First Dallas dynasty (1970-1982) funner or the second (1992-1995)?

The first Cowboys dynasty - which I am loosely defining as 1970-1982 - lasted a lot longer than the second, however, the second (1992-1995) was a lot more successful on a per-year basis.

75% of all seasons in the second dynasty ended in a championship, but the first dynasty saw the Cowboys appear in the NFC conference title game almost every year.

In short, the first dynasty was longer lasting, but had less hardware to show for it. The second was a lot shorter, but more dominant and title-winning. Which was more enjoyable in your opinion?

i was older during the 2nd....with a better understanding of the game and how hard it is for a team to win a super bowl...let alone 3 in 4yrs.

but there was something special about that Landry era....i miss those guys...and that man in the hat.

Second. Too young to fully appreciate the first dynasty. Besides, I used to HATE the Cowboys until they drafted Tony Dorsett.
The Jimmy Johnson era, we'll never see another like it. His personality and cockiness set the mood for that team. I never thought they would lose. They just had a brashness about them with a coach who was as bold and as daring as they come.
Unfortunately, it was too short. I'm convinced that had Jimmy not left, we would have won five Super Bowls straight, and that easily. Neither the Packers or the Niners could beat us when Jimmy was coaching. We would have rolled the Chargers and the Patriots.

I was too young to truly enjoy the first dynasty but I do remember it. The '90s dynasty was amazing. I ran up so many bar tabs back then, it was a blast.

tyke1doe said:

Second. Too young to fully appreciate the first dynasty. Besides, I used to HATE the Cowboys until they drafted Tony Dorsett.
The Jimmy Johnson era, we'll never see another like it. His personality and cockiness set the mood for that team. I never thought they would lose. They just had a brashness about them with a coach who was as bold and as daring as they come.
Unfortunately, it was too short. I'm convinced that had Jimmy not left, we would have won five Super Bowls straight, and that easily. Neither the Packers or the Niners could beat us when Jimmy was coaching. We would have rolled the Chargers and the Patriots.

Click to expand...

I know this topic has been hashed a million times, but I don't think it would have been as easy as "if Jimmy stays, we win more." In a later NFL Films documentary, Jimmy himself said he was so fatigued by 1993 that he might have quit football anyway even had Jerry not had that spat with him. In addition, some Cowboys players felt that Jimmy's overbearing nature was starting to backfire rather than help (in the Jeff Pearlman book Boys will be Boys.) They said that Switzer's congenial nature helped the team relax more and keep it together mentally, at least in the short run.

Too young for the 1st one but luckily got to see the 2nd one. Started watching about 89-90ish

The second, I barely remember football before 1980

That's like choosing between a fillet and a new York.
I'll take the porterhouse
I can't choose.
But I do think you need to start the first era with the ice bowl.

Is funner a word? Give me coach Landry with the 90's team.

Red Dragon said:

The first Cowboys dynasty - which I am loosely defining as 1970-1982 - lasted a lot longer than the second, however, the second (1992-1995) was a lot more successful on a per-year basis.

75% of all seasons in the second dynasty ended in a championship, but the first dynasty saw the Cowboys appear in the NFC conference title game almost every year.

In short, the first dynasty was longer lasting, but had less hardware to show for it. The second was a lot shorter, but more dominant and title-winning. Which was more enjoyable in your opinion?

Click to expand...

I would include the 66 team as the start.

The 85 team would be the end.

The ownership change in 84 basically killed the dynasty.

cowboyec said:

i was older during the 2nd....with a better understanding of the game and how hard it is for a team to win a super bowl...let alone 3 in 4yrs.

but there was something special about that Landry era....i miss those guys...and that man in the hat.

Click to expand...

same- The 90's were more fun, because I was in my 20's and could properly talk $%@! to people! lol

They both have their positives. I think the Landry era was more consistent. The Boys were in the playoffs what 20 out of 21 seasons. It seemed like every year they were in contention while Roger was at the helm. It was a different game back then. More of a team mentality instead of the me, me, me mindset. I will take the 1st era. Maybe I am just getting old.

The 2nd for me. Cowboys won a superbowl in 3 of my 4 college years, so I really enjoyed that era!

I loved both eras. But for me personally, the first dynasty was more fun, and certainly more consistently dominant.

The “Landry Era” of 1970-82, won 20 of the entire all time 35 playoff wins in team history. In those 13 seasons, the team missed the playoffs only once, and played in 5 SBs and 10 NFC championship games. In the “Johnson era” of 1989-95 (I know Jimmy left in early 94, but I still call the Johnson era lasting until 96), we won 12 playoff games, played in 3 SBs and 4 NFC championship games. It accomplished a ton in a short amount of time. But the Landry era of the 70s IMO was the most dominant and entertaining for the longest period of time.

Red Dragon said:

The first Cowboys dynasty - which I am loosely defining as 1970-1982 - lasted a lot longer than the second, however, the second (1992-1995) was a lot more successful on a per-year basis.

75% of all seasons in the second dynasty ended in a championship, but the first dynasty saw the Cowboys appear in the NFC conference title game almost every year.

In short, the first dynasty was longer lasting, but had less hardware to show for it. The second was a lot shorter, but more dominant and title-winning. Which was more enjoyable in your opinion?

Click to expand...

I would go from 66-85
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/playoffs.htm
it's a shame the last 20 odd years are so pathetic.

Red Dragon said:

The first Cowboys dynasty - which I am loosely defining as 1970-1982 - lasted a lot longer than the second, however, the second (1992-1995) was a lot more successful on a per-year basis.

75% of all seasons in the second dynasty ended in a championship, but the first dynasty saw the Cowboys appear in the NFC conference title game almost every year.

In short, the first dynasty was longer lasting, but had less hardware to show for it. The second was a lot shorter, but more dominant and title-winning. Which was more enjoyable in your opinion?

Click to expand...

first one started 66 not 70

The 1990s were fun because after they got by the Niners in 92 you knew they had a chance to win each game, spoiled a lot of us fans up to today.

The 70s were built on expectations, Coach Landry had built this team to such a high level that anything less than a SB victory was considered a failure. As a fan it was great to be in contention every year, and almost every player was a star, but their was a lot of disappointment because we didn't win it all every year.

Tough one.

My immediate response would be the 70's team. I was young, learning about football and I had a hero, Roger Staubach. I was also spoiled. Back then, it wasn't whether the Cowboys would be in the playoffs, It was all about the Super Bowl. From the age of 13 to 25 I saw my Cowboys play in 10 conference championships and 5 Super Bowls.

On the other hand, they should have won more. The three SB losses stung because they could have each been won, the difference was one or two plays.
The NFC championship loss to the 49ers stung. I wouldn't be shocked if the Cowboys led statistically in all those losses. It seems that to come away with just two championships was an underacheivement considering the number of opportunities.

The 90's was so exciting because it was so unexpected. The media made fun of Jerry and Jimmy ar first. However, as soon as they began building the team, their success accelerated quicker than any other team I can think of. If Aikman hadn't been hurt in 1990, they would have made the playoff in Jerry and Jimmy's second season in charge. The team was so good they won in 94 and 95 despite terrible coaching, off field issues, and every other team gunning for them.

On the other hand.....way too short. To have the 90's end with a losing season and two consecutive wildcard losses in the last three years was depressing. We had a huge spike of success in the first 5-6 seasons followed by an immediate crash in the last 3-4 seasons and way into the 2000's.

Did you notice I didn't answer the question? I'll have to think on it.

The first one isn't a dynasty at all. It was simply a very successful era where they were consistently one of the top teams in the league and won a lot of playoff games and a few championships. You can't call it a dynasty when another team won twice as many championships as you did. They are the dynasty for that era.