 |
|
|||||||
|
Cowboys Chat:
0 user(s) online
|
|
|
|
Home
|
Fan Zone
|
News Zone
|
Draft Zone
|
Off-topic Zone
|
Forum Rules
|
Chat
|
** Change Graphics **
|
|
|
Display Modes | Thread Tools |
02-22-2006
|
#1 | ||||
|
Senior Member
|
Are the 70s Cowboys considered a dynasty?
Interesting subject was brought up in the ESPN forums.
http://forums.espn.go.com/espn/thread?forumID=821&threadID=3209836&lastPostID=199 30151 What do you think? |
||||
|
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#2 | ||||
|
Senior Member
|
If you can only have one dynasty at a time then that's the stupidest definition of the term dynasty I've ever heard. You can call the Steelers the team of the 1970's... barely, but you can't say the 1970's Cowboys were not also a dynasty.
The Cowboys were a dynasty without question. They barely lost to the Steelers in two Superbowls (with considerable help from referees, I might add) and were contending for a longer time than the Steelers were. 5 Superbowls in one decade-- think about that! Consider the Bills vs. the Cowboys in the 1990's. Dallas not only defeated the Bills, they CRUSHED them 52-17 and 30-13. The Bills lost two other Superbowls and did not win a single one. The Bills were not a dynasty, but they were very good nonetheless. Dynasties win Superbowls, and the 70's Cowboys won two while the 90's Bills won none. The Cowboys have had two separate dynasties during their incarnation. It's a fact by any non-idiotic definition of the term.
"Leadership is getting someone to do what they don't want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve."
- Tom Landry |
||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#3 | ||||
|
Moderator
 Years Donated 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
|
The Tom Landry Era was a Dynasty IMO. 20 winning seasons has never been duplicated and will never be done again. You look at those numbers and I think you have to come to the conclusion that Coach Landry's Cowboys were indeed a Dynasty in every sense of the word.
|
||||
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#4 | ||||||
|
Preacher From The Black Lagoon
|
Only a football illiterate would not consider the Cowboys of the 70's not a dynasty.
 "Those who would deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves..."-Abraham Lincoln
|
||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#5 | ||||
|
Senior Member
|
Talking to alot of people over the years, I know that alot of people have their own defenition of a dynasty. Team of the decade is a dynasty. 3 consecutive championships is a dynasty. Even making 4 straight super bowls, I've heard ramblings of a mini-dynasty. Well, let me give you my definition of a dynasty. "A long period of time of winning that includes one or more championships". That my friend IMO is a dynasty. Steelers, yankees, niners, cowboys, celtics, and lakers are all considered dynasties becuase they were crowned team of the decade, and rightfully so. But to me just becuase you win 3 straight, get crowned team of the decade, or accomplish a team goal that probaly won't ever be accomplished doesn't, IMO, make you a dynasty. Even though some of you may disagree teams that I consider dynasties are not considered by the general public symply because they were never crowned TOD or won 3 straight. Let me give you the raiders and redskins(yes I said redskins), two underrated dynasties IMO. Let me tell you why. In my defenition of dynasty the first half of the sentence says "A long period of time of winning". Well my friends thats exactly what both the skins and raiders did. The raiders, from 1965 to 1985, had 20 winning seasons(16 in a row), tag along 13 seasons of atleast 10 wins, 11 AFC championship game appearences, 11 division titles, and 15 playoff appearences. A long time of winning, which covers the first half of my defenition of a dynasty. Now to the second part which says "that includes one or more championships", and the raiders went to four super bowls and winning 3. That covers the second part of a dynasty. You can add along 9 hall of fame players. Now on to the sorry *** skins. From 1982 to 1992, 10 winning seasons in 11 years. Along side 8 seasons with atleast 10 wins, 8 playoff appearences, 5 NFC title game appearences, and 5 division titles. So yes my fellow cowboy fans as much as I hate to admit it the redskins were a dynasty. Therefore eventhough the boys were not crowned team of the decade, Tom Landry's cowboys were a dynasty. 20 consecutive winning seasons,17 seasons with atleast 10 wins, 13 division titles, 12 conference title game appearences, 5 super bowls appearences, and 2 Lombardi trophies qualifies the cowboys of the 70's as a dynasty IMO. It may not be in somene else's mind but they sure are in mine. BTW, you can add on the Celtics of the 80's, Braves of the 90's, and a few others as underrated dynasties. IMO of course.
Last edited by CowboyMark : 02-22-2006 at 05:02 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#6 | ||||
|
The Grand Poobah
Years Donated 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
|
You can bet your booties they were.
Reg Season Play-offs 1979 11-5-0 1st -- NFC East 0-1 - Lost Divisional Playoffs Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1978 12-4-0 1st -- NFC East 2-1 - Lost Superbowl Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1977 12-2-0 1st -- NFC East 3-0 - Won Superbowl Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1976 11-3-0 1st -- NFC East 0-1 - Lost Divisional Playoffs Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1975 10-4-0 2nd -- NFC East 2-1 - Lost Superbowl Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1974 8-6-0 3rd -- NFC East -- Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1973 10-4-0 1st -- NFC East 1-1 - Lost Conference Championship Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1972 10-4-0 2nd -- NFC East 1-1 - Lost Conference Championship Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1971 11-3-0 1st -- NFC East 3-0 - Won Superbowl Tom Landry Roster / Stats 1970 10-4-0 1st -- NFC East 2-1 - Lost Superbowl Tom Landry Roster / Stats Cowboy Fan since 1960.......You young-uns stay outta my yard.  |
||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#7 | |||||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
A dynasty.
Step aside for the Cowboys from Hell!!!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#8 | |||||||
|
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
Years Donated 2004, 2009
|
Quote:
Would anyone consider the late 90's Broncos a dynasty?  |
|||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#9 | |||||||
|
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
Years Donated 2004, 2009
|
Quote:
that is one hell of a record! |
|||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#10 | |||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
 .P.S I posted this info on the Espn Boards. Lets see what they say. |
|||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#11 | |||||
|
The Grand Poobah
Years Donated 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
|
Quote:
That should be interesting.....looking forward to hearing what they have to say .  Cowboy Fan since 1960.......You young-uns stay outta my yard. Last edited by Cbz40 : 02-22-2006 at 07:45 PM. |
|||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#12 | |||||||
|
Banned
|
Quote:
Last edited by ThreeSportStar80 : 02-22-2006 at 08:14 PM. |
|||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#13 | |||||||
|
Senior Member
 |
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#14 | |||||
|
Senior Member
|
Quote:
but they just didnt lead in super bowl wins, yet they lost three super bowls by 3 pts, 4 pts and 4 pts and won 2 by 21 and 16 pts. But the Steelers are the only team referred to as a dynasty. Im not sure I have ever heard any pundit call them a dynasty. Generally you need at least back-to-back titles. Pretty much goes for every sports. Would you call the 90's Devils or the recent Spurs a dynasty? I dont know, there arent hard and fast rules about it. |
|||||
|
|
|
02-22-2006
|
#15 | ||||||
|
THE BIG DOG
Years Donated 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
|
The answer is yes. But unfortunately it is for the Steelers also.
This is a team who is battling several major injuries to
key players including Pro Bowl talents like Lee, Austin, Jenkins, Murray, Carter and Ratliff. Other key starters missing include Costa, Smith, Church and Coleman. That is 11 key players - that's half the starting lineup. Yet we still went 8-8. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 PM.