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

Established1971 said:

first one started 66 not 70

Click to expand...

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...

plasticman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Cowboys22 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bobhaze said:

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.

Click to expand...

Shake_Tiller said:

The length of the '60's into the '80's run made it difficult to define. It began with the Packers being the hurdle, then the Steelers, then the 49'ers. All were great teams. The Cowboys were a little young when they lost to the Packers, then suffered a hangover from those defeats. They broke through with the Super Bowl win over the Dolphins and maybe underachieved for a few years. The team that beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl was probably Landry's best.

I think the Cowboys were a kind of dynasty during those Landry years. They needed to win at least a couple more Super Bowls to be classed as one the way it is defined these days. But it was a dynastic organization. It's a shame Staubach didn't get to quarterback the team that lost to the Colts in 1970. The Cowboys almost certainly would have won that one.

I enjoyed the Landry teams because the same players were together so long. You knew the linebackers were Jordan, Howley and Edwards. For a long time, the DL was Lilly, Andrie, Pugh and either Cole or Townes. The OL was stable. Renfro, Cornell, Harris, Waters... Garrison and Newhouse. Drew, Hayes, Tony Hill... on and on. These were "our guys." There were deep links from the earliest to the latest years.

The 90's was pure rocket fuel and much closer to the Steelers' run -- lightning in a bottle, An all-time great kind of run.

I enjoyed them both in different ways. You like Southern Comfort or Jose Cuervo?

Click to expand...

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...

MarkP88 said:

I would have to say the 90s Cowboys, strictly because of my age.

I started being a fan in 1976 - the first game I can remember watching is the playoff game against the Rams that year - but I really didn't become fanatical until the last game of the '79 season. That was the game that showed me how exciting football could be. It cemented my love for the game and the team. I turned 12 a few days after that game...and then they promptly lost to the Rams in the playoffs. The 80s followed with more playoffs heartbreak and then a complete collapse - so although I was around for Super Bowls XII and XIII (ugh), I wasn't in a position to appreciate them. And Super Bowls V and VI were just games I saw clips of on old school highlight reels.

The 90s team I got to savor...having seen it built, brick by brick, going to the draft every year, spending money to go down to Texas Stadium once a year from NY...I couldn't be more ready. Most of their players where right around my age. It's mind-boggling to me that it was all so long ago now. The 90s Cowboys are as far away from my current self as the expansion team was from my teenage self. Crazy.

Click to expand...

noshame said:

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.

Click to expand...

MWH1967 said:

Both for me, I Took the first one for granite. The 2nd one I absolutely did not. The next one I might cry a little.

Click to expand...

cern said:

the first was defined by our inability to beat the hated steelers in superbowls. the second was defined by our ability to kick anyone's butt. the egos of tex and tom were trumped by the egos of jimmy and jerry.

Click to expand...