR (who would've gotten in on his first try if it weren't for the media bias.) Emmitt is the all-time leader, while Roger Craig is Roger Craig. The fact that the 'Boys accomplishments came in a four-year window doesn't mean that they aren't a better team than those 9ers. And the Cowboys were the winningest team in the '90's.

Exactly...

The Cowboys defense was significantly better than San Frans. The shutdown combo of Deion & Kevin smith was LIGHT Years ahead of anything the 9ers could offer. We had Haley{ as did you} Tolbert , Casillas , Hennings, jimmy Jones and Leon Lett on the line

Unless it has changed in the last couple of years, Aikman had the most wins by a QB in one decade , better than any qb in any other decade in NFL history.


this last part has not been mentioned but IS HUGE. THE COWBOYS were the first DOMINANT team to have to deal with modern day free agency, the way it is today. Teams tried to over pay Cowboys players to leave and play for them , but also tear down the `boys as well. The 49ers never had to deal with that like the boys did

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Oh, I know there are 22 people on the field, 11 on each side of the ball. But why would the Cowboys be the "greatest" dynasty? Because of their offense? The 49er offense was more prolific and actually revolutionized football. I love Troy Aikman (UCLA baby!), but he's NOT Joe Montana. Michael Irvin (Mr. Pushoff) is a tremendous receiver, but he is not Jerry Rice.

We talk about Emmitt Smith being the all time leader, but I still doubt he would have been able to duplicate what he did if he played elsewhere. Emmitt never impressed me as a RB. He was good, but compared to other RB greats (Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders), there was nothing "special" about Emmitt to me. His first contact was usually 5 or 6 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. His O-line was tremendous, maybe the best ever. Everytime I watched him run, I never held my breath like I would watching the others. Bo Jackson is a better RB than Emmitt. I'm sorry, but Emmitt is a good back, I just can't say he is the greatest.

Roger Craig will not be considered "better" than Emmitt when comparing career stats. I believe Craig was a bigger threat because of his receiving abilities. He is only one of 2 RBs to ever rush and receive for a 1000 yards each. The 49er offense (West Coast) is not a "power" offense, but a "finesse" offense. That's why the 49er running game will never match the numbers of the Cowboys. 2 different styles of running the ball.

Defensively, the Cowboys had a really good defense, but the 49er defenses were no slouches either. They never got the credit they deserved. But when you got guys like Montana and Rice, people pay attention to the offense. People also seem to forget that after the "Catch", the 49er defense had to make the plays to win the game.

Coaching? Yeah, Jimmy Johnson was a great coach, but compared to Bill Walsh? Be honest, the 49ers have the edge in coaching.

Cowboy fans can talk about their 5 year span all they like. The 49ers did it across the decade and the Steelers won 4 in 6 years. Why is the Cowboy dynasty better than the Steel Curtain? Point is, no one can honestly say what the greatest dynasty is.

On Emmitt Smith

can you HONESTLY ignore the accomplishments???


1. 18,355 yards rushing

2. NFL career rushing TD LEADER AT 164

3. first player in NFL history with 5 straight seasons of at least 1,400 yards rushing

4. only player with 11 straight 1,000 yards rushing seasons

5. league MVP in 1993, superbowl MVP, and 8- time pro bowler

6. 78 games of at least 100yds rushing

oh one more thing....Emmitt had 7 seasons of at least 40 catches...in my book that makes him a receiving threat


Prime , the proof is in the pudding , my friend...

 

[primetime]

This is why I like talking with Cowboy fans. They don't see ANYTHING. Flock, first of all the combo of Kevin Smith/Deion Sanders worked ONCE didn't it? The Cowboys got ONE title with Sanders on their team, so that combo wasn't a part of the dynasty. The Cowboy defense was good, but the 49er defenses were good as well. Like you pointed out, we had Charles Haley as well. Plus, we had LEGENDARY Ronnie Lott during that time.

I noticed Cowboy fans are dodging the question. Emmitt is a good back, but if you put him on ANY OTHER TEAM, would he have done the same thing? Go back to my point. Switch Emmitt and Barry Sanders and what will happen? C'mon Cowboy fans, would Emmitt do the SAME thing as he did in Dallas, or at least did as well as Barry did in Detroit? You KNOW the answer is..........HELL NO.

What are you talking about they are the first team to deal with free agency? Give me a break. The Cowboys "built" their dynasty through the draft in the late 80's. Aikman, Smith, Irvin, most of their offensive line, Novacek, Moose, the defense were built before free agency hit like it is now. Free agency is what hurt the Cowboys, which is why they only got three rings in the 90's. What are you talking about? Only the Patriots have been able to maintain dominance in the free agency period. Sorry, the Cowboys didn't do squat when free agency hit.

Also, the 49ers were also a team to be affected. In case your memory is terrible, during the "heyday" of the Cowboys in the 1990s, there were TWO DOMINANT teams. The 49ers and the Cowboys. This dominance lasted into the mid 1990s. You keep forgetting the 49ers were a very strong team in the early 90s as well. How the hell did you think the 49er dynasty fell? Free agency and the salary cap. Same as the Cowboys....

 

[RobAce]

Another bit to munch on....
90's Cowboys regular season record: 101-59 win%=.631
80's 49ers regular season record: 104-43-1 win%=.702

Now we have to keep in mind that during the 80's there was a strike shortened season (1982 where the 49ers went 3-6) and the 1987 season where one game was cancelled and the first 4-5 games were played with replacement players (the 49ers went 13-2)

Also to add...
the Cowboys had 4 straight seasons of 12 or more wins (92,93,94,95....13-3.12-4,12-4,12-4)
49ers had 4 seasons of 12 or more wins (81,84,87,89...13-3,15-1,13-2,14-2)
The Cowboys had 6 straight seasons of 10 or more wins (91-96)
The 49ers had 7 straight season of 10 or more wins (83-89)

Next: Emmitt Smith....
while it is true he ended his career with those numbers...he was released by the Cowboys...and Emmitt played his last years in Arizona...only to get those records. He was well past his prime, and again played only for the records.
According to the AP voting of the greatest running backs of all time, Emmitt Smith ranks #4.
#1 Barry Sanders, #2 Walter Payton, #3 Jim Brown, #4 Emmitt Smith.
I dont think any unbiased person (or even biased with a pure football mind) would disagree with that.
Now Roger Craig was a good back....but he was not as good as Emmitt.

Next: Aikman vs. Montana.
Yes Aikman had more wins in that decade than any other...but did so with a lot of help. He was an average quarterback as evidenced by his career 81.6 QB rating, and 165 TD's to 141 Int's.

Montana on the other hand had a 92.3 career rating, and 273 TD's to 139 Int's. Also Montana was named to the NFL's All-Decade Team for the 1980's.
Troy Aikman was not. The NFL's All-Decade QB's for the 1990's....
John Elway and Brett Farve.

As for Rice vs. Irvin...
Rice was named to the All-Decade team for the 1980's and 1990's.
Irvin for the 1990's.

Emmitt was better than Craig (although Craig was named to the all-decade team for the 80's as well...I was surprised)
Montana was better than Aikman
Rice was better than Irvin

Defense's....Im looking at that for my next post.

Rob

 

[P[a]pi]

First off, the 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers and the 90's Cowboys are the top three dynastys in my opinion.

I put the 49ers in the three spot because I just think that team was more of a last second comeback type of team, like the crappy, cheating Pats of the 2000's, than a dominating team like the Cowboys and Steelers.

I got the Cowboys and Steelers almost tied for the top spot. They are so close, so similar and so dominant. They both had really tough competition. The Steelers had to deal with the Cowboys and the Dolphins. The Cowboys had to deal with the Bills and the 49ers. But, the Steelers got 4 rings and the Cowboys got 3. The Cowboys would have beaten the 49ers in San Fran in 1994 if it wasn't muddy and rainy. They should have 4 rings, but they don't, oh well.

I'm a Dallas fan by the way. And the 90's Cowboys will always be my favorite football team ever.

During the Super Bowl FOX did a poll and Steelers were ranked first, then Cowboys, then 49ers, then the 60's Packers, then the crappy, cheating Pats of the 2000's.



One more thing, the 90's Cowboys Dynasty was from 92 to 95, so stats from that time period are the only stats that really matter. It might be true that the 49ers dynasty lasted longer, and some players from that dynasty were great longer, but I don't think that matters.

Montana was better than Aikman and Jerry Rice was better than Michael Irvin, but the Cowboys dynasty was better that the 49ers dynasty. The Cowboys had other great receivers, the best offensive line ever, one of the best defenses ever, one of the best special teams ever and Deion Sanders for their last Super Bowl win. The Cowboys won all of their Super Bowls by 10 points or more. I think that is an impressive stat.

 

[Tickle Fiend]

This is why I like talking with Cowboy fans. They don't see ANYTHING. Flock, first of all the combo of Kevin Smith/Deion Sanders worked ONCE didn't it? The Cowboys got ONE title with Sanders on their team, so that combo wasn't a part of the dynasty. The Cowboy defense was good, but the 49er defenses were good as well. Like you pointed out, we had Charles Haley as well. Plus, we had LEGENDARY Ronnie Lott during that time.

I noticed Cowboy fans are dodging the question. Emmitt is a good back, but if you put him on ANY OTHER TEAM, would he have done the same thing? Go back to my point. Switch Emmitt and Barry Sanders and what will happen? C'mon Cowboy fans, would Emmitt do the SAME thing as he did in Dallas, or at least did as well as Barry did in Detroit? You KNOW the answer is..........HELL NO.

What are you talking about they are the first team to deal with free agency? Give me a break. The Cowboys "built" their dynasty through the draft in the late 80's. Aikman, Smith, Irvin, most of their offensive line, Novacek, Moose, the defense were built before free agency hit like it is now. Free agency is what hurt the Cowboys, which is why they only got three rings in the 90's. What are you talking about? Only the Patriots have been able to maintain dominance in the free agency period. Sorry, the Cowboys didn't do squat when free agency hit.

Also, the 49ers were also a team to be affected. In case your memory is terrible, during the "heyday" of the Cowboys in the 1990s, there were TWO DOMINANT teams. The 49ers and the Cowboys. This dominance lasted into the mid 1990s. You keep forgetting the 49ers were a very strong team in the early 90s as well. How the hell did you think the 49er dynasty fell? Free agency and the salary cap. Same as the Cowboys....

1. I agree that free agency and the salary cap hurt the Cowboys, but the cap could be gone in a few years. I still think that Jimmy's departure is what really hurt that team. And the 49ers were a great team during the Cowboys reign but the 'Boys came out on top.

2. Emmitt is the all-time leading rusher and one of the greatest athletes ever. Based on all that he accomplished, why would we think he couldn't do it in Detroit. You can "what if" all you want, but the facts speak for themself. The objective of the offensive line is to create holes for the RB and that's what both offensive lines did. And it really doesn't matter what he would've done on another team because he did it for America's Team, and that's what this argument's about. If those 49ers of the 80s had the chance to play the greatest team of all-time they'd be facing that great offensive line who blocked for the greatest.

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Another bit to munch on....
90's Cowboys regular season record: 101-59 win%=.631
80's 49ers regular season record: 104-43-1 win%=.702

Now we have to keep in mind that during the 80's there was a strike shortened season (1982 where the 49ers went 3-6) and the 1987 season where one game was cancelled and the first 4-5 games were played with replacement players (the 49ers went 13-2)

Also to add...
the Cowboys had 4 straight seasons of 12 or more wins (92,93,94,95....13-3.12-4,12-4,12-4)
49ers had 4 seasons of 12 or more wins (81,84,87,89...13-3,15-1,13-2,14-2)
The Cowboys had 6 straight seasons of 10 or more wins (91-96)
The 49ers had 7 straight season of 10 or more wins (83-89)

Next: Emmitt Smith....
while it is true he ended his career with those numbers...he was released by the Cowboys...and Emmitt played his last years in Arizona...only to get those records. He was well past his prime, and again played only for the records.
According to the AP voting of the greatest running backs of all time, Emmitt Smith ranks #4.
#1 Barry Sanders, #2 Walter Payton, #3 Jim Brown, #4 Emmitt Smith.
I dont think any unbiased person (or even biased with a pure football mind) would disagree with that.
Now Roger Craig was a good back....but he was not as good as Emmitt.

Next: Aikman vs. Montana.
Yes Aikman had more wins in that decade than any other...but did so with a lot of help. He was an average quarterback as evidenced by his career 81.6 QB rating, and 165 TD's to 141 Int's.

Montana on the other hand had a 92.3 career rating, and 273 TD's to 139 Int's. Also Montana was named to the NFL's All-Decade Team for the 1980's.
Troy Aikman was not. The NFL's All-Decade QB's for the 1990's....
John Elway and Brett Farve.

As for Rice vs. Irvin...
Rice was named to the All-Decade team for the 1980's and 1990's.
Irvin for the 1990's.

Emmitt was better than Craig (although Craig was named to the all-decade team for the 80's as well...I was surprised)
Montana was better than Aikman
Rice was better than Irvin

Defense's....Im looking at that for my next post.

Rob

Good facts...

But remember the boys line was one of all-time greats....part of the deal of being the most COMPLETE TEAM

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

This is why I like talking with Cowboy fans. They don't see ANYTHING. Flock, first of all the combo of Kevin Smith/Deion Sanders worked ONCE didn't it? The Cowboys got ONE title with Sanders on their team, so that combo wasn't a part of the dynasty. The Cowboy defense was good, but the 49er defenses were good as well. Like you pointed out, we had Charles Haley as well. Plus, we had LEGENDARY Ronnie Lott during that time.

I noticed Cowboy fans are dodging the question. Emmitt is a good back, but if you put him on ANY OTHER TEAM, would he have done the same thing? Go back to my point. Switch Emmitt and Barry Sanders and what will happen? C'mon Cowboy fans, would Emmitt do the SAME thing as he did in Dallas, or at least did as well as Barry did in Detroit? You KNOW the answer is..........HELL NO.

What are you talking about they are the first team to deal with free agency? Give me a break. The Cowboys "built" their dynasty through the draft in the late 80's. Aikman, Smith, Irvin, most of their offensive line, Novacek, Moose, the defense were built before free agency hit like it is now. Free agency is what hurt the Cowboys, which is why they only got three rings in the 90's. What are you talking about? Only the Patriots have been able to maintain dominance in the free agency period. Sorry, the Cowboys didn't do squat when free agency hit.

Also, the 49ers were also a team to be affected. In case your memory is terrible, during the "heyday" of the Cowboys in the 1990s, there were TWO DOMINANT teams. The 49ers and the Cowboys. This dominance lasted into the mid 1990s. You keep forgetting the 49ers were a very strong team in the early 90s as well. How the hell did you think the 49er dynasty fell? Free agency and the salary cap. Same as the Cowboys....

Dodging the question...are you kidding me????

Bottom line is that Emmitt is one of the greatest back of ALL -TIME!!! . Prime you get WAY TO CAUGHT UP in the ''if & but'' game. When you have no substance to use you always say ''if or but''. You know what, if Joe Montana had played for another team , he wouldn`t have been near the qb he was. Even the great John Elway might NOT have fit in well with the boys or niners; ya never know. So please leave out the ''ficticious'' scenerios you always bring up, it has NO relevance to anything.


And how can you say Deion was ay his best when he played for the niners??? he played for them FOR ONE YEAR?????


My comment was about free agengy; the Cowboys wore torn down more than any other team. So what does your comment about being built by the draft have to do about free agency....nothing is the correct answer

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

Joe Montana was absolutely on of the best QBS to ever play the game. No argument on that ; but so is Aikman and Elway as well. arguing the difference is the saying what is a more luxurious car: A Rolls-Royce, Bently , or a Bugatti in its day.......it is strictly PERSONAL OPINION


MANY PEOPLE still think Johnny U was best QB that ever played the game

 

[storm7400]

How is this argument still going on? Only the Cowboy fans are arguing for the them and there basis for the argument is what "people hate the Cowboys so they don't give them credit"? Jeez get over it already, the numbers don't lie. 4 Super Bowls is better then 3. Joe Montana is infinitely better then Troy Aikman, and for that matter only moronic Cowboy homers put Troy in a debate about the greatest QB ever because no self respecting sports fan would because he wasn't. Irvin is no where near Jerry Rice's level on or off the field.

Did the 'Boys have a good run in the 90's: yeah. But were they able to adapt once the league caught on: NO! The 49ers won in the beginning of the 80's and the end of the 80's, then for good measure won another one in the 90's.

And yes me and prime on the same page? God how I love sports and how they divide and yet bring people together. prime good to be on the same side for a change, and not a word about Shaq from you! 😉

 

[FlockOfSeagulls]

How is this argument still going on? Only the Cowboy fans are arguing for the them and there basis for the argument is what "people hate the Cowboys so they don't give them credit"? Jeez get over it already, the numbers don't lie. 4 Super Bowls is better then 3. Joe Montana is infinitely better then Troy Aikman, and for that matter only moronic Cowboy homers put Troy in a debate about the greatest QB ever because no self respecting sports fan would because he wasn't. Irvin is no where near Jerry Rice's level on or off the field.

Did the 'Boys have a good run in the 90's: yeah. But were they able to adapt once the league caught on: NO! The 49ers won in the beginning of the 80's and the end of the 80's, then for good measure won another one in the 90's.

And yes me and prime on the same page? God how I love sports and how they divide and yet bring people together. prime good to be on the same side for a change, and not a word about Shaq from you! 😉

I hope you at least got dinner with the amount of butt-kissing you just displayed

 

[storm7400]

Typical Flock response to anything in this thread, one dodging anything to prove that Dallas isn't the best dynasty ever. Congrats on your continuing your stay in the state of denial.

 

[bellytickling]

Being a Cowboys fan myself, I would have to say the the Cowboys of the 90's are the best, but of course that is my opinion. Could they beat the Steelers of the 70s? 49ers of the 80s? I don't know because those teams will never play each other on the field for real. You can compare each teams players and have arguments on who is better till your head blows up. But that whats makes it fun. We will never know.