Doomsday defense 3

jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
CheapietheCheapskate said:
Do you guys consider our defense from 91-96 to be Doomsday Defense 3? I kind of do and Wiki does too.
Click to expand...
Absolutely...I was recently watching games from the era and it was amazing how little time the opposing quarterback had in the pocket. It was play after play of the QB running for his life following about 2 seconds from snap.

Transversely, the offense wasn't as spectacular as I remembered it. Don't get me wrong, the games I watched were play off and super bowl games, so obviously the offense wasn't going to look it's best against the level of talent they were playing against but still, I'd say the present day iteration of the Cowboys offense has a shot at being better.

Consider:

Who can name the slot receiver from that era without a quick google search? How about the fourth guy down the depth chart? Fifth? Whereas this version of the Cowboys can attack a defense in a lot of different ways with alot of different players, for the most part, the Triplets carried the Cowboys offense during the early 90's.
 

CheapietheCheapskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
227
Reaction score
353
jday said:
Absolutely...I was recently watching games from the era and it was amazing how little time the opposing quarterback had in the pocket. It was play after play of the QB running for his life following about 2 seconds from snap.

Transversely, the offense wasn't as spectacular as I remembered it. Don't get me wrong, the games I watched were play off and super bowl games, so obviously the offense wasn't going to look it's best against the level of talent they were playing against but still, I'd say the present day iteration of the Cowboys offense has a shot at being better.

Consider:

Who can name the slot receiver from that era without a quick google search? How about the fourth guy down the depth chart? Fifth? Whereas this version of the Cowboys can attack a defense in a lot of different ways with alot of different players, for the most part, the Triplets carried the Cowboys offense during the early 90's.
Click to expand...
Kelvin Martin?
 
ShiningStar

ShiningStar

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,517
Reaction score
7,746
CheapietheCheapskate said:
Doomsday 1 - 66-72 roughly
Doomsday 2 - 75-83 roughly
Doomsday 3 - 91- 96 roughly
Click to expand...

idk if i can personally agree with the 80s part. They might have been good but i dont know if i can say doomsday good. We need to know a fine line between the two. I could be wrong. Luckily a lot of stats werent known back then so we can consider it from the facts instead of useless numbers. I just cant really accept doomsday yet.
 
jday

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
Kelvin Martin left after the first Super Bowl in 92 and returned after the 96 season, but here's a cookie for partial credit.

smart_20cookie_20pic_20copy_original.jpg

And who would you rather have?

Kelvin Martin or Cole Beasley?

Don't get me wrong, Kelvin Martin might have been the better athlete in his day, but Beasley is damn-near an automatic first down. And then, to my point, you have to compare every weapon. Overall, I think this iteration of the Cowboys may have the better offense, though overall, the 92 team was better collectively.
 

diefree666

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,529
Reaction score
4,153
Doomsday 1 was the best no doubt about it; but they only ended up with 1 ring. They were so close on about 4 other years to winning it all. Basically 1967-1971 they could have easily won it all each year. It really came down to 1 play each year.

Doomsday 2 had some missing pieces after about 1980. They had the best D line in the NFL but the other parts were not quite as good; either the secondary (before thurmans thieves) or the LBs. And of course they did not have after Roger left a great QB though white was very good.

Doomsday 3 was not as talented in starting as 1 & 2 but had a lot more depth. They wore out the opposing offenses with relentless pressure due to having enough bodies to freely substitute. But once again FA and the Cap began to decimate it about 95 on.
 
BourbonBalz

BourbonBalz

Star4Ever
Messages
12,207
Reaction score
8,178
I actually think the defense of the mid to late 1970's was the best Dallas defense. The defense in 77 and 78 was awesome. It destroyed teams.
 

diefree666

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,529
Reaction score
4,153
Star4Ever said:
I actually think the defense of the mid to late 1970's was the best Dallas defense. The defense in 77 and 78 was awesome. It destroyed teams.
Click to expand...
You need to look at some film of the original Doomsday of say 69-71. You will find that the original was still the best.
 
rockj7

rockj7

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,197
jday said:
Absolutely...I was recently watching games from the era and it was amazing how little time the opposing quarterback had in the pocket. It was play after play of the QB running for his life following about 2 seconds from snap.

Transversely, the offense wasn't as spectacular as I remembered it. Don't get me wrong, the games I watched were play off and super bowl games, so obviously the offense wasn't going to look it's best against the level of talent they were playing against but still, I'd say the present day iteration of the Cowboys offense has a shot at being better.

Consider:

Who can name the slot receiver from that era without a quick google search? How about the fourth guy down the depth chart? Fifth? Whereas this version of the Cowboys can attack a defense in a lot of different ways with alot of different players, for the most part, the Triplets carried the Cowboys offense during the early 90's.
Click to expand...

Amen jday Those were the days
 

CheapietheCheapskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
227
Reaction score
353
diefree666 said:
2 had the better D line but the rest of the D was all 1. The Secondary of Renfro Green and Adderly was better. and the LB corps as a whole was better even if Hollywood was maybe the Best LB the Boys ever had not named Howley.
Click to expand...
Yeah the DD2 d line was amazing. Had the secondary been a bit better, Pitt probably doesn't make the big plays against us in 75 and 78. Especially that stupid 60 or 70 yard catch and run by Stallworth in 78. I still look at that play like what the *** to this day. Even more so than the botched reverse on the opening drive.
 
Irvin88_4life

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,509
Reaction score
26,396
jday said:
Absolutely...I was recently watching games from the era and it was amazing how little time the opposing quarterback had in the pocket. It was play after play of the QB running for his life following about 2 seconds from snap.

Transversely, the offense wasn't as spectacular as I remembered it. Don't get me wrong, the games I watched were play off and super bowl games, so obviously the offense wasn't going to look it's best against the level of talent they were playing against but still, I'd say the present day iteration of the Cowboys offense has a shot at being better.

Consider:

Who can name the slot receiver from that era without a quick google search? How about the fourth guy down the depth chart? Fifth? Whereas this version of the Cowboys can attack a defense in a lot of different ways with alot of different players, for the most part, the Triplets carried the Cowboys offense during the early 90's.
Click to expand...
To be fair when you have Irvin the playmaker you don't need 3rd, 4th or 5th receivers haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top