Who was more talented? The 70's Cowboys or the 90's Cowboys?

[TruBlueCowboy]

My Cowboys memories start with the Danny White years so I caught Randy White, Tony Dorsett, and a few others on the tailend of their careers. But I'm always up for a game on ESPN Classic and I've caught quite a few old Cowboys games. I was watching a late 70's game against the Rams the other day and it's just amazing how many players were on that Cowboys squad that have been seriously considered for the Ring of Honor or Hall of Fame, or were on their way until off-the-field issues derailed their career. It feels like every Cowboy on that late 70's squad had Ring of Honor potential.... Roger Staubach, Tony Dorsett, Harvey Martin, Drew Pearson, Rayfield Wright, Billy Joe Dupree, Cliff Harris, Charlie Waters, Hollywood Henderson, Too Tall Jones, Randy White, Tony Hill, the list goes on..... It's amazing watching a game with some of those 70's teams and how every play involves a legend of some kind.

And it got me to thinking, I know the 90's Cowboys will get their due even more as time goes on, but it seems like the 70's team had more talent at each position. 20 years from now, I think more guys on the 70's roster will be in the Ring of Honor or Hall of Fame than will on the 90's roster.

Which team do you think had the most talent? The 70's dynasty or the 90's dynasty? And do you think the 70's team underachieved? It's hard to believe the 90's team won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, and then I look at that 70's roster and they didn't win as many. Were the Steelers just that dominant?

[DipChit]

I would have to say the 70's team had more talent for it's era. Certainly on defense if for no other reason than here 25-30 years later, older football fans even of other teams know the names of players like Randy White, Harvey Martin, Too Tall, Cliff Harris, Charlie Waters etc.

But 20 years from now those same type of fans wont remember anyone from our 90's defense except for Haley and then Deion... give or take a Leon Lett for some of his "play" for better or worse.

Part of that may be due to the fact that alot of the other defensive players didnt play here for years on end (like the Triplets did), but even at that, it's not like when they moved on they were considered premiere players.

Offensively it was about "equal"... household names in both cases. Staubach/Aikman, Dorsett/Smith, Pearson/Irvin etc.

And heck yeah the Steelers were that good. Which is why almost anyone can name 10 or 12 players off the top of their head from that team. Whereas like say with the Bills in the early 90's (which had to be pretty fair to even get to 4 SB's straight), even tho we played them twice and it was only like 12 years ago, I cant remember more than a half dozen of their guys. ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, I think it's tough to say which was more talented over all. I believe the 90's team was probably better offensively. I believe that the offensive line of the 90's team could possibly have been the best that ever played, for any team. Offense starts there so.....

Defensively, the 70's clubs were easily better, IMO. Really no question in my mind. I think the 70's teams probably had more over all talent on both sides of the ball but that 90's offensive line was the great equalizer. For a good 5 years, they dominated Pro Football. Dictated to defenses and set the standard for offenses. The 70's OL's were very good but the 90's OL could not be matched IMHO.

[Doomsday101]

I think the 90's Cowboys had the best overall talent but the team of the 70's will always be special to me. I think the NFL was at it best during that time.

[joseephuss]

The 70's Cowboys essentially comprised two dynasties. There was a huge difference in the rosters of the team that won SB VI and the one that won SBXII, only 3 guys are listed as starters in both those wins(Staubach, Pugh & Harris). The 70's dynasty did not win the big won as often as the 90's team, but they were able to maintain a high level of performance for a longer period of time. There dominance essentially started in the late 60's and extended into the early 80's.

[TruBlueCowboy]

The 70's Cowboys essentially comprised two dynasties. There was a huge difference in the rosters of the team that won SB VI and the one that won SBXII, only 3 guys are listed as starters in both those wins(Staubach, Pugh & Harris). The 70's dynasty did not win the big won as often as the 90's team, but they were able to maintain a high level of performance for a longer period of time. There dominance essentially started in the late 60's and extended into the early 80's.

I thought about adding something that maybe we should focus on the mid to late 70's players instead of the 60's guys that finished their careers in the early 70's, but I figured it would make for a more interesting debate to keep 'em in. So feel free to throw in the talent from the late 90's. Oh wait, talent in the late 90's... :lmao2: That's a good one!

[Outlaw Heroes]

To my mind, the '90s teams were the deepest and most talented in the history of football. So I guess that gives you my answer.

[ABQCOWBOY]

To my mind, the '90s teams were the deepest and most talented in the history of football. So I guess that gives you my answer.

Interesting that you would say this. How do you come to this conclusion?

[ravidubey]

70's teams were great, but the 1990's teams were so good they didn't know what to do with themselves. This was a team that never came from behind-- because they never had to.

[ABQCOWBOY]

70's teams were great, but the 1990's teams were so good they didn't know what to do with themselves. This was a team that never came from behind-- because they never had to.

I think you have to look at the quality of teams in those days as well. In my mind, the teams of the 70's were better coached and more talented, over all. In the 90's, the talent was more spread out. No FA in the 70's in the NFL.

[joseephuss]

To my mind, the '90s teams were the deepest and most talented in the history of football. So I guess that gives you my answer.

They really were not that deep on offense. At least at the skill positions. The offensive line was deep. I believe it was Gesek who stepped in at center when Step got hurt late in the 93 season.

At wide receiver, running back and tight end the team was not that deep.

It was Michael Irvin and a bunch of other guys. In SB XII, Drew Pearson and Butch Johnson were the starters. Golden Richards was the 3rd guy and Tony Hill was the #4. That is very deep and talented. If a starter was hurt, some one could step in. Irvin was very durable during the championship run and that is a good thing. If he went down, the team would have struggled to pass the ball.

Emmitt was a tough son of a gun. He didn't need a back up and pretty much did not have one. Landry liked to use lots of different backs and he had plenty of good ones to choose from and of course Dorsett was the primary one.

I think the 70's teams had and used more tight ends than the 90s. Did Alfredo Roberts ever catch a ball?

I think there was even better depth at QB for the 70s team. For the late 70s, White was a good back up to Staubach. The 90s used a rotation of back ups for Aikman. I liked Beurlein, but he was gone after SB 27. I am glad Dallas did not have to count on Kosar for a long stretch of games. Peete and Wilson were OK.

The quality depth and rotation on the 90s defense was just incredible.

[lurkercowboy]

The 90s teams had deeper defenses and the 70s teams had deeper offenses.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Interesting that you would say this. How do you come to this conclusion?

Obviously, there's a degree of subjectivity in the conclusion. Still, I look at, not only the front-line talent, but the guys that were so-called "depth" and I have a hard time escaping the conclusion.

Those teams had playmakers everywhere. Obviously the triplets (and how many teams historically could boast three marquee players like that), but also guys like Novacek and Harper playing "secondary" roles. K. Williams as a returner. Kenny Gant (and an aging Bill Bates) as special teams demons. Leon Lett coming off the bench.

Aikman hurt? No problem, we can win a few important games with Kosar or Buerlein filling in. Lose a key part of the offensive line like, say, Stepnoski or Gogan? No sweat. Donaldson or Erik Williams can replace them without skipping a beat.

At one time we were rotating eight or nine guys (most of which could start for most teams) on the DL . Guys like Haley, Tolbert, Casillas, Maryland, Lett, Hennings and Jeffcoat (who am I missing?).

Linebackers were always considered by us to be less important players in our scheme (which is why JJ never paid big bucks for them), but we still had big playmakers there like Norton Jr., Randall Godfrey and Robert Jones.

As for the secondary, how many teams have ever been able to boast two corners like Sanders and K. Smith? How many teams have had throw-away parts like Larry Brown, that could win a Superbowl MVP? Or a guy like Gant as a nickel corner? And the safeties? Guys like Woodson, Marion and Teague.

All in all, those teams were ridiculously talented. Not a single weakness. But if you think you can find another team that could match the '90s Cowboys player for player, I'm more than willing to listen.

[Ashwynn]

I dont see this as a question hard to answer, easily the 90s boys, we dominated every game from 1 to 20. There was no doubt about the outcome before the games started. The 70's cowboys were good, but they were not the best team in that decade. top 3 for sure, but by a large margin the 90s boys were the best team of their decade. SF and GB were the only challenges we had and we summarily dismissed them all with the exception being that one rain soaked day in GB, and we almost came back a 3rd or 4th time to win that game.

[joseephuss]

Obviously, there's a degree of subjectivity in the conclusion. Still, I look at, not only the front-line talent, but the guys that were so-called "depth" and I have a hard time escaping the conclusion.

Those teams had playmakers everywhere. Obviously the triplets (and how many teams historically could boast three marquee players like that), but also guys like Novacek and Harper playing "secondary" roles. K. Williams as a returner. Kenny Gant (and an aging Bill Bates) as special teams demons. Leon Lett coming off the bench.

Aikman hurt? No problem, we can win a few important games with Kosar or Buerlein filling in. Lose a key part of the offensive line like, say, Stepnoski or Gogan? No sweat. Donaldson or Erik Williams can replace them without skipping a beat.

At one time we were rotating eight or nine guys (most of which could start for most teams) on the DL . Guys like Haley, Tolbert, Casillas, Maryland, Lett, Hennings and Jeffcoat (who am I missing?).

Linebackers were always considered by us to be less important players in our scheme (which is why JJ never paid big bucks for them), but we still had big playmakers there like Norton Jr., Randall Godfrey and Robert Jones.

As for the secondary, how many teams have ever been able to boast two corners like Sanders and K. Smith? How many teams have had throw-away parts like Larry Brown, that could win a Superbowl MVP? Or a guy like Gant as a nickel corner? And the safeties? Guys like Woodson, Marion and Teague.

All in all, those teams were ridiculously talented. Not a single weakness. But if you think you can find another team that could match the '90s Cowboys player for player, I'm more than willing to listen.


Definitley a talented bunch.

Donaldson and Stepnoski were never on the team at the same time.

The guy you left out was Jimmy Jones on the defensive line. Great depth.

One of the starting safeties during the SB run was Thomas Everett(great and underappreciate pick up for the team). James Washington was the other. I think Ray Horton was still on the team as well. Teague was not on the SB teams.

Both dynasties had spectacular starting talent.

[joseephuss]

I dont see this as a question hard to answer, easily the 90s boys, we dominated every game from 1 to 20. There was no doubt about the outcome before the games started. The 70's cowboys were good, but they were not the best team in that decade. top 3 for sure, but by a large margin the 90s boys were the best team of their decade. SF and GB were the only challenges we had and we summarily dismissed them all with the exception being that one rain soaked day in GB, and we almost came back a 3rd or 4th time to win that game.

You mean SF don't you.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Definitley a talented bunch.

Donaldson and Stepnoski were never on the team at the same time.

The guy you left out was Jimmy Jones on the defensive line. Great depth.

One of the starting safeties during the SB run was Thomas Everett(great and underappreciate pick up for the team). James Washington was the other. I think Ray Horton was still on the team as well. Teague was not on the SB teams.

Both dynasties had spectacular starting talent.

Thanks for filling in the gaps. On Donalson and Stepnoski, my point wasn't that one was backing up the other. Only that, even when we lost a key player, we always seemed to find an impact starter to replace him (I don't think Gogan and Williams were on the team at the same time either, though I'm not positive. Gogan was lost to the Raiders only to be ably replaced by the best RT in the game, Erik W).

[DipChit]

I dont see this as a question hard to answer, easily the 90s boys, we dominated every game from 1 to 20. There was no doubt about the outcome before the games started. The 70's cowboys were good, but they were not the best team in that decade. top 3 for sure, but by a large margin the 90s boys were the best team of their decade. SF and GB were the only challenges we had and we summarily dismissed them all with the exception being that one rain soaked day in GB, and we almost came back a 3rd or 4th time to win that game.

As far as the team as a whole being completely dominant throughout that era (so much so that everyone and their gramma knew for 3 or 4 years there that it was gonna be us or the Niners when the season started that were going to be the eventual champion), why do you suppose it is that we never managed to win more than 7 regular season games in a row? Hell even the "mighty" Chargers of last year won 8 in a row at one point.

How come we never even came remotely close to ever going undefeated.. never starting off any better than 4-0 in that era? Or how come that year when Emmitt missed the first two games you had guys like Haley throwing tantrums because we were 0-2 and it seemed like if we didnt get Emmitt back we wouldnt be capable of winning a game the rest of the season? How could such a totally dominant team be so "reliant" on one guy?

Were all those things just "flukes" or "blips" of a team that was otherwise almost unbeatable?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Obviously, there's a degree of subjectivity in the conclusion. Still, I look at, not only the front-line talent, but the guys that were so-called "depth" and I have a hard time escaping the conclusion.

Those teams had playmakers everywhere. Obviously the triplets (and how many teams historically could boast three marquee players like that), but also guys like Novacek and Harper playing "secondary" roles. K. Williams as a returner. Kenny Gant (and an aging Bill Bates) as special teams demons. Leon Lett coming off the bench.

Aikman hurt? No problem, we can win a few important games with Kosar or Buerlein filling in. Lose a key part of the offensive line like, say, Stepnoski or Gogan? No sweat. Donaldson or Erik Williams can replace them without skipping a beat.

At one time we were rotating eight or nine guys (most of which could start for most teams) on the DL . Guys like Haley, Tolbert, Casillas, Maryland, Lett, Hennings and Jeffcoat (who am I missing?).

Linebackers were always considered by us to be less important players in our scheme (which is why JJ never paid big bucks for them), but we still had big playmakers there like Norton Jr., Randall Godfrey and Robert Jones.

As for the secondary, how many teams have ever been able to boast two corners like Sanders and K. Smith? How many teams have had throw-away parts like Larry Brown, that could win a Superbowl MVP? Or a guy like Gant as a nickel corner? And the safeties? Guys like Woodson, Marion and Teague.

All in all, those teams were ridiculously talented. Not a single weakness. But if you think you can find another team that could match the '90s Cowboys player for player, I'm more than willing to listen.

I can think of a few teams like that in the era of the 70s. The Cowboys of that era were, IMO, deeper then the teams of the 90s.

If you look at that team of the 70's, position by position, I think you would be surprised.

QB Stauback, Morton, White Advantage 70s
RB Dorsett Newhouse Prearson, Hill, Garrison, Reeves Advantage 70s
WR Pearson, Hill, Johnson, Richards, Hayes, Alworth Advantage 70s
TE DuPree, Saldi, Ditka, Smith Advantage 70s
OL Fitzgerald, Nye, Scott, Donavan, Neeley, Wright, Niland Toss up IMO.

DL Lilly,Martin, Jones, Toomey, Cole, Pugh, Stalls, White, Bethea, Dutton, Andrie Advantage 70s
LBs Howely, Jordan, Lewis, Breuing, Hegman, Hollywood, Advantage 70s
DBs Barnes, Harris, Hughes, Renfro, Washington, Waters, Kyle, Thurman, Green, Adderley, Advantage 70s

I even think the coaching staff was better in the 70s.

[Outlaw Heroes]

I can think of a few teams like that in the era of the 70s. The Cowboys of that era were, IMO, deeper then the teams of the 90s.

If you look at that team of the 70's, position by position, I think you would be surprised.

QB Stauback, Morton, White Advantage 70s
RB Dorsett Newhouse Prearson, Hill, Garrison, Reeves Advantage 70s
WR Pearson, Hill, Johnson, Richards, Hayes, Alworth Advantage 70s
TE DuPree, Saldi, Ditka, Smith Advantage 70s
OL Fitzgerald, Nye, Scott, Donavan, Neeley, Wright, Niland Toss up IMO.

DL Lilly,Martin, Jones, Toomey, Cole, Pugh, Stalls, White, Bethea, Dutton, Andrie Advantage 70s
LBs Howely, Jordan, Lewis, Breuing, Hegman, Hollywood, Advantage 70s
DBs Barnes, Harris, Hughes, Renfro, Washington, Waters, Kyle, Thurman, Green, Adderley, Advantage 70s

I even think the coaching staff was better in the 70s.

The 70s team was great. No doubt. I'd even go so far as to agree with Joseepheus that, on the whole, it had the better talent and depth on offense (though I disagree with you that the offensive line had an advantage over the 90s team).

In terms of the defense, I think you're way off base. But ultimately, this debate boils down to a matter of perception, so whatever.

My last remaining quibble with you, however, is that by your logic, the 90s Cowboys would have been only the 3rd or 4th best team of the 70s, since I think we'd have to agree (objectively speaking) that the 70s Cowboys were only the 2nd best team of the 70s (possibly the 3rd best team, depending on one's view of the Raiders). I just find that too difficult to believe, and it's not for want of love of that 70s team. Any chance that you had your own hay-day in the 70s and that this colors your perception of all things from that era?

[ABQCOWBOY]

The 70s team was great. No doubt. I'd even go so far as to agree with Joseepheus that, on the whole, it had the better talent and depth on offense (though I disagree with you that the offensive line had an advantage over the 90s team).

In terms of the defense, I think you're way off base. But ultimately, this debate boils down to a matter of perception, so whatever.

My last remaining quibble with you, however, is that by your logic, the 90s Cowboys would have been only the 3rd or 4th best team of the 70s, since I think we'd have to agree (objectively speaking) that the 70s Cowboys were only the 2nd best team of the 70s (possibly the 3rd best team, depending on one's view of the Raiders). I just find that too difficult to believe, and it's not for want of love of that 70s team. Any chance that you had your own hay-day in the 70s and that this colors your perception of all things from that era?


I think you may be missing my point here. The question, so far as I'm concerned, is not which team was better. I think the 90's team was better, because of there Offensive Line. The question, to me, is which team had more talent? My logic would not dictate that the 90s team would be 3rd or 4th best at all. I am sorry if that is the impression I gave you.

Defensively, the teams of the 70s were much deeper. In my mind, all you have to do is look at who played. You can pick out several HOF players and pernial Pro Bowlers on that defensive squade of the 70s. In the 90s, you didn't have that. You may disagree but you would have to show me the side by side comparison and explain to me how they rate better then the clubs of the 70s.

Your question of "hay-day", as it were, is fair if somewhat short sided. No, was young in the 70s and a mature adult in the 90s. My "hay day" was in the 80s, if I had to put a date on it.

Any chance you were too young to really see and appriciate the teams of the 70s?

[Outlaw Heroes]

Any chance you were too young to really see and appriciate the teams of the 70s?

Possibly. I was just a pup (didn't turn 10 until 1981), and had just begun following football when I was 5 or 6. But since Dorsett and Staubach were my first true heroes, it's not that I didn't love the team. Still, it's possible that a more mature view would have lent itself to a greater appreciation of that team's overall talent and place in football history.

[fortdick]

This is like asking who is better?

Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

[Outlaw Heroes]

This is like asking who is better?

Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

I can: give me Jolie everyday and twice on Sundays (for a marathon session each time, no less). :)

[TruBlueCowboy]

This is like asking who us better?

Jessic Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

:lmao2:

I can. Angelina Jolie by a mile! :D

I'm shocked the 90's Cowboys are winning by such a large margin. There must be some heavy sentimental votes with their Ring of Honor induction coming soon. The 90's Cowboys had more rings, but there are a lot of players on that 70's team I'd rather have starting when compared to the 90's players.

[burmafrd]

1971 Team vs 1977 Team. Pick one of those first.
To me, it is real close. 71 Team had the same QB, but had 3 RB's that were very good in Thomas, Garrison and Hill. 77 Had Dorsett and Newhouse. Thomas that season was as good as any RB in the league, and Hill was not far behind. Garrison was a fine FB.
So for backfield it is 71. But it is close due to the fact that Roger had a lot more experience. WR: Alworth and Hayes- no contest- 2 HOF's (should be). Pearson and Richards for the 77 team just were not that good. TE- Ditka a HOF vs dupree who was very good. So TE and WR its 71. O line. Still had Wright, but the rest were new. I give the edge a little to the 71 team. So overall it is the 71 squad as O goes.
On D: Lilly, Andrie ( who was very underrated), Pugh, and Cole. Edge to 77 team as Manster equals Lilly, and Martin was a little better then Andrie. Cole vs Too Tall- Edge to Too Tall. LB- Lee Roy Jordan, DD Lewis, Howley- edge to 71. Secondary. Waters and Harris same- but you also had Renfro and Green. So slight edge to 71.
Except for the D line, the 71 team was better.
On D, the 71 team totally outclasses the 92 team. Only Haley and Lett are even close on the D line, and the edge there is big. LB the edge is even bigger. Secondary- Same. ALl down the line you really cannot say other wise. Not to mention that there were many fewer teams in 1971 so the talent was nowhere near as spread out as they were during even the 90's. The 71 team was clearly the best team in football - and I think it would have kicked the Steelers butts just like it did Miami's in the SB.
Remember, one dropped TD catch would have had us right even with the Steelers. And the 75 game was just as close. For my money, the 71 Dallas Cowboys was the finest team from 1971 to today. The only teams I think match up was the 1962 GB Packers and the 1940 Chicago Bears.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Possibly. I was just a pup (didn't turn 10 until 1981), and had just begun following football when I was 5 or 6. But since Dorsett and Staubach were my first true heroes, it's not that I didn't love the team. Still, it's possible that a more mature view would have lent itself to a greater appreciation of that team's overall talent and place in football history.


I would take the early 90s teams over any team, in any era. I think there offense was that dominating. The defense, on the other hand, was not built to stay in the game. If the Cowboys had to rely on there defense to win, like the Giants for example, I think they would have worn down. The 90s teams also have the disadvantage, IMO,of really only having 5 years to work with. The teams of the 70s had good players for 10 years. FA changed that for the 90s Cowboys. Essentially, you've got a situation where fewer teams were available so the talent pool was less deluted. You had the opportunity to draft players and develope them for longer periods of time. You had not salary cap so you were not forced to give players away due to contracts. Players didn't have the option to move from team to team, per say, so players stayed in schemes longer and actually learned and understood the game better. Lastly, you didn't have to study as many opposing teams or players. Because there were fewer teams and players, it gave players of the 70s era a better opportunity to learn opposition/player tendancies. Lots of reasons why I believe the teams of the 70s, overall, were of better quality, if you will. This is not to be confused with who was the best team. As I said earlier, in my mind, the Cowboys team of the early 90s was the best of all time. That is only my opinion, of course. The best but not deeper or better over all IMO.

[Outlaw Heroes]

:lmao2:

I can. Angelina Jolie by a mile! :D

What's that they say about great minds? (Let's just ignore the competing and contrary saying to the effect that fools seldom differ)

I'm shocked the 90's Cowboys are winning by such a large margin. There must be some heavy sentimental votes with their Ring of Honor induction coming soon. The 90's Cowboys had more rings, but there are a lot of players on that 70's team I'd rather have starting when compared to the 90's players.

As ABQ Cowboy suggests, there may be an age bias involved (and I may not be spared from its effects myself). A lot of people on this board may have been too young (if even alive) to remember or fully appreciate the 70s team.

[TruBlueCowboy]

1971 Team vs 1977 Team. Pick one of those first.
To me, it is real close. 71 Team had the same QB, but had 3 RB's that were very good in Thomas, Garrison and Hill. 77 Had Dorsett and Newhouse. Thomas that season was as good as any RB in the league, and Hill was not far behind. Garrison was a fine FB.
So for backfield it is 71. But it is close due to the fact that Roger had a lot more experience. WR: Alworth and Hayes- no contest- 2 HOF's (should be). Pearson and Richards for the 77 team just were not that good. TE- Ditka a HOF vs dupree who was very good. So TE and WR its 71. O line. Still had Wright, but the rest were new. I give the edge a little to the 71 team. So overall it is the 71 squad as O goes.
On D: Lilly, Andrie ( who was very underrated), Pugh, and Cole. Edge to 77 team as Manster equals Lilly, and Martin was a little better then Andrie. Cole vs Too Tall- Edge to Too Tall. LB- Lee Roy Jordan, DD Lewis, Howley- edge to 71. Secondary. Waters and Harris same- but you also had Renfro and Green. So slight edge to 71.
Except for the D line, the 71 team was better.
On D, the 71 team totally outclasses the 92 team. Only Haley and Lett are even close on the D line, and the edge there is big. LB the edge is even bigger. Secondary- Same. ALl down the line you really cannot say other wise. Not to mention that there were many fewer teams in 1971 so the talent was nowhere near as spread out as they were during even the 90's. The 71 team was clearly the best team in football - and I think it would have kicked the Steelers butts just like it did Miami's in the SB.
Remember, one dropped TD catch would have had us right even with the Steelers. And the 75 game was just as close. For my money, the 71 Dallas Cowboys was the finest team from 1971 to today. The only teams I think match up was the 1962 GB Packers and the 1940 Chicago Bears.

Good stuff. :cool:

[TruBlueCowboy]

What's that they say about great minds? (Let's just ignore the competing and contrary saying to the effect that fools seldom differ)



As ABQ Cowboy suggests, there may be an age bias involved (and I may not be spared from its effects myself). A lot of people on this board may have been too young (if even alive) to remember or fully appreciate the 70s team.


Well, I'm too young to fully appreciate the 70's team but from what I've watched, read, and heard, I can tell you that Aikman's butt would be on the bench in favor of Staubach, Harvey Martin and Randy White would show our linemen how a real man rushes the QB, Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters would tell Woody to wait until Roy comes to town, and everyone would just have to sit in awe of Hollywood Henderson's abilities. Michael Irvin and that 90's offensive line are the only things I'm keeping, so yes, even Emmitt might be benched in favor of Dorsett. :eek:

[joseephuss]

Thanks for filling in the gaps. On Donalson and Stepnoski, my point wasn't that one was backing up the other. Only that, even when we lost a key player, we always seemed to find an impact starter to replace him (I don't think Gogan and Williams were on the team at the same time either, though I'm not positive. Gogan was lost to the Raiders only to be ably replaced by the best RT in the game, Erik W).

Gogan and Gesek played right guard with Big E at right tackle.

[tyke1doe]

Easy. The 70s team was more talented.

[DallasKnight]

Compared to the other teams in the league at the time, both the 70's and 90's teams were head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent. The Steelers were a close second, and schemed us better in the SB's we lost to them.

Overall, I don't think you can beat the talent and depth of the 90's team.

The 70's team was so full of probable HOF, and ROH candidates is because they stayed with the team longer. Most of those guys spent their whole careers with the Cowboys. Whereas, once free-agency hit and the salary cap hit the league, we got rid of a lot of players we would have kept had we still been in the 70's.

[burmafrd]

How many of the players that left us after 95 really accomplished much?
There really is no comparison- 71 team all the way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Compared to the other teams in the league at the time, both the 70's and 90's teams were head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent. The Steelers were a close second, and schemed us better in the SB's we lost to them.

Overall, I don't think you can beat the talent and depth of the 90's team.

The 70's team was so full of probable HOF, and ROH candidates is because they stayed with the team longer. Most of those guys spent their whole careers with the Cowboys. Whereas, once free-agency hit and the salary cap hit the league, we got rid of a lot of players we would have kept had we still been in the 70's.

Roger retired and we still went on to play in several more NFC championship games.

Same can be said about Lilly, Cole, Dutton, Neeley, Niles, Green, Ditka, Jordan, the list goes on and on and we were able to compete and win for years to come.

Novacek went away and we stopped winning.

[Cbz40]

My favorite Cowboy teams were the teams from 66-71......

Can never forget the 77 team.

The best talented Cowboy Teams:There is no doubt in my mind the teams with the best talent from top to bottom were the 90's teams. 1991-95
Those teams were solid in every position there wasn't a weak link anywhere. The 91-92 teams may be the best ever assembled.

[DipChit]

Novacek went away and we stopped winning.

Not to mention that for all this supposed depth we had, it sure wasnt at certain skill positions on offense.

Even from 92-96 if Irvin or Emmitt didnt play, the offense seemed to look about as clueless as a 3 year old wandering around a grocery store lookin for it's momma.

Thankfully though those guys didnt miss an awful lot time.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not to mention that for all this supposed depth we had, it sure wasnt at certain skill positions on offense.

Even from 92-96 if Irvin or Emmitt didnt play, the offense seemed to look about as clueless as a 3 year old wandering around a grocery store lookin for it's momma.

Thankfully though those guys didnt miss an awful lot time.

I do agree with this. I believe the starters were exceptional but the depth was questionable on offense. Defensively, I believe the sum was much better then the parts but without our offense contolling the clock, scoring points and keeping them off the field, they would have worn down.