1. CowboysZone Upgrade Coming Soon! For more information, click here.

Are the 70s Cowboys considered a dynasty?

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by DallasDomination, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. DallasDomination

    DallasDomination Well-Known Member

    6,836 Messages
    266 Likes Received
  2. ravidubey

    ravidubey Active Member

    4,868 Messages
    12 Likes Received
    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.
  3. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    36,664 Messages
    2,943 Likes Received
    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.
  4. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Only a football illiterate would not consider the Cowboys of the 70's not a dynasty.
  5. CowboyMark

    CowboyMark New Member

    436 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    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.
  6. Cbz40

    Cbz40 The Grand Poobah

    31,365 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    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
  7. Ashwynn

    Ashwynn Well-Known Member

    3,465 Messages
    195 Likes Received
    Not even debatable. Undisputable even.

    A dynasty.
  8. Erik_H

    Erik_H Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

    2,546 Messages
    129 Likes Received
    Playin a bit of Devil's advocate here.

    Would anyone consider the late 90's Broncos a dynasty?
  9. Erik_H

    Erik_H Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

    2,546 Messages
    129 Likes Received
    and on a more realistic note:


    that is one hell of a record!
  10. DallasDomination

    DallasDomination Well-Known Member

    6,836 Messages
    266 Likes Received
    That has Dynasty written all over the place:star: .



    P.S I posted this info on the Espn Boards. Lets see what they say.
  11. Cbz40

    Cbz40 The Grand Poobah

    31,365 Messages
    1 Likes Received

    That should be interesting.....looking forward to hearing what they have to say .:)
  12. ThreeSportStar80

    ThreeSportStar80 Benched

    27,093 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Call me crazy but if you win 4 Superbowls in a span of 10 years then you should clearly be a considered a dynasty, don't let hatred for the team blind of what it took to win 4 Superbowls. Now I can't quite call the Cowboys teams of the 70's a dynasty really because they lost more big games than won, and I'm one of the more prejudice Cowboys fans ever!


  13. VirusX

    VirusX Active Member

    1,401 Messages
    17 Likes Received
  14. fiveandcounting

    fiveandcounting New Member

    1,592 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The Boys led the 70's in everything but one. They had most wins, winning seasons, playoff games, playoff wins, conference titles, division titles (I think)
    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.
  15. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    55,190 Messages
    7,824 Likes Received
    The answer is yes. But unfortunately it is for the Steelers also.
  16. Cbz40

    Cbz40 The Grand Poobah

    31,365 Messages
    1 Likes Received

    Good post.
  17. Cbz40

    Cbz40 The Grand Poobah

    31,365 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Unfortunately for many, a dynasty is determined by the number of Championships won and that is hard to argue against. Another factor that goes against us is that 2 of the 3 Super Bowls we lost..... were to the Steelers.

    Never the less, dynasty or not, what a great decade and a half to be a Dallas Cowboy fan. 1965-1979 there was almost no doubt we would be in the playoffs.... Starting In 1965, the Cowboys earned their first of nine consecutive trips to the playoffs. During that streak we play in our 1st SB (70) losing to the Colts and we win our first in "71" defeating Miami.

    After breaking the streak in "74" we finished out the decade (75-79) in the playoffs with 3 SB appearences winning 1 of 3.

    During the 70's....we were in 5 Super Bowls. winning 2 of 5.We won 14 playoff games while losing 7. We had a regular season record of W=105 L=39.


    Were we a dynasty? In my eyes "yes"....if nothing else, we definitely dominated the NFC.

    Now you younger guys should understand why us older members or so picky......Coach Landry Spoiled the heck out of us.


    OK....I know....I'll shut-up:D
  18. goshan

    goshan Well-Known Member

    1,944 Messages
    47 Likes Received
    To me, a Dynasty means you were the best of your time and a dominant force. It also implies longevity-at least 4-5 yrs.

    So I would probably say we weren't a Dynasty because of the Steelers.
  19. REDVOLUTION

    REDVOLUTION Return to Dominance

    27,611 Messages
    2,194 Likes Received
    Yeah I kind of feel the same way. If it wasnt for the bogus Turnover call against the Colts and the 2 SB losses to Steelers(we were so close) we would be hands down THE TEAM of the NFL.

    But............... losing 3 out of 5 SB's just doesnt cut it. The Steelers WON 4 in 6 years. Steelers were Dynasy of the 70's... ooffaa that hurts to admit
    :bang2:

    I am just glad we got the "one for the thumb" AGAINST the Steelers.... delaying theirs until the Zebra's intervened and lent a helping flag or 2 or 3.

    Oh well.... lets get #6 before any other team!!!
  20. Raneiron#31

    Raneiron#31 Member

    93 Messages
    15 Likes Received
    [/quote]Would anyone consider the late 90's Broncos a dynasty?[/endquote]

    GOD no would i ever consider the Broncos a dynasty. They had 3 years where they were good and then went to the crapper for 4 yrs before their new resurgance. WOW 3 yrs. Srry had to respond to that.


    P.S. Terrell Davis one of the most overrated players ever to step on the playing field.

Share This Page