Are the 70s Cowboys considered a dynasty?

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.[/quote]

While we were down I wouldnt have minded seeing Elway get 3 in a row. But even he knew he was lucky to get not one but two back to back. Quit while your ahead and not go out with losing SB.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I'm gonna get ripped for this but... NO, they weren't a dynasty.

Would you classify the 80's Commanders as a dynasty? They won a few Super Bowls and lost one as well. The 70's Vikings and 90's Bills all went to an incredible amount of Super Bowls, but no one considers them a dynasty, EVEN if they had won two of ther Super Bowls. The 90's Broncos won back-to-back Super Bowls but the 90's Cowboys are the team that is considered the dynasty of the 90's.

Different sports have different definitions, but regardless, they all agree on one thing, you MUST win the big one. The 70's Cowboys just didn't win the big one enough.

I think to be considered a dynasty in the NFL, you need two things. One, you need to win at least one back-to-back Super Bowl. Then, you need to win another Super Bowl with much of the same core crew in a short time period near that back-to-back performance. That qualifies the 60's Packers (including championships before the Super Bowl was created), 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, 90's Cowboys and 00's Patriots, which everyone will tell you are the definitive dynasties in NFL history. Going by these rules, you can throw out the 70's Dolphins, 80's Commanders, 70's Cowboys, 90's Broncos, and 70's Raiders, all great teams with plenty of Hall of Famers and astounding accomplishments in their conference, but just not enough Super Bowl wins over a short time span. If you want to talk about some of the greatest NFL teams ever assembled, than Landry's Cowboys and Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys will always be on the list, but when you get to dynasties, only Jimmy's Cowboy's stay on the list. I hate to say it, but it's the way I look at it.

And this doesn't take away from Landry and all those great players one bit. They just happened to play when a team (the 70's Steelers) also played that some consider the greatest NFL team ever. It's not fair that sometimes luck played a huge role, and believe me, it does, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You need to win them Super Bowls before folks take you serious.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm gonna get ripped for this but... NO, they weren't a dynasty.

Would you classify the 80's Commanders as a dynasty? They won a few Super Bowls and lost one as well. The 70's Vikings and 90's Bills all went to an incredible amount of Super Bowls, but no one considers them a dynasty, EVEN if they had won two of ther Super Bowls. The 90's Broncos won back-to-back Super Bowls but the 90's Cowboys are the team that is considered the dynasty of the 90's.

Different sports have different definitions, but regardless, they all agree on one thing, you MUST win the big one. The 70's Cowboys just didn't win the big one enough.

I think to be considered a dynasty in the NFL, you need two things. One, you need to win at least one back-to-back Super Bowl. Then, you need to win another Super Bowl with much of the same core crew in a short time period near that back-to-back performance. That qualifies the 60's Packers (including championships before the Super Bowl was created), 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, 90's Cowboys and 00's Patriots, which everyone will tell you are the definitive dynasties in NFL history. Going by these rules, you can throw out the 70's Dolphins, 80's Commanders, 70's Cowboys, 90's Broncos, and 70's Raiders, all great teams with plenty of Hall of Famers and astounding accomplishments in their conference, but just not enough Super Bowl wins over a short time span. If you want to talk about some of the greatest NFL teams ever assembled, than Landry's Cowboys and Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys will always be on the list, but when you get to dynasties, only Jimmy's Cowboy's stay on the list. I hate to say it, but it's the way I look at it.

And this doesn't take away from Landry and all those great players one bit. They just happened to play when a team (the 70's Steelers) also played that some consider the greatest NFL team ever. It's not fair that sometimes luck played a huge role, and believe me, it does, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You need to win them Super Bowls before folks take you serious.

Yeah I think something like "honorable mention" or "amazing accomplishments" are more fitting for those teams.

• amazing accomplishments = Bills 4 consecutive SB'sappearances
• amazing accomplishments = 70's Cowboys - 2 SB's & dominating NFC
• honorable mention = Vikings & Bills as well

Dynasty Team and Decade

60's Packers (Cowboys hung around)
70's Steelers (Cowboys won a few & hung around)
80's 49ers (Cowboys hung around in the beginning of decade)
90's Cowboys (Cowboys hung around BIG TIME & hung some mofo's LOL)
00's Patriots (Cowboys hung themselves)

 

[poke]

FROM...Merriam-Webster dictionary

a defintion of the word "dynasty"

1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

using defintion # 2 tells me that YES !! the 70's Cowboys were a dynasty.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

FROM...Merriam-Webster dictionary

a defintion of the word "dynasty"

1 : a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2 : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

using defintion # 2 tells me that YES !! the 70's Cowboys were a dynasty.

I hear ya. But going by #2... there is a problem. We DIDNT maintain position. We were moved by the Steelers and Colts.

 

[DallasDomination]

If there is only allowed to be one Team each decade then fine the Steelers have it.

But in my eyes the 70s Cowboys were a Dynasty. Their record and 2 Superbowls Speak volumes for the 70s Boys.

IMO those SB's against the Steelers will never be relived never again by no team in no Era. If you think about it, it was as if two Dynasties clashed. When has a SB ever been like this? From what I recall never.


What heppened in the 90s was just total and utter annihilation by the Cowboys. There was no other Team that even came close to them as far as accomplishments ( During that same year span).


You cant compare the 70s Boys to the 90s broncos or 90s BIlls...

This is how it should look like:

70s Teelers *Cowboys
80s Niners
90s Cowboys
00s PAtriots

 

[ravidubey]

I hear ya. But going by #2... there is a problem. We DIDNT maintain position. We were moved by the Steelers and Colts.

"Position" is relative. There can only be one Superbowl Champ, but there can be more than one Dynasty. 5 Superbowls is simply an unbelievable number, and though Dallas did not win back-to-back bowls, they indeed went to back-to-back Superbowls twice, winning one each time.

Another key component of the definition is the same "ruling family"-- Dallas won with Staubach and Landry and mostly the same cast of characters from year to year. Throw in 4 Superbowl MVP's, equal to the Steelers.

The Steelers also never crushed anybody in the Superbowl. They beat the Rams by two TD's but that game was close until the very end. They were lucky vs. Dallas and squeaked by twice and defeated Minnesota solidly.

Staubach's Cowboys obliterated Miami, plain smoked Denver, and lost to the Colts because of one of the worst officiating calls in NFL history, not just Superbowl history. They probably would have beaten Pittsburgh in 1978-1979 had it not been for some dubious calls in that game as well.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If there is only allowed to be one Team each decade then fine the Steelers have it.

But in my eyes the 70s Cowboys were a Dynasty. Their record and 2 Superbowls Speak volumes for the 70s Boys.

IMO those SB's against the Steelers will never be relived never again by no team in no Era. If you think about it, it was as if two Dynasties clashed. When has a SB ever been like this? From what I recall never.


What heppened in the 90s was just total and utter annihilation by the Cowboys. There was no other Team that even came close to them as far as accomplishments ( During that same year span).


You cant compare the 70s Boys to the 90s broncos or 90s BIlls...

This is how it should look like:

70s Teelers *Cowboys
80s Niners
90s Cowboys
00s PAtriots

I hear ya and would agree IF we had won one of those 70's Steelers SB's.
Steelers 4-0
Cowboys 2-3

If we had won
Steelers 3-1
Cowboys 3-2
To me that would have been Dynasty Winner = Cowboys, more SB's and same # wins

What a difference one game makes IMO

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

"Position" is relative. There can only be one Superbowl Champ, but there can be more than one Dynasty. 5 Superbowls is simply an unbelievable number, and though Dallas did not win back-to-back bowls, they indeed went to back-to-back Superbowls twice, winning one each time.

Another key component of the definition is the same "ruling family"-- Dallas won with Staubach and Landry and mostly the same cast of characters from year to year. Throw in 4 Superbowl MVP's, equal to the Steelers.

The Steelers also never crushed anybody in the Superbowl. They beat the Rams by two TD's but that game was close until the very end. They were lucky vs. Dallas and squeaked by twice and defeated Minnesota solidly.

Staubach's Cowboys obliterated Miami, plain smoked Denver, and lost to the Colts because of one of the worst officiating calls in NFL history, not just Superbowl history. They probably would have beaten Pittsburgh in 1978-1979 had it not been for some dubious calls in that game as well.

We are all Die Hard Cowboys fans in here... but if you want to give Dallas SO MUCH credit for going to 5 and losing 3 then you have to give the Bills major props for going to 4 SB's and losing in a row.

 

[rynochop]

I hear ya and would agree IF we had won one of those 70's Steelers SB's.
Steelers 4-0
Cowboys 2-3

If we had won
Steelers 3-1
Cowboys 3-2
To me that would have been Dynasty Winner = Cowboys, more SB's and same # wins

What a difference one game makes IMO

If only Jackie Harris could have hauled that one in.

 

[ravidubey]

We are all Die Hard Cowboys fans in here... but if you want to give Dallas SO MUCH credit for going to 5 and losing 3 then you have to give the Bills major props for going to 4 SB's and losing in a row.

No I don't. Dallas won two Superbowls and barely lost three others. Buffalo barely lost one and got arse-rammed in three others.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If only Jackie Harris could have hauled that one in.

Those "If's" really hurt us historically. We could have been the Yankees of the NFL.

1. If SB against Baltimore was called right we would have won
2. If a play here and there we beat the Steelers BOTH times
3. If Danny White and Cowboys had won just ONE of those 4 straight NFC title games
4. If "The Catch" never happened
5. If we didnt spot the 49ers 21 points in first 10 minutes of first qtr in 3rd NFC title game

I feel your pain. The only way to remedy that is to win #6, 7 and so on...

I am just glad we took #5 before the Steelers AND against the Steelers... that would have stung.... a third loss to PITT and them getting 5 before us and against us... whew!

Thank you Larry Brown!

 

[DallasDomination]

Those "If's" really hurt us historically. We could have been the Yankees of the NFL.

1. If SB against Baltimore was called right we would have won
2. If a play here and there we beat the Steelers BOTH times
3. If Danny White and Cowboys had won just ONE of those 4 straight NFC title games
4. If "The Catch" never happened
5. If we didnt spot the 49ers 21 points in first 10 minutes of first qtr in 3rd NFC title game

I feel your pain. The only way to remedy that is to win #6, 7 and so on...

I am just glad we took #5 before the Steelers AND against the Steelers... that would have stung.... a third loss to PITT and them getting 5 before us and against us... whew!

Thank you Larry Brown!

I agree. If we would of lost that game we would be the Steelers little Bic*h

Maybe in the 70s DAllas was that but the 90s was DAllas over Steelers all day every day.

 

[DallasDomination]

We are all Die Hard Cowboys fans in here... but if you want to give Dallas SO MUCH credit for going to 5 and losing 3 then you have to give the Bills major props for going to 4 SB's and losing in a row.

The Bills in any other Era would of Dominated or maybe ven won a SB. But they faced the 90s Cowboys they didnt stand a CHance. And no they dont deserve credit because they didnt even come close to what the 90s Dynsaty did during the same time span.

On the other hand the 70s Cowboys were just as good as the Steelers Dynasty. You know it I know it, the games were one mistake away from going either way. Not to mention the COWBOYS won 2 SUPERBOWLS.

 

[Manster68]

I agree. If we would of lost that game we would be the Steelers little Bic*h

Maybe in the 70s DAllas was that but the 90s was DAllas over Steelers all day every day.

And you will not believe how many Steeler fans have come up to me and told me how Pittsburgh GAVE Super Bowl XXX to the Cowboys.

Some have told me that if it weren't for Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh had that game in hand.

Let me set a few things straight:

1. Quarterback is part of the team.

2. Tell me when in Super Bowl XXX did the Steelers ever have the lead?

At least in Dallas' two Super Bowl losses to Pittsburgh, they at least had the lead at some point in the game.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

And you will not believe how many Steeler fans have come up to me and told me how Pittsburgh GAVE Super Bowl XXX to the Cowboys.

Some have told me that if it weren't for Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh had that game in hand.

Let me set a few things straight:

1. Quarterback is part of the team.

2. Tell me when in Super Bowl XXX did the Steelers ever have the lead?

At least in Dallas' two Super Bowl losses to Pittsburgh, they at least had the lead at some point in the game.

I got a question..

When Neil threw those 2 INT's... werent they designed(timing) plays where the WR was supposed to be at that particular spot on the field.
Just curious.

Yeah the Steelers can cry about SB XXX all they want... atleast I wasnt the one crying... LOL
As far as them "giving" it to us... tell those Steelers fans.... they still have to "give" us one more to make it even and then we go for the rubber match! haha!

 

[Established1971]

Good post.

why, thank you sir