From best to worse (seasons)

[Manster68]

After much contemplating, I finally decided on this list for the best to worst season the Dallas Cowboys have endured since their inception in 1960.

You will notice that these seasons are NOT in order of records. They are placed in order to what I believe to be the best team. You will notice how I have the 1978 Cowboys, who lost to Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XIII, ahead of the 1995 Cowboys who won Super Bowl XXX. In fact, I was considering placing the 1994 Cowboys ahead of the 1995 Cowboys.

It really got tough after the first dozen or so. The early 60s Cowboys is pretty much of a guess. I just remember how the other teams below them were absolutely wretched.

So, here it is. My list of the Cowboys seasons from best to worst:

1. 1992
2. 1993
3. 1977
4. 1971
5. 1978
6. 1995
7. 1994
8. 1970
9. 1981
10. 1968
11. 1975
12. 1980
13. 1972
14. 1982
15. 1969
16. 1996
17. 1983
18. 1973
19. 1979
20. 1991
21. 1967
22. 1966
23. 1976
24. 1974
25. 1985
26. 1984
27. 1998
28. 2003
29. 1965
30. 1999
31. 1997
32. 1986
33. 1987
34. 2004
35. 1990
36. 1964
37. 1962
38. 1963
39. 2002
40. 2000
41. 1988
42. 2001
43. 1961
44. 1989
45. 1960


Thoughts?

[Chief]

After much contemplating, I finally decided on this list for the best to worst season the Dallas Cowboys have endured since their inception in 1960.

You will notice that these seasons are NOT in order of records. They are placed in order to what I believe to be the best team. You will notice how I have the 1978 Cowboys, who lost to Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XIII, ahead of the 1995 Cowboys who won Super Bowl XXX. In fact, I was considering placing the 1994 Cowboys ahead of the 1995 Cowboys.

It really got tough after the first dozen or so. The early 60s Cowboys is pretty much of a guess. I just remember how the other teams below them were absolutely wretched.

So, here it is. My list of the Cowboys seasons from best to worst:

1. 1992
2. 1993
3. 1977
4. 1971
5. 1978
6. 1995
7. 1994
8. 1970
9. 1981
10. 1968
11. 1975
12. 1980
13. 1972
14. 1982
15. 1969
16. 1996
17. 1983
18. 1973
19. 1979
20. 1991
21. 1967
22. 1966
23. 1976
24. 1974
25. 1985
26. 1984
27. 1998
28. 2003
29. 1965
30. 1999
31. 1997
32. 1986
33. 1987
34. 2004
35. 1990
36. 1964
37. 1962
38. 1963
39. 2002
40. 2000
41. 1988
42. 2001
43. 1961
44. 1989
45. 1960


Thoughts?

It's hard to argue with those rankings.

Good job.

[Hostile]

Great post. I would switch 1 and 2 but it's hard to argue with the rest. 2004 was by far the most disappointing for me. High expectations after a great 2003 and a slew of players I could not identify with.

[Roughneck]

Great post. I would switch 1 and 2 but it's hard to argue with the rest. 2004 was by far the most disappointing for me. High expectations after a great 2003 and a slew of players I could not identify with.......and a slew of players that I just plain couldn't indentify.

Injuries + Already Poor Depth = The downfall of the 2004 Dallas Cowboys

That is one of the reasons why I have enjoyed this offseason to such a great degree. You can sit back and actually see the effort by Parcells & Company to add quality depth and the success they've had in doing so.

Oh, and damn fine work Manster. Almost matches my list to a T.

[Hostile]

......and a slew of players that I just plain couldn't indentify.

Injuries + Already Poor Depth = The downfall of the 2004 Dallas Cowboys

That is one of the reasons why I have enjoyed this offseason to such a great degree. You can sit back and actually see the effort by Parcells & Company to add quality depth and the success they've had in doing so.

Oh, and damn fine work Manster. Almost matches my list to a T.This off season is too danged long. Too much excitement. I'm chomping at the bit and getting more abrasive by the day.

[Roughneck]

This off season is too danged long. Too much excitement. I'm chomping at the bit and getting more abrasive by the day.Oh come on Hos, only 48 more days until Training Camp.

:(

I'm going drinking.

[Manster68]

You know, 1992 and 1993 is always a good debate. I think what seperated the two was the fact that Dallas did have more key injuries in 1993 (plus Emmitt's holdout).

I can also understand choosing 1993 as well. Hey, the four games Dallas lost in 1993, Emmitt either not played at all, played only one series of downs in Atlanta, or was used sparingly on the ice-covered turf at Texas Stadium on Thanksgiving.

Had Emmitt not held out, and was injury free, in 1993, Dallas could have been undefeated. Dallas never lost a game when Emmitt played the whole game.

[Manster68]

Did you notice I had the 1975 team, that lost to Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, down all the way to #11? Even below 1968.