71 Cowboys 8th best ever NFL team

[The30YardSlant]

and that defense was no slouch either...

#2 in the league I believe

 

[dwmyers]

If we judged Babe Ruth by Barry Bonds, he'd just be an outstanding power hitter - put him up against his contemporaries and he is the best baseball player ever.

I think Barry hasn't taken the best overall player ever away from Ruth just yet. Ruth hit for enormous power over a fairly long period of time. Bond's big power era is stained quite a bit by his steriod use.

Oh yeah, and before Ruth was a hitter, he was a damn good (as in World Series winning) pitcher as well.

Has Barry pitched a lick in the pros?

David.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Noticeably absent from the list.......the Iggles. :trophy: :laugh2:

 

[parchy]

I think Barry hasn't taken the best overall player ever away from Ruth just yet. Ruth hit for enormous power over a fairly long period of time. Bond's big power era is stained quite a bit by his steriod use.

Oh yeah, and before Ruth was a hitter, he was a damn good (as in World Series winning) pitcher as well.

Has Barry pitched a lick in the pros?

David.

Right, but my point was that when you stack up Ruth's power hitting and Bond's power hitting without looking at anything else there is little to distinguish the two. Then when you factor in that Ruth hit 20% of the leagues home runs in most years and that usually nobody was within 30 of him in a given season, it becomes very plain to see who the better player was. But in terms of overall player, Ruth was not a good fielder, and neither is Bonds.

The fact that Ruth was a Cy Young pitcher further pushes along the idea that he is the best of all time, but that isn't as relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Some personal opinions.

* I think the 92-95 team was a better team overall than 1971, as a product of their continuity. I think 77-78 better than 1970-1971 as well. Plain and simple, better QB, and overall a more trustworthy RB.
* I think the 1979 Steelers were in decline. The earlier 1970s teams were better.
* I'd be hesitant to claim the 1996 Packers were really better than the 1966 Packers.
* I don't think the 1972 Cowboys could have beaten the 1972 Dolphins. I think the 1971 Cowboys would have given the 72 Dolphins a good run for their money. And lest ya'll forget, the 1973 Cowboys did play the 1973 Dolphins and lost.
* I think you have to win more than one to be considered "best of all time." The Bears won one.
* Trying to pull "the best" team out of all this is almost a mystifying operation, since all these teams played with substantially different rules. The 1972 Dolphins were almost never passed on because their cornerbacks cut receivers down right at the line of scrimmage. The 1972 Dolphins would get whipped playing the 1999 Rams using 1999 rules. The 1999 Rams might have suffered greatly if you took away their steroids and made them play by 1972 rules.
* I would have dearly loved to have seen Staubach play with the modern passing rules.

David.

QB for the 71-72 team was the same as the 77-78 team.

Also, the 71-72 Cowboys played the 71-72 Dolphins. Beat them 24-3 in New Orleans. In 73, the Dolphins did play the Cowboys and beat us 14-7.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Right, but my point was that when you stack up Ruth's power hitting and Bond's power hitting without looking at anything else there is little to distinguish the two. Then when you factor in that Ruth hit 20% of the leagues home runs in most years and that usually nobody was within 30 of him in a given season, it becomes very plain to see who the better player was. But in terms of overall player, Ruth was not a good fielder, and neither is Bonds.

The fact that Ruth was a Cy Young pitcher further pushes along the idea that he is the best of all time, but that isn't as relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

It is to me. Ruth, IMO, was the best baseball player of all time. JMO of course.

 

[DallasDomination]

Who made that stupid list?

Who ever made it has lost all credability....OK I'm gonna go roll on the floor and laugh for about a HOUR

 

[dwmyers]

Right, but my point was that when you stack up Ruth's power hitting and Bond's power hitting without looking at anything else there is little to distinguish the two. Then when you factor in that Ruth hit 20% of the leagues home runs in most years and that usually nobody was within 30 of him in a given season, it becomes very plain to see who the better player was. But in terms of overall player, Ruth was not a good fielder, and neither is Bonds.

The fact that Ruth was a Cy Young pitcher further pushes along the idea that he is the best of all time, but that isn't as relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

This is definitely off the beaten path, but Ty Cobb once argued that the reason Ruth was the hitter he was is that he was never trained to hit. Had he been, he would have been turned into the high-average low-power hitter that everyone else was in those days. But he was a pitcher and no one cared that he took the big cut.

I tend to think Cobb was right.

David.

 

[dwmyers]

QB for the 71-72 team was the same as the 77-78 team.

Yes and no. In 1972 Staubach was injured for the most part and Morton was largely the starter. When Staubach did come back, he was rusty; pulled off a miracle in San Francisco and then didn't do much against Washington.

The 71 team had the advantage of an injury free Staubach at the peak of his game. In those days, it was pretty easy to tell when Staubach was having an excellent season: when his interceptions were less than 10 a year..

David.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes and no. In 1972 Staubach was injured for the most part and Morton was largely the starter. When Staubach did come back, he was rusty; pulled off a miracle in San Francisco and then didn't do much against Washington.

The 71 team had the advantage of an injury free Staubach at the peak of his game. In those days, it was pretty easy to tell when Staubach was having an excellent season: when his interceptions were less than 10 a year..

David.

I think were talking apples and oragnes here. 71-72 team is being compared to the 77-78 team. If I understand your post, your talking about the 72-73 team. Different team all together. This team is not in the running.

 

[dwmyers]

I think were talking apples and oragnes here. 71-72 team is being compared to the 77-78 team. If I understand your post, your talking about the 72-73 team. Different team all together. This team is not in the running.

Obviously I haven't been clear; I've been misleading. Hell, I've evidently confused myself.

The two periods for comparison are 1970 and 1971 (two years, two teams) and 1977 and 1978 (two years, two teams). I think 77 through 78 gets the edge because of a better quarterback (2 years of Staubach as opposed to a year of injured Morton and one year of "Starback").

David.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Obviously I haven't been clear; I've been misleading. Hell, I've evidently confused myself.

The two periods for comparison are 1970 and 1971 (two years, two teams) and 1977 and 1978 (two years, two teams). I think 77 through 78 gets the edge because of a better quarterback (2 years of Staubach as opposed to a year of injured Morton and one year of "Starback").

David.

LOL....


Lets just boil this thing down here. I'm going to call the 71 team the team that beat Miami in the SuperBowl (even though it's listed as 72 SuperBowl) the team being compared and the 77 team, the team that bet the Broncos in the Superbowl (even though it's listed as 78 SuperBowl). On those two teams, the QB was the same in Roger Staubach. I think the 71 team was better. Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[MSalz87]

question of whether cowboy teams of the 90s are better. maybe so, maybe no. i think the '71 team was better, myself.

much bigger question is the 1972 dolphins. i still think that team is way overrated. i agree that 17 in a row was quite a feat. however, beating the skins in the SB was not that big a deal since only the Commanders of the same year were more overrated than miami. washington played their SB against dallas in the playoffs in 1972. frankly, i think the 72 cowboys could have taken the 72 dolphins by a touchdown. any team on this list could take the 72 dolphins by a touchdown.

The 72 Dolphins are indeed overrated, and I think the Commanders could have beaten them if Jurgenson had played rather than Kilmer but oh well.

I was surprised that the 93 Cowboys team didnt make it up there placing at least 7 despite playing a weaker Bills team in the SB than the year before, they would have pretty much knocked out whoever they faced that year.

I like the 91 skins at #4, if the 83 club had won the superbowl maybe they would have made it with that offense they had. oh well.

 

[joseephuss]

This is definitely off the beaten path, but Ty Cobb once argued that the reason Ruth was the hitter he was is that he was never trained to hit. Had he been, he would have been turned into the high-average low-power hitter that everyone else was in those days. But he was a pitcher and no one cared that he took the big cut.

I tend to think Cobb was right.

David.

Ruth was still a high average hitter. He hit 0.342 for his career for 9th best all time.

 

[cleverusername]

The 1993 Dallas Cowboys were the best team ever, and that's simply the end of any discussion. For them not to be on this list is an outrage, they would easily beat everyone on that list but the 89 49ers and the 1985 Bears.

The Bears vaunted defense never faced an offense like that team had, though.

 

[SkinsFan26]

How the '92 Cowboys aren't on that list is just dumbfounding.

71>92

 

[Cristoff]

The 92-93 Bills are better than a few of those teams. That should tell you something about the Cowboy teams of that era.

 

[burmafrd]

The 71 team had more great players then any other Cowboy team. Simple as that. More HOF, and should be in the HOF then any other Cowboy team.
And they had incredible depth as well.
By the way: Babe Ruth was quite a GOOD fielder- better then Bonds ever was. He was also on his way to being a HOF pitcher as well, he held one world series record for something like 70 years. Add to the fact that his batting average is much higher then Bonds, and also never used steroids, and Bonds can't carry his cleats.

 

[Juke99]

The answer to your question, is yes...

I read that list and I tell ya... I got nothin'... just nothin'...

The answer to his question is, no....

 

[ravidubey]

This list maker is high-- he simply does not value defense.

- #1 The 1989 San Francisco 49ers were the best team the NFL has ever fielded. The best QB ever at the peak of his game, a solid RB, and the best WR ever with a superior defense led by Ronnie Lott and Charles Haley.

- #2 The 1992 Cowboys very close to the 1989 49ers, as close as Darren Woodson was to Ronnie Lott, Troy Aikman was to Joe Montana, and Michael Irvin was to Jerry Rice-- that is, not close enough. Emmitt and Novacek pulled Dallas closer, but I have to give this one to Montana and Walsh. Dallas had an offense equal to San Francisco's without the gimmick defense of the 85 Bears. Dallas' RB and OL were better than the 49ers, but Montana was Montana. Big E would have ripped the head off of either Steve McMichael or Richard Dent and that team wouldn't have an answer for Aikman, Novacek, Irvin, and Harper.

- #3 The 1985 Bears. Dominant, dominant team but a gimmick defense that took the league by surprise and was a fading one-year wonder.

- #4 Pittsburgh's 1978 team was fantastic. I agree with another poster that their 1979 team was in decline and somewhat overrated. This team represented the 70's dynasty at its best.

- #5 The 1983 Raiders kicked butt with dominant offense, defense, and ST's. Awesome and underrated team that was made better than the awesome 1980 team by the addition of Howie Long.

- #6 Washington in 1991. Sammy Baugh possessed Mark Rypien for five months. The defense had a great mix of young and veteran players and the NFL's best coach at the top of his game.

- #7 The 1967 Packers with Bart Starr had monstrous cahones, great RB's, a fine defense, and one of the best coaches of all time.

- #8 The 1986 Giants were good, but thanks to their defense they were great.

- #9 The 1998 Broncos were a good team, but several notches below the others thanks to an average defense.

- #10 The 2000 Ravens had one of the best defenses I've ever seen. Their offense was led by Jamal Lewis, Jonathon Ogden, and Shannon Sharpe, three excellent if not dominant players. Trent Dilfer makes this team fly under the radar, but he made enough plays to win. They would have shut out the 1972 Dolphins 10 times out of ten.

No one else deserves to be on this list

Notes: Washington in 1991 gets docked because they played against a league in transition. Parcells had left New York, Randall Cunningham was out for the season, Dallas was still building, San Fran was changing QB's, Atlanta was the best team in the West, the great Saints, Bears, and Rams teams of the 80's were in decline, and Detroit had a journeyman QB behind Barry Sanders.

Washington had the easiest ticket to the Superbowl I've ever seen (with the exception of the 1972 Dolphins who had they lost even a single game might not have even made that list). Atlanta and Detroit at home. The 1992-1993 Cowboys would whip that 91 Washington team 8 times out of 10. I saw both teams up close and in person and there's no doubt in my mind.