Most dominant NFL franchise ever?

[Haley94]

I was arguing with a friend who is die-hard Giants fan. He has been voicing his opinion, in his arrogant New Jersey way, that the Giants dominated the Cowboys the last two seasons, and in his skewed opinion, are the better franchise. He wants me to honor the fact that they are division champs. I countered by saying that only matters in the playoffs (the Giants were roasted 0-23) and that this is a new year and reminded him of the head to head record of 51-35-2 and 5 Superbowl wins to their 2 and 8 conference championships to their 3. That got me thinking, with all the list that seem to be the sports writing norm these days, how could you argue against the Cowboys being the most dominant NFL franchise in the Superbowl era? I don't think one can do it in a logical way. I knowing I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, but if anyone can point out a counter argument one might use I would appreciate it. To further extend the argument I would have to say that The Cowboys are the most dominate franchise in the history of the NFL because I do believe that about any team in the NFL today would beat any championship team in say the 1950"s. Of course, that up for debate.

[Bizwah]

I was arguing with a friend who is die-hard Giants fan. He has been voicing his opinion, in his arrogant New Jersey way, that the Giants dominated the Cowboys the last two seasons, and in his skewed opinion, are the better franchise. He wants me to honor the fact that they are division champs. I countered by saying that only matters in the playoffs (which the Giants were roasted 0-23) and that this is a new year and reminded him of the head to head record of 51-35-2 and 5 Superbowl wins to their 2 and 8 conference championships to their 3. That got me thinking, with all the list that seem to be the sports writing norm these days, how could you argue against the Cowboys being most dominate NFL franchise in the Superbowl era? I don't think one can do it in a logical way. I knowing I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, but if anyone can point out a counter argument one might use I would appreciate it. To further extend the argument I would have to say that The Cowboys are the most dominate franchise in the history of the NFL because I do believe that about any team in the NFL today would beat any championship team in say the 1950"s. Of coarse, that up for debate.

You'll get no arguement from me......

How can he possibly say that the Giants dominated us last year?

I just rewatched the first game yesterday. I remember the Giants fans, players, and the media saying that they "gave one away" to Dallas.

This is just a flat-out stupid statement.

We totally dominated that game. The Giants didn't have over 100 yards total offense until the fourth quarter. They were 0 for 10 in third downs until late in the fourth quarter. Sure they had four TOs, but so did we....If it weren't for TOs, we'd have destroyed the Giants. We would drive 60 yards on the Giants only to have penalties and TOs kill our drives. While the Giants couldn't even cross midfield unless we turned the ball over.

[RiggoForever]

1985 Chicago Bears finished number 1 in both offense and defense, and had 2 playoff shut outs on the way to the Super Bowl.

Until someone duplicates that feat, they are the most dominant team ever in my eyes.

[The30YardSlant]

The 1992 Cowboys would crush the '85 Bears, and just about every other team that ever was

[Haley94]

1985 Chicago Bears finished number 1 in both offense and defense, and had 2 playoff shut outs on the way to the Super Bowl.

Until someone duplicates that feat, they are the most dominant team ever in my eyes.

I'm talking about the franchise not individual teams. I'm talking about the magic of the star.

[genghiskhan]

1985 Chicago Bears finished number 1 in both offense and defense, and had 2 playoff shut outs on the way to the Super Bowl.

Until someone duplicates that feat, they are the most dominant team ever in my eyes.

The discussion was about the most dominant franchise over the 40 year super bowl era as a whole, not any one single season.

[Hostile]

I don't know that there has been a dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant) team in the Super Bowl era, but the NFCE has had a chance to dominate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominate).

There have been 40 Super Bowls. The Cowboys have played in 8. The Redskins have played in 5. The Giants have played in 3. The Eagles have played in 2. That's 18 of the 40 Super Bowls. Almost half of the entire NFC representation.

Wins is just as impressive. The Cowboys have 5. The Redskins have 3. The Giants have 2. The Eagles have...

:trophy:

Sorry, that never bores me.

That's 10 of the wins for 255 of the total wins for the whole NFL.

Dallas has played in the most. The 49ers have never lost. Pittsburgh had 4 in 6 years. Those are the only team in the discussion for dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant), but I don't think there is an obvious choice.

[genghiskhan]

I'm talking about the franchise not individual teams. I'm talking about the magic of the star.

Talking about the magic of the Star to a redskins fan is like talking about quantum physics to a 3 year old.

[RiggoForever]

The 1992 Cowboys would crush the '85 Bears, and just about every other team that ever was

I don't know about that one. I wouldn't even say the 1991 Redskins (who allowed 9 sacks that entire season and had the best offensive line ever), were more dominating then the 85 Bears.

It would be unfair to match the 1992 Boys or 1991 Skins against those Bears though, because the "46 defense" was no longer a novelty.

I don't think a team has dominated more within one season, then the 1985 Bears did.

[RiggoForever]

I'm talking about the franchise not individual teams. I'm talking about the magic of the star.

Damn, then in that case... Cowboys, Steelers, and 49ers.

[ghst187]

1985 Chicago Bears finished number 1 in both offense and defense, and had 2 playoff shut outs on the way to the Super Bowl.

Until someone duplicates that feat, they are the most dominant team ever in my eyes.

any 90's Cowboy SB team + the '94 team would destroy the '85 Bears.
just for the record...
Honestly, I don't think the '85 Bears could beat the two Denver SB-winning teams, they were too good on defense and too balanced overall.

As for single season domination....can it get more dominating than going 16-0? Miami has that record and its going to stand for a while longer

As for franchises in general in the SB era...
I think you can only talk about 3 franchises:
Dallas
Pitt
San Fran

San Fran is probably a clear 3rd because they have been garbage except for two decades, the 80s and 90s.
I think Dallas and Pitt would have a pretty close race overall.
No other teams have enough SB wins or appearances or division titles or playoff appearances to really compete with those 3 teams.

[theogt]

Two obvious answers:

All time - Greenbay

SB era - Dallas

[Seven]

I don't know that there has been a dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant) team in the Super Bowl era, but the NFCE has had a chance to dominate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominate).

There have been 40 Super Bowls. The Cowboys have played in 8. The Redskins have played in 5. The Giants have played in 3. The Eagles have played in 2. That's 18 of the 40 Super Bowls. Almost half of the entire NFC representation.

Wins is just as impressive. The Cowboys have 5. The Redskins have 3. The Giants have 2. The Eagles have...

:trophy:

Sorry, that never bores me.

That's 10 of the wins for 255 of the total wins for the whole NFL.

Dallas has played in the most. The 49ers have never lost. Pittsburgh had 4 in 6 years. Those are the only team in the discussion for dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant), but I don't think there is an obvious choice.

CA-LASSIC!!!!!!! That was pure Mozart.

There are 10,000 useless facts to bring to the table for most dominant team/franchise, as well as for the worst. Depends on what kind of mood you're in while debating or how much alcohol you've consumed.
Who knows.:)

[AdamJT13]

1985 Chicago Bears finished number 1 in both offense and defense

The 1985 Bears' offense finished No. 6.

[Haley94]

Yes but the tiebreaker in my opinion is Superbowl appearances.

Cowboys-8
Pittsburgh-6
San Fran-5

[genghiskhan]

Wins is just as impressive. The Cowboys have 5. The Redskins have 3. The Giants have 2. The Eagles have...

:trophy:

Sorry, that never bores me.


:lol:

Dallas has played in the most. The 49ers have never lost. Pittsburgh had 4 in 6 years. Those are the only team in the discussion for dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant), but I don't think there is an obvious choice.

I think there is an obvious choice, and it's Dallas. The Cowboys are tied with those other 2 with the most Super Bowl wins, but they are 2 ahead of Pittsburgh in appearances and 3 ahead of San Fran in appearances.

Winning 3 out of 4 negates Pittsburgh winning 4 of 6. SF never having lost one isn't as impressive to me as appearing 8, because it means that we've had 3 seasons that were more successful than any non super bowl season of SF.

Then, if my memory serves me correctly (I don't feel like looking it up but I believe I'm correct), we beat both franchises in playoff appearances, Championship game appearances, winning percentage and winning seasons.

I believe we tie or trump both of those franchises in every meaningful category.

[RiggoForever]

any 90's Cowboy SB team + the '94 team would destroy the '85 Bears.
just for the record...
Honestly, I don't think the '85 Bears could beat the two Denver SB-winning teams, they were too good on defense and too balanced overall.

As for single season domination....can it get more dominating than going 16-0? Miami has that record and its going to stand for a while longer

As for franchises in general in the SB era...
I think you can only talk about 3 franchises:
Dallas
Pitt
San Fran

San Fran is probably a clear 3rd because they have been garbage except for two decades, the 80s and 90s.
I think Dallas and Pitt would have a pretty close race overall.
No other teams have enough SB wins or appearances or division titles or playoff appearances to really compete with those 3 teams.

I didn't put Miami there because they had a number of close calls against lesser-caliber teams.

The Cowboys in the 1990s were great, but they weren't clearly dominant. From 1992-1995 you had to share the spotlight with the 49ers and it was never clear cut who would be making the Super Bowl.

The 1985 Bears were blowing out playoff teams both in the regular season and in the playoffs. They beat the Redskins, Giants, and Dallas that year by a combined margin of 110-10. And neither of those 3 teams were slouches.

[RiggoForever]

The 1985 Bears' offense finished No. 6.

I stand corrected, I thought it was 1st.

But in scoring offense, they were 2nd.

[Hostile]

Yes but the tiebreaker in my opinion is Superbowl appearances.

Cowboys-8
Pittsburgh-6
San Fran-55 wins in 5 appearances is 100%.

5 wins in 6 appearances is 82.5%

5 wins in 8 appearances is 62.5%.

There are always arguments against.

[genghiskhan]

CA-LASSIC!!!!!!! That was pure Mozart.

There are 10,000 useless facts to bring to the table for most dominant team/franchise, as well as for the worst. Depends on what kind of mood you're in while debating or how much alcohol you've consumed.
Who knows.:)

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

[Hostile]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.Genghis, I always like it when you are posting. Don't forget they were also the Chicago Cardinals and you are right. The epitome in all sports for futility.

[big dog cowboy]

Most dominant NFL franchise ever?
Cowboys.

End of discussion.

[Seven]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.


And that's a fact........ Jack. http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ghst187]

I didn't put Miami there because they had a number of close calls against lesser-caliber teams.

The Cowboys in the 1990s were great, but they weren't clearly dominant. From 1992-1995 you had to share the spotlight with the 49ers and it was never clear cut who would be making the Super Bowl.

The 1985 Bears were blowing out playoff teams both in the regular season and in the playoffs. They beat the Redskins, Giants, and Dallas that year by a combined margin of 110-10. And neither of those 3 teams were slouches.

Yeah but Miami won all of them....that ain't easy. Chicago lost that season. I'm arguing quantitative you're arguing qualitative....
16-0 is pretty darn dominant no matter how you slice it. I can see your argument for Chicago but really hard to put someone over a team that was 16-0.

I wasn't arguing that the 90's Dallas teams were as dominant as the '85 Bears....but I still think they would've beaten the '85 Bears.
The Fridge would've been a fat, slow lightweight against our 90's OLs and DLs.

[genghiskhan]

5 wins in 5 appearances is 100%.

5 wins in 6 appearances is 82.5%

5 wins in 8 appearances is 62.5%.

There are always arguments against.

Then there is always the counter argument for:

8 appearances in 40 years is 20%.

6 appearances in 40 years is 14.1%. (I think that's correct off the top of my head)

5 appearances in 40 years is 12.5%.

:)

If you are going simply by successful seasons (not successful appearances, which I think is an entirely different argument), then basically every SB appearance is a 1 and every non-appearance is a zero. The missed Super Bowls have to be accounted for. And we have less zeroes than anybody.

[Haley94]

5 wins in 5 appearances is 100%.

5 wins in 6 appearances is 82.5%

5 wins in 8 appearances is 62.5%.

There are always arguments against.

I'm not talking about winning percentages in the super-bowl. A person could easily weight the numbers for win and appearances dramatically higher to make the case. I get your point, Pub arguments always seem to end in a cat's game. I still thinks it's fun, and any ammo i can get here will be used to dominate:) my Giant fan friend.

[Haley94]

Then there is always the counter argument for:

8 appearances in 40 years is 20%.

6 appearances in 40 years is 14.1%. (I think that's correct off the top of my head)

5 appearances in 40 years is 12.5%.

:)

If you are going simply by successful seasons (not successful appearances, which I think is an entirely different argument), then basically every SB appearance is a 1 and every non-appearance is a zero. The missed Super Bowls have to be accounted for. And we have less zeroes than anybody.

Thanks. good post. logic seems sound

[MONT17]

Marino showed what u could do to the 85 bears if u had a quick release and some WRs willing to cross the middle!!!


the 92 Cowboys never had a chance to mature as a group... free agency killed what could have been the greatest team ever to play!


but getting back to the 85 bears they played some sorry teams all year and parlayed that to Homefield advantage... Troy Aikman would have lit the 85 Bears up using Jay and Harper... Irvin would have owned the middle and Emmitt would have put the game on Ice!

[The30YardSlant]

I don't know about that one. I wouldn't even say the 1991 Redskins (who allowed 9 sacks that entire season and had the best offensive line ever), were more dominating then the 85 Bears.

It would be unfair to match the 1992 Boys or 1991 Skins against those Bears though, because the "46 defense" was no longer a novelty.

I don't think a team has dominated more within one season, then the 1985 Bears did.

:lmao2:

Cute, but no. Again, that honor falls to the 90s Cowboys (specifically, the 1993-1994 team).

[jackrussell]

any 90's Cowboy SB team + the '94 team would destroy the '85 Bears.

Great games, but destroy would not apply.

just for the record...
Honestly, I don't think the '85 Bears could beat the two Denver SB-winning teams, they were too good on defense and too balanced overall.

Now here is where destroy would come into play, as in the Broncos would have been destroyed by those Bears.

[RiggoForever]

:lmao2:

Cute, but no. Again, that honor falls to the 90s Cowboys (specifically, the 1993-1994 team).

Did you allow single digit sacks that year? Perhaps you were a better run-blocking line but in pass protecting the 1991 Skins line was the best. I mean hell, Mark Rypien made the Pro Bowl!

[The30YardSlant]

The 1992 Cowboys were the best team in the SB era. They dominated in maybe the most talent-rich era in the history of the sport. Think of all the great teams: SF, Dallas, Buffalo, Washington, etc. all of whom would completely dominate in todays NFL. I'd even go as far as to say that the early-mid 90s Eagles teams with Cunningham and Reggie White would have won the SB, fairly easily, in today's NFL. The salary cap completely destroyed the GREAT team aspect of football. The 2001 Patriots would have been lucky to even make the playoffs in the early 90s.

[The30YardSlant]

Did you allow single digit sacks that year? Perhaps you were a better run-blocking line but in pass protecting the 1991 Skins line was the best. I mean hell, Mark Rypien made the Pro Bowl!

Dallas had the biggest O-Line ever. During the 90s, Dallas had Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Erik Williams (who was on his way to becoming maybe the greatest tackle EVER before his career was cut short), Mark Tuinie, Mark Stepnoski, Kevin Gogan, etc. That is ungodly amount of lineman talent in about a 4 year span. Emmitt Smith could have run for 1200 yards and 15 TDs on one leg behind that line. Hell, TROY HAMBRICK could have run for 1200 yards and 15 TDs behind that line.

As for pass blocking, we gave up something like 15 sacks one of those years, so they were no sloutches.

[RiggoForever]

The 1992 Cowboys were the best team in the SB era. They dominated in maybe the most talent-rich era in the history of the sport. Think of all the great teams: SF, Dallas, Buffalo, Washington, etc. all of whom would completely dominate in todays NFL. I'd even go as far as to say that the early-mid 90s Eagles teams with Cunningham and Reggie White would have won the SB, fairly easily, in today's NFL. The salary cap completely destroyed the GREAT team aspect of football. The 2001 Patriots would have been lucky to even make the playoffs in the early 90s.

The point I will concede is that from 92-94 the 49ers would won 3 straight Super Bowls if not for the Cowboys. For those 3 years, nobody else in the NFL was close and the Super Bowl was really the NFC Championship game.

I agree about the salary cap effect. The Patriots won 3 of 4 Super Bowls, but they had to play smart and didn't dominate in doing so.

[ghst187]

Great games, but destroy would not apply.



Now here is where destroy would come into play, as in the Broncos would have been destroyed by those Bears.


Jim McMahon vs Troy Aikman....seriously
Charles Haley would've sacked McMahon at least 4x, Deion would've intercepted McMahon 2x, and the one of the greatest and definitely the deepest DLs in NFL history would not have given Payton much room to run.
Our DL would've outweighed their OL. The '85 Bears didn't have a WR that could've caught more than 2 passes on our secondary and McMahon wouldn't have time to find them.

The Broncos DL their SB-winning years would've been too much for the Bears' OL. Once again...a hall of fame QB vs a Dilfer-like QB? Denver also had one of the best OL's assembled, hence Terrell Davis's big numbers.
The '85s Bears were the greatest team of the 80s and best team up until that time, but I'm not sure they could've competed in the early 90's. With the NFC East the way it was in the 90s, the 49ers, and Buffalo....there would be no super bowl shuffle for the Bears.
Saying the '85 Bears could beat the early 90's Cowboys is like saying Wilt Chamberlain could beat Shaq 1 on 1. The game changed, the athletes got bigger, faster, and stronger and the teams got better, esp prior to FA.

[peplaw06]

I would guess that the worst is pretty easy too. I can't imagine any franchise having less success in just about every measurable category than the St Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

It's hard to argue against the Cards as the worst ever, but Super Bowl era wise... I think the Lions are gaining ground. Right now, it looks like AZ will win a SB before Detroit. Really the only halfway decent teams they had were when Barry Sanders was there.

[THUMPER]

I was arguing with a friend who is die-hard Giants fan. He has been voicing his opinion, in his arrogant New Jersey way, that the Giants dominated the Cowboys the last two seasons, and in his skewed opinion, are the better franchise. He wants me to honor the fact that they are division champs. I countered by saying that only matters in the playoffs (the Giants were roasted 0-23) and that this is a new year and reminded him of the head to head record of 51-35-2 and 5 Superbowl wins to their 2 and 8 conference championships to their 3. That got me thinking, with all the list that seem to be the sports writing norm these days, how could you argue against the Cowboys being the most dominant NFL franchise in the Superbowl era? I don't think one can do it in a logical way. I knowing I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, but if anyone can point out a counter argument one might use I would appreciate it. To further extend the argument I would have to say that The Cowboys are the most dominate franchise in the history of the NFL because I do believe that about any team in the NFL today would beat any championship team in say the 1950"s. Of course, that up for debate.

I have a spreadsheet I made to decide who the most successful franchises were, both from 1933-2005 and from 1966-2005 (the SB era).

For the all-time list the top-10 are:

1. Packers
2. Browns
3. Cowboys
4. Bears
5. Giants
6. Steelers
7. 49ERs
8. Redskins
9. Rams
10. Raiders

The list above is based on the regular season win %, playoff years, and titles won. Since for a lot of those years they didn't have playoffs, just a championship game, there wasn't a fair way to include them for some and not for others so I didn't include them.

Also, I disregarded the years prior to 1933 since there was no championship game to decide who would win the title. It was based solely on their regular season record and teams played different schedules as well with one team playing as many as 16 games while others might only play 5 or 6 in a season.

Starting in 1933 the NFL divided the league into two divisions, established consistent schedules (for the most part), and instituted a championship game to decide the champion.

For the SB era the top-10 are:

1. Cowboys
2. Steelers
3. 49ERs
4. Raiders
5. Dolphins
6. Broncos
7. Redskins
8. Packers
9. Vikings
10. Rams

I took into account more than just the number of titles they won (although those did have carry the most weight) but it is based on their regular season win %, Playoff seasons, playoff win %, Division titles, Conference titles, SB games, and SB wins.

The bottome-10 are:

Texans, Saints, Cardinals, Lions, Falcons, Jags, Seahawks, Chargers, Bengals, and Panthers.

I can send the Excel spreadsheet to anyone who wants it. PM me with your e-mail and I'll shoot it to you.

Or if someone knows how to post it so that it is formatted correctly then let me know and I'll send it to you so you can post it here.

[Haley94]

Wow! Good info. I always seem to forget how good the Browns were. And to think they are one of the franchises not to make it to the Superbowl, at least I can't think of anytime they made it.

[THUMPER]

Wow! Good info. I always seem to forget how good the Browns were. And to think they are one of the franchises not to make it to the Superbowl, at least I can't think of any time they made it.

Nope, they've never been to the SB but they had a LOT of winning seasons from 1946-1973. I believe they only had two losing seasons in that stretch (will have to check on that) and one of those put them in position to draft Jim Brown so I don't know that I would truly call that a "losing" season.

[LeonDixson]

I have a spreadsheet I made to decide who the most successful franchises were, both from 1933-2005 and from 1966-2005 (the SB era).

For the all-time list the top-10 are:

1. Packers
2. Browns
3. Cowboys
4. Bears
5. Giants
6. Steelers
7. 49ERs
8. Redskins
9. Rams
10. Raiders

The list above is based on the regular season win %, playoff years, and titles won. Since for a lot of those years they didn't have playoffs, just a championship game, there wasn't a fair way to include them for some and not for others so I didn't include them.

Also, I disregarded the years prior to 1933 since there was no championship game to decide who would win the title. It was based solely on their regular season record and teams played different schedules as well with one team playing as many as 16 games while others might only play 5 or 6 in a season.

Starting in 1933 the NFL divided the league into two divisions, established consistent schedules (for the most part), and instituted a championship game to decide the champion.

For the SB era the top-10 are:

1. Cowboys
2. Steelers
3. 49ERs
4. Raiders
5. Dolphins
6. Broncos
7. Redskins
8. Packers
9. Vikings
10. Rams

I took into account more than just the number of titles they won (although those did have carry the most weight) but it is based on their regular season win %, Playoff seasons, playoff win %, Division titles, Conference titles, SB games, and SB wins.

The bottome-10 are:

Texans, Saints, Cardinals, Lions, Falcons, Jags, Seahawks, Chargers, Bengals, and Panthers.

I can send the Excel spreadsheet to anyone who wants it. PM me with your e-mail and I'll shoot it to you.

Or if someone knows how to post it so that it is formatted correctly then let me know and I'll send it to you so you can post it here.

Please run those numbers again factoring in the number of years each team has been in the league. I'm willing to bet it swings to the Cowboys favor in most categories.

[THUMPER]

Please run those numbers again factoring in the number of years each team has been in the league. I'm willing to bet it swings to the Cowboys favor in most categories.

It is already done that way.

[LeonDixson]

It is already done that way.

I'm talking about taking the numbers you used for each team and dividing them by the number of years each team has been in the league to get a "relative" success rate. If that's what you did, I apologize. I didn't read it that way.

[AdamJT13]

It is already done that way.

Did you consider how many teams were in the league each year? For example, in a 12-team league, if all teams are equal, a team should win the title once every 12 years. In a 28-team league, it's once every 28 years. When you take that into consideration, the Cowboys' championships weigh far more heavily than any other team's titles.

[CowboyMike]

Wow! Good info. I always seem to forget how good the Browns were. And to think they are one of the franchises not to make it to the Superbowl, at least I can't think of anytime they made it.

Well, technically the original Browns made it to the Superbowl as the Baltimore Ravens. The current Browns franchise is an expansion franchise after the original team bolted for Baltimore.

[Qwickdraw]

There are far too many of these foolish threads, IMO.

[cowboyuptx]

Dallas has an all-time wining record against 24 of 31 NFL teams!

Our franchise's all-time winning percentage can not be matched by any team!

The Giants, Redskins, and Eagles all have losing records against us and it's not even close!

No question who owns this league!

Dallas is the Mecca of football.

[jackrussell]

Jim McMahon vs Troy Aikman....seriously
Charles Haley would've sacked McMahon at least 4x, Deion would've intercepted McMahon 2x, and the one of the greatest and definitely the deepest DLs in NFL history would not have given Payton much room to run.
Our DL would've outweighed their OL. The '85 Bears didn't have a WR that could've caught more than 2 passes on our secondary and McMahon wouldn't have time to find them.

The Broncos DL their SB-winning years would've been too much for the Bears' OL. Once again...a hall of fame QB vs a Dilfer-like QB? Denver also had one of the best OL's assembled, hence Terrell Davis's big numbers.
The '85s Bears were the greatest team of the 80s and best team up until that time, but I'm not sure they could've competed in the early 90's. With the NFC East the way it was in the 90s, the 49ers, and Buffalo....there would be no super bowl shuffle for the Bears.
Saying the '85 Bears could beat the early 90's Cowboys is like saying Wilt Chamberlain could beat Shaq 1 on 1. The game changed, the athletes got bigger, faster, and stronger and the teams got better, esp prior to FA.

This argument of 'game has changed and the athletes are bigger and faster' just flies in the face of reality......it's all relative. Just like $10,000 in 1985 money would be like having $20,000 today.

And Wilt Chamberlain would have beat Shaq.

[ghst187]

This argument of 'game has changed and the athletes are bigger and faster' just flies in the face of reality......it's all relative. Just like $10,000 in 1985 money would be like having $20,000 today.

And Wilt Chamberlain would have beat Shaq.

flies in the face of reality?!? huh? what part isn't reality? the fact that its true?
you're saying that if the '85 Bears played in '92, then they would be the same size, weight, and speed as the '92 Cowboys? I don't think that was what people were arguing...
Its also important to note that the Bears weren't good enough to repeat, let alone 3 peat or get 3 in 4 years. Even the Ravens were able to win one SB. One might even argue that the league wasn't all that good in '85. Not saying that, but if a team is so great, it should be able to win more than just one SB.

Wilt would get pounded and abused by Shaq in his prime. abused.

[THUMPER]

Did you consider how many teams were in the league each year? For example, in a 12-team league, if all teams are equal, a team should win the title once every 12 years. In a 28-team league, it's once every 28 years. When you take that into consideration, the Cowboys' championships weigh far more heavily than any other team's titles.

I considered that but I am mostly concerned with the SB era as trying to come up with an accurate formula to cover all the variances from 1933-2005 would be beyond my meager math skills. That said, there has never been less than 24 teams in the league(s) since 1966 (15 in the NFL and 9 in the AFL that year). It would not be too tough to factor that in from 1966-2005 but I'm not sure that it would affect the results appreciably.

If I could come up with a means of factoring it into the calculations for the 1933-2005 teams it would likely have a positive impact on the Cowboys' ranking compared with the Packers and Browns.

The other problem I had with the all-time rankings is the lack of playoff games other than the Championship Game until 1967. Even after that they have increased in the number of teams involved and the games played. In some years there was a playoff game to decide the division winner, but only in the case of a tie, so one division had a playoff game but the other didn't.

That's why I kept that formula simply and didn't factor in a lot of variables, it's just too complex.

[THUMPER]

I'm talking about taking the numbers you used for each team and dividing them by the number of years each team has been in the league to get a "relative" success rate. If that's what you did, I apologize. I didn't read it that way.

Ah, I see what you are talking about now. I am mostly concerned with the SB era as it was easier to come up with the formula since the league has been pretty consistent since then in terms of schedules, number of teams, playoffs, and the number of years most teams have been in the league.

Most of the teams have been in the league since 1968 except the Seahawks & Bucs (1976) and the more recent expansion teams like the Panther & Jags (1995), Browns (1999), and Texans (2002). Since none of those teams have had much success it really isn't worth the effort to me to try to factor it into the formula.

For the all-time rankings, as I told Adam, it would be beyond my ability and availabile time to factor all of that in.

edit - After looking at my formula again I find that I did factor in the number of years for each team in the SB era.

[THUMPER]

flies in the face of reality?!? huh? what part isn't reality? the fact that its true?
you're saying that if the '85 Bears played in '92, then they would be the same size, weight, and speed as the '92 Cowboys? I don't think that was what people were arguing...
Its also important to note that the Bears weren't good enough to repeat, let alone 3 peat or get 3 in 4 years. Even the Ravens were able to win one SB. One might even argue that the league wasn't all that good in '85. Not saying that, but if a team is so great, it should be able to win more than just one SB.

Wilt would get pounded and abused by Shaq in his prime. abused.

It is really pointless to try to compare eras and say that one team could beat another or one player was better than another because the game has changed too much as have the players.

Take the players for instance. Most players from the 70s and earlier, other than the top stars, had jobs during the offseason since their salaries weren't enough to live on. Very few players worked out in the offseason other than some running or pickup games to keep in some kind of shape. Weight training was virtually unknown before the mid 60s and only a few football players lifted weights as it was considered a BAD thing by most teams. They thought that too much muscle would make the players slow, stiff, and less flexible resluting in too many injuries.

Players now have enormous salaries and almost no one "has" to work in the offseason although many have various business ventures and investments. Virtually ALL players now have regular workouts during the offseason including personal trainers, therapists, and strength, conditioning, and speed training.

I would also add in the coaching that players receive now compared with back in the day. Back then the coaching staff consisted of maybe 6 guys on a team like the Browns or Giants while many had less. Now players benefit from position coaches who can spend direct, personal time with them. They have mini-camps and practices before Training Camp starts so the actual offseason is very short compared with what it used to be.

After looking at the players you have to consider how the game has changed. Rules are different which can have a HUGE effect on how they play. Take Michael Jordan for instance. If he were forced to play under the same rules as say Elgin Baylor would he still have been as dominant? No way. He was a better athlete by virtue of the factors I mentioned above but he also benefitted from having much more relaxed rules regarding dribbling, traveling, physical contact, etc. Being able to carry or palm the ball, take an extra step or two, and push off to create separation gave him an enourmous advantage over his predecessors.

In the NFL the rules have actually become more strict rather than looser as in the NBA so defensive players like Deacon Jones or Ed Sprinkle got away with murder while guys now are hampered by not being able to hit late, head-slap, or a hundred other "techniques" used by players back then. It seems like every year they are adding more rules to limit what the defense can do. Heck you can't even use the "horse collar" tackle anymore.

The ball has changed to be more aerodynamic and easier to throw but more difficult to kick making the kicking game less important than it used to be and focusing more on the passing game which is more exciting for the fans to watch.

I could go on and on (too late) but the bottom line is that the only way to measure players/teams from different era is to gauge how they did against the competition they faced. How dominant were the 1940 Bears compared with the 1985 Bears? Not who would win of they played because then you would have to decide whose rules the game would be played under and what offseason regimen they would be under, how much they would be paid, etc. and you can quickly see how futile the effort would be.

One last factor in terms of players and their salaries is that back in the day many of the best college athletes didn't play pro sports because they could make a better living in business as well as save their bodies. Living conditions for players back then was pretty much like the military so why would a guy with a college degree subject himself to that as well as being away from his family for extended periods when he could make a better living elsewhere?

Injuries were another factor to be considered. Back then a knee injury pretty much devastated a player. Even if he were able to come back he was never 100% while now a guy can have a complete ACL tear and come back in a year and be just like he was before.

OK, I'll stop now.

[THUMPER]

Nope, they've never been to the SB but they had a LOT of winning seasons from 1946-1973. I believe they only had two losing seasons in that stretch (will have to check on that) and one of those put them in position to draft Jim Brown so I don't know that I would truly call that a "losing" season.

An update after looking at the Browns' record: They had only ONE losing season from 1946-1973 in 1956 when they went 5-7 and drafted Jim Brown after the season. One losing season in a 28-year span is incredible and compares very well with our 20-year winning streak. They also won 8 Championships during that time (4 in the AAFC and 4 in the NFL).

Yet another reason why I rank Paul Brown as the greatest HC of all time.

[dreamshatterer]

I would have to say Dallas. Even though the obvious 3 teams have been mentioned already and all 3 have 5 SB's, the Boys have given themselves more chances of getting there and winning more.

[Jarv]

Yes but the tiebreaker in my opinion is Superbowl appearances.

Cowboys-8
Pittsburgh-6
San Fran-5

The 2 next teams off the top of my head for apperances is the Vikings and Bills...They were in 4 times each, right. All loss's.

[THUMPER]

The 2 next teams off the top of my head for apperances is the Vikings and Bills...They were in 4 times each, right. All loss's.

Nope, the Broncos have been there 6 times and won twice. The Raiders (3-2), Redskins (3-2), and Dolphins (2-3) have been 5 times.

The Packers have also been to the SB 4 times winning 3 of them.

[SkinsandTerps]

Nope, the Broncos have been there 6 times and won twice. The Raiders (3-2), Redskins (3-2), and Dolphins (2-3) have been 5 times.

The Packers have also been to the SB 4 times winning 3 of them.

Not to mention the Patriots also being 3-2.

[fiveandcounting]

The 1992 Cowboys would crush the '85 Bears, and just about every other team that ever was

Im die-hard silver and blue but I have to say I dont think the 92 team could beat those Bears, sorry. I think some Cowboy fans give some hindisght dominance to the 92 team.

[THUMPER]

Not to mention the Patriots also being 3-2.

DOH! You're right, I missed them. Nice pickup.

[peplaw06]

Most of the teams have been in the league since 1968 except the Seahawks & Bucs (1976) and the more recent expansion teams like the Panther & Jags (1995), Browns (1999), and Texans (2002). Since none of those teams have had much success it really isn't worth the effort to me to try to factor it into the formula.

For the all-time rankings, as I told Adam, it would be beyond my ability and availabile time to factor all of that in.

edit - After looking at my formula again I find that I did factor in the number of years for each team in the SB era.

I'm no math major, but I think if you had factored in number of years for each team, the Texans wouldn't be the worst ever, considering they've only played 4 years.

[THUMPER]

I'm no math major, but I think if you had factored in number of years for each team, the Texans wouldn't be the worst ever, considering they've only played 4 years.

Do the simple math then: Going 18-46 over 4 years = 28.1%, the next lowest is the Bucs at 39.5%. They are far and away the worst team.

The good news is that they are likely to improve over the next few years.

[ghst187]

Im die-hard silver and blue but I have to say I dont think the 92 team could beat those Bears, sorry. I think some Cowboy fans give some hindisght dominance to the 92 team.

go down the rosters on those two teams....
I think we have big advantages at:
QB and passing offense
CB
OL (they made rules because E Williams was so dominant, he'd have destroyed Perry)
DE
TE
WR (they made rules just because Irvin was so dominant)

Bears may get a nods at:
LB....
DL...maybe

no way the Bears D lays a hand on Troy without an 8 or 9 man blitz in which case Harper, Irvin, or Novacek roll up monster numbers.
I also don't see McMahon being able to do much downfield against our secondary and passrush. Just like always, we would win in the trenches on both offense and defense and our skill players were better than theirs at most positions. Irvin vs Gault, Novacek vs ??, Aikman vs McMahon....no real comparison.
I think a lot of people give too much credit to the '85 Bears. I watched all their games that season. I remember them well. I'm not saying they weren't one of the best all time teams but I think they would get more of my consideration had they been able to repeat or if they would've played a decent team in the SB. I think the early 90's Buffalo teams would've been a great matchup for them but no way am I buying that they could beat any 92-95 Dallas team.

[Mentos]

go down the rosters on those two teams....
I think we have big advantages at:
QB and passing offense
CB
OL (they made rules because E Williams was so dominant, he'd have destroyed Perry)
DE
TE
WR (they made rules just because Irvin was so dominant)

Bears may get a nods at:
LB....
DL...maybe

no way the Bears D lays a hand on Troy without an 8 or 9 man blitz in which case Harper, Irvin, or Novacek roll up monster numbers.
I also don't see McMahon being able to do much downfield against our secondary and passrush. Just like always, we would win in the trenches on both offense and defense and our skill players were better than theirs at most positions. Irvin vs Gault, Novacek vs ??, Aikman vs McMahon....no real comparison.
I think a lot of people give too much credit to the '85 Bears. I watched all their games that season. I remember them well. I'm not saying they weren't one of the best all time teams but I think they would get more of my consideration had they been able to repeat or if they would've played a decent team in the SB. I think the early 90's Buffalo teams would've been a great matchup for them but no way am I buying that they could beat any 92-95 Dallas team.

They did beat the Cowboys 44-0 in Dallas that year.

I have the 1985 Bears, 1994 49ers, and 1991 Redskins over the 92, 93, and 95 Cowboys.

[peplaw06]

Do the simple math then: Going 18-46 over 4 years = 28.1%, the next lowest is the Bucs at 39.5%. They are far and away the worst team.

The good news is that they are likely to improve over the next few years.

Are you strictly talking about W-L records here?? If so, that's my bad. I was under the impression that we were taking playoff appearances and championships into account.

No the Texans haven't made the playoffs in their 4 years (since 2002), but the Saints haven't made the playoffs since 2000, Cards since 1998, Lions since 1999... at the same time none of these teams have ever won (or made it to) a Super Bowl.

It's all 0%, but 6, 7, or 8 years of 0% is worse than 4 years of 0%.

[THUMPER]

Are you strictly talking about W-L records here?? If so, that's my bad. I was under the impression that we were taking playoff appearances and championships into account.

No the Texans haven't made the playoffs in their 4 years (since 2002), but the Saints haven't made the playoffs since 2000, Cards since 1998, Lions since 1999... at the same time none of these teams have ever won (or made it to) a Super Bowl.

It's all 0%, but 6, 7, or 8 years of 0% is worse than 4 years of 0%.

It's a combination of factors including regular season record, playoff appearances, division titles, conference championships, SB appearances, and SB wins and weighed by the number of years in the league.

The Saints, Cards, and Lions are the next 3 worst teams in my rankings.

[lurkercowboy]

The 1992 Cowboys would crush the '85 Bears, and just about every other team that ever was

I would pay big $ to watch that game.

[ghst187]

They did beat the Cowboys 44-0 in Dallas that year.

I have the 1985 Bears, 1994 49ers, and 1991 Redskins over the 92, 93, and 95 Cowboys.

the '85 Cowboys were not the '92 Cowboys. That has no bearing on the argument at hand. The '92 Boys beat the '92 Bears...what does that prove in relation?
'85 Miami Dolphins almost hung 40 points on the defense that many people claim to be the greatest of all time.

The 1994 49ers!!!?!?!? are you kidding me?!?!?!?!:bang2: :lmao2: :lmao:
They weren't even the best team in the NFC that year. Replay that game on a neutral field and Dallas wins 9 out of 10x. 3 INTs and several obvious and critical PIs that weren't called on Deion right in front of the ref and even then the 69ers had to hold their breath. Steve Young should never have gotten a ring. Guess it helps to play in a perennially garbage division so they could get homefield and home refs every year.

'91 Skins were pretty tough but you're high if you think Mark Rypien, Earnest Byner, and Gary Clark were in the same league as Aikman, Emmitt, and Irvin.
In fact, it was those same Cowboys that beat them for their first L that
year.

PS, People forget about the '93 Cowboys. Look at the list of PB'ers from that team...pretty remarkable. We lost 4 games that year, 2 because and only because Emmitt held out and a third because Leon Lett dove for a blocked field goal in the snow.

[jackrussell]

flies in the face of reality?!? huh? what part isn't reality? the fact that its true?

Just because you say it doesn't make anything true.

you're saying that if the '85 Bears played in '92, then they would be the same size, weight, and speed as the '92 Cowboys? I don't think that was what people were arguing...

Yes, and vice versa. It's 7 years, no one shaved a second off the 40 time, no one benched 400 pounds 30 more times. If you don't understand the statement 'it's all relative', so be it. And I'm not arguing anything. You said the Cowboys would DESTROY the '85 Bears, and I said it would be a good game, and it would.

Its also important to note that the Bears weren't good enough to repeat, let alone 3 peat or get 3 in 4 years.

Important to who? What's interesting is you say FA made the league watered down and made for less than great Super Bowl Champions since, yet, claim Denver(post FA) was head and shoulders above those '85 Bears.

Wilt would get pounded and abused by Shaq in his prime. abused.

Nope.

[Mentos]

the '85 Cowboys were not the '92 Cowboys. That has no bearing on the argument at hand. The '92 Boys beat the '92 Bears...what does that prove in relation?
'85 Miami Dolphins almost hung 40 points on the defense that many people claim to be the greatest of all time.

The 1994 49ers!!!?!?!? are you kidding me?!?!?!?!:bang2: :lmao2: :lmao:
They weren't even the best team in the NFC that year. Replay that game on a neutral field and Dallas wins 9 out of 10x. 3 INTs and several obvious and critical PIs that weren't called on Deion right in front of the ref and even then the 69ers had to hold their breath. Steve Young should never have gotten a ring. Guess it helps to play in a perennially garbage division so they could get homefield and home refs every year.

'91 Skins were pretty tough but you're high if you think Mark Rypien, Earnest Byner, and Gary Clark were in the same league as Aikman, Emmitt, and Irvin.
In fact, it was those same Cowboys that beat them for their first L that
year.

PS, People forget about the '93 Cowboys. Look at the list of PB'ers from that team...pretty remarkable. We lost 4 games that year, 2 because and only because Emmitt held out and a third because Leon Lett dove for a blocked field goal in the snow.

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Redskins fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Redskins. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

[Bob Sacamano]

I was arguing with a friend who is die-hard Giants fan. He has been voicing his opinion, in his arrogant New Jersey way, that the Giants dominated the Cowboys the last two seasons, and in his skewed opinion, are the better franchise. He wants me to honor the fact that they are division champs. I countered by saying that only matters in the playoffs (the Giants were roasted 0-23) and that this is a new year and reminded him of the head to head record of 51-35-2 and 5 Superbowl wins to their 2 and 8 conference championships to their 3. That got me thinking, with all the list that seem to be the sports writing norm these days, how could you argue against the Cowboys being the most dominant NFL franchise in the Superbowl era? I don't think one can do it in a logical way. I knowing I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, but if anyone can point out a counter argument one might use I would appreciate it. To further extend the argument I would have to say that The Cowboys are the most dominate franchise in the history of the NFL because I do believe that about any team in the NFL today would beat any championship team in say the 1950"s. Of course, that up for debate.

the COwboys have 5 NFL championships, tied for most all-time, they also have the most playoff appearances in the Super Bowl era, can't recount how many that is, been to 9 Super Bowls, yeah, I'd say they are the most dominant franchise

[DallasDW00ds0n]

that would be us...

[Billy Bullocks]

I'm talking about the franchise not individual teams. I'm talking about the magic of the star.

You could argue a good case for Pittsburgh and SF. That's about it. Washington falls into above average. Sorry guys, Gibbs with his 3 rings is nice and all, but 5 trumps that. Not to mention Dallas won theirs in teh70's and then teh 90's...SF owned the 80's...Pittsbrugh owned hte 70's, made it to a SB in the 90's and won one in 2006.

[REDVOLUTION]

Without a doubt the most dominant franchise in NFL history IS the Dallas Cowboys

[NotReally]

Dallas has played in the most. The 49ers have never lost. Pittsburgh had 4 in 6 years. Those are the only team in the discussion for dominant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominant), but I don't think there is an obvious choice.


I'm always amused by 49er fans that say, "We're the best, because we've never lost in the SuperBowl." as if that proves something. They never seem to want to listen to me when I explain to them that means they were #1, 5 times and ever other time they were #3 or lower, while we were #1, 5 times and three other times we were #2, a level they never achieved outside their 5 SB years. For some strange reason they just don't seem to get it.

[REDVOLUTION]

I'm always amused by 49er fans that say, "We're the best, because we've never lost in the SuperBowl." as if that proves something. They never seem to want to listen to me when I explain to them that means they were #1, 5 times and ever other time they were #3 or lower, while we were #1, 5 times and three other times we were #2, a level they never achieved outside their 5 SB years. For some strange reason they just don't seem to get it.

BUY OR SELL

I am buying!

[Doomsday101]

I would stack Dallas accomplishments over any team in the NFL, Dallas saw success in the 60's, 70's a little in the 80's and of course the 90's. We have seen this team go to 8 SB winning 5 and have played in some of the all time great games in the history of the NFL.

[cowboywho?]

Back when 49ers was in their prime they were the most dominant team.

[REDVOLUTION]

Back when 49ers was in their prime they were the most dominant team.

Just by posting "back when" it is clear you dont understand the thread and its title.

Try again?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of the SuperBowl Era, I'd have to say the Steelers have been the most dominate team. New England could change that if they win another one anytime soon. Our run of the early 90s was cut short. So to was Green Bay. They easily could have been the most dominating team but the SuperBowl started a bit to late into there run. The Packers won the NFL title in 61, 62, 65 and then the SuperBowl in 66 and 67.

[Doomsday101]

Back when 49ers was in their prime they were the most dominant team.

True over about a 10 year span the 9ers were very successful, Dallas success went well beyond a 10 year span.

[fiveandcounting]

go down the rosters on those two teams....
I think we have big advantages at:
QB and passing offense
CB
OL (they made rules because E Williams was so dominant, he'd have destroyed Perry)
DE
TE
WR (they made rules just because Irvin was so dominant)

Bears may get a nods at:
LB....
DL...maybe

no way the Bears D lays a hand on Troy without an 8 or 9 man blitz in which case Harper, Irvin, or Novacek roll up monster numbers.
I also don't see McMahon being able to do much downfield against our secondary and passrush. Just like always, we would win in the trenches on both offense and defense and our skill players were better than theirs at most positions. Irvin vs Gault, Novacek vs ??, Aikman vs McMahon....no real comparison.
I think a lot of people give too much credit to the '85 Bears. I watched all their games that season. I remember them well. I'm not saying they weren't one of the best all time teams but I think they would get more of my consideration had they been able to repeat or if they would've played a decent team in the SB. I think the early 90's Buffalo teams would've been a great matchup for them but no way am I buying that they could beat any 92-95 Dallas team.

they gave up a total of 10 points in 3 post season games and lost 1 mere game to an extremely motivated and very good team that season, they were a juggernaut, I wish the 92 Boys would beat them but I would not put money on it if it were somehow possible to bend time and have such a game

[ABQCOWBOY]

they gave up a total of 10 points in 3 post season games and lost 1 mere game to an extremely motivated and very good team that season, they were a juggernaut, I wish the 92 Boys would beat them but I would not put money on it if it were somehow possible to bend time and have such a game

I think it's interesting that the Bears are compared to the Cowboys of the early 90s. I look at this comparision and I can't help but think about the Eagles, who ran that same type 46 defense and probably had a stronger offense. The Eagles, of the time, were an excellent defensive team. They had White, Simmons, Brown, Golic, Joyner, Hopkins, Allen, Waters, Otis Smith, Byran Evans, Pitts, Harmon and Thomas on that defense.

They also had a better offense, IMO, the the Bears did. They had Hershel Walker, Keith Byers, Fred Barrnet, Mark Bavaro, Ricky Waters, Randel Cunningham, Bubby Brister, Ken Obrien and even a guy named Jim McMahon. I just think that you look at these Philly teams and it's not so hard for me to see us beating those Bears the same way we dominated a pretty good Philly team. JMO of course.

[jackrussell]

I think it's interesting that the Bears are compared to the Cowboys of the early 90s. I look at this comparision and I can't help but think about the Eagles, who ran that same type 46 defense and probably had a stronger offense. The Eagles, of the time, were an excellent defensive team. They had White, Simmons, Brown, Golic, Joyner, Hopkins, Allen, Waters, Otis Smith, Byran Evans, Pitts, Harmon and Thomas on that defense.

They also had a better offense, IMO, the the Bears did. They had Hershel Walker, Keith Byers, Fred Barrnet, Mark Bavaro, Ricky Waters, Randel Cunningham, Bubby Brister, Ken Obrien and even a guy named Jim McMahon. I just think that you look at these Philly teams and it's not so hard for me to see us beating those Bears the same way we dominated a pretty good Philly team. JMO of course.

I would point out that none of those Philly teams came close to what Chicago did in '85. Not saying Philly wasn't a good team, just not to the standard of the Bears you may think.

1985 Bears

Pts Scored= 452 (2nd)
Pts Allowed=198 (1st, even with the 38 Miami posted)

I would remember alot of those points scored were in fact due to the most relentless, head banging defense I've seen. Like when the reporter asked Mr. T in Rocky for a prediction of the upcoming fight, he replied "Pain..."

Philadelphia in it's best year scored 396 points in 1990. There best defensive effort was allowing just 244 points in 1991.

I'll also point out Philly's best year record wise was 11-5, not even close to the 15-1 Chicago posted.

So far I've seen everything from the Bears being no better than Buffalo and Philadelphia, to being destroyed by Dallas. I've seen it pointed out that supposedly the players were bigger and faster in 1992 than they were in 1985, yet it's not a given that players today are bigger and faster than in '92. I've seen that the Patriots aren't in the same class because their championships were won during the FA period of a watered down league, yet, Denver(in the very same period as NE) would also destroy the Bears.

Taking the logic presented that Dallas was head and shoulders above Chicago, AND the same being true as far as nE because of a supposed watered down league, heck that pretty much settles it for ALL TIME, there was never a better team than the 92 Cowboys, and there NEVER will be a better team than the 92 Cowboys. Why even play the games?

Get a grip folks, it's not life and death. The world will not stop because it's possible another team could be in the same ballpark with your 'sacred' Cowboys.

[ndanger]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Redskins fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Redskins. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.
Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

[StylisticS]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Redskins fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Redskins. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

People overrate the 94 Niners. What makes them so much better than the 92 Cowboys or even a better team, the 93 Cowboys. I wish Jimmy Johnson continued as head coach for the 94 season. You would probably see a repeat of the 93 season seeing as how neither team really changed personel much and the Cowboys simply dominated the Niners in 93.

[jackrussell]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Redskins fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Redskins. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

So in your assortment of stats, in which you claim '(and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year)' did they show that those good Cowboys from '85 lost to a 7-9 Detroit team, a 7-9 Philadelphia team, a 5-11 Cardinals team, and a 7-9 Cincinnati team(50-24), not to mention the 44-0 shallacking by Chicago, and then got shutout in the first round of the playoffs by the Rams 20-0? They weren't that good.

So given that opinion of being a good Dallas team, your conclusions of being less than the Skins and Niners can be taken with a grain of salt.

[Mentos]

So in your assortment of stats, in which you claim '(and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year)' did they show that those good Cowboys from '85 lost to a 7-9 Detroit team, a 7-9 Philadelphia team, a 5-11 Cardinals team, and a 7-9 Cincinnati team(50-24), not to mention the 44-0 shallacking by Chicago, and then got shutout in the first round of the playoffs by the Rams 20-0? They weren't that good.

So given that opinion of being a good Dallas team, your conclusions of being less than the Skins and Niners can be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, you are correct. I see the light now. The 1985 Cowboys were about as bad as the 1981 Colts.

To be serious now, yes the 1985 Cowboys along with the 1986 Jets are in the running for worst ever 10-6 teams. But c'mon now, 10-6 is 10-6. Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are." Since when was 10-6 not a good mark? Maybe when you were expected to go 14-2 I suppose or if you were coming off a 13-3 Super Bowl season, but none of that applied to the 1985 Cowboys.

Edit- I can't believe your response. Can it be that we just define "good" a little differently?

Sheesh.

[Mentos]

Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

Well that's a fairly childish response, is it not?

What you thought I pulled out game film, looked at numerous statistics, and read a book all in one day? I mean, I'm good, but not that good.

[cowboywho?]

Just by posting "back when" it is clear you dont understand the thread and its title.

Try again?

And how do you show that you are dominent in the nfl? By winning the superbowls.

People dont really care how good you are, if you dont win the superbowl more then likely they wont remember you.

[Silverstar]

The Cowboys have the most postseason victories in NFL history with 32. This stat is even more daunting, when you consider the Cowboys have not won a playoff game in almost 10 years! The Cowboys also hold the record for most consecutive winning seasons in NFL history with 20 between 66'-85'. Combine this with their 5 SB victories in 8 appearances and there's little doubt, the Cowboys have become the most dominant franchise in NFL history.

I think it's safe to say, the Cowboys are ready to pad some of those records very, very soon. :)

[jackrussell]

Yes, you are correct. I see the light now. The 1985 Cowboys were about as bad as the 1981 Colts.

To be serious now, yes the 1985 Cowboys along with the 1986 Jets are in the running for worst ever 10-6 teams. But c'mon now, 10-6 is 10-6. Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are." Since when was 10-6 not a good mark? Maybe when you were expected to go 14-2 I suppose or if you were coming off a 13-3 Super Bowl season, but none of that applied to the 1985 Cowboys.

Edit- I can't believe your response. Can it be that we just define "good" a little differently?

Sheesh.

!0-6 against superior talent is good, 10-6 against not so good is...not so good.

What the heck, if I can get some people to tell me that the 15-1 Bears are over rated, I certainly can say the 10-6 '85 Cowboys were not at that good.

[Mentos]

They did go 4-0 against the Giants and Redskins who were a combined 20-8 when not playing Dallas.

They also defeated Cleveland who was a division winner, albeit with a .500 record.

So they lost to a couple subpar teams, but did beat some good record teams, as well. (Note I changed "good" to "good record"- I'm going to have to do that here from now on.)

The 49ers one year lost 4 games to non-playoff teams and still won the Super Bowl.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would point out that none of those Philly teams came close to what Chicago did in '85. Not saying Philly wasn't a good team, just not to the standard of the Bears you may think.

1985 Bears

Pts Scored= 452 (2nd)
Pts Allowed=198 (1st, even with the 38 Miami posted)

I would remember alot of those points scored were in fact due to the most relentless, head banging defense I've seen. Like when the reporter asked Mr. T in Rocky for a prediction of the upcoming fight, he replied "Pain..."

Philadelphia in it's best year scored 396 points in 1990. There best defensive effort was allowing just 244 points in 1991.

I'll also point out Philly's best year record wise was 11-5, not even close to the 15-1 Chicago posted.

So far I've seen everything from the Bears being no better than Buffalo and Philadelphia, to being destroyed by Dallas. I've seen it pointed out that supposedly the players were bigger and faster in 1992 than they were in 1985, yet it's not a given that players today are bigger and faster than in '92. I've seen that the Patriots aren't in the same class because their championships were won during the FA period of a watered down league, yet, Denver(in the very same period as NE) would also destroy the Bears.

Taking the logic presented that Dallas was head and shoulders above Chicago, AND the same being true as far as nE because of a supposed watered down league, heck that pretty much settles it for ALL TIME, there was never a better team than the 92 Cowboys, and there NEVER will be a better team than the 92 Cowboys. Why even play the games?

Get a grip folks, it's not life and death. The world will not stop because it's possible another team could be in the same ballpark with your 'sacred' Cowboys.

Conversly, I would point out that Philly had to play in the same division we did. The Bears didn't. Personel wise, that Philly team was probably better then the Chicago team. That front line alone, IMO was superior to Dent, McMichael, Hampton and Perry.

[djmajestik]

Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

ndanger, did you get my last PM? Hadn't heard back from you in a while, just checking that all is good.

Let me know how you are.