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

[OmerV]

For me the 1970's was more fun, but admittedly a lot of that has to do with the fact I was young when the decade started (7-8) and my love for football was growing every year. It was a lot of fun because I became a Cowboy fan because my Dad was a fan, watching was something we did together every Sunday, and at the time the team was a SB contender year after year.

 

[DuncanIso]

first one started 66 not 70

that 66 team must have been fun to watch.

 

[75boyz]

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'm fundamentally a Landry Cowboy although the look at us Jimmy's Boys were a rare blend of talent as well.
Tom and Roger will always be my foundation so I liked the first one better I guess.

 

[cern]

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.

 

[Red Dragon]

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.

I agree with this - the Landry era was like the Spurs with Gregg Popovich - the Cowboys were always in playoff contention, but had a relatively low number of championships to show for it, ratio-wise.

Whereas the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys were like the recent Golden State Warriors dynasty - short-lived, but extremely intense and high caliber, coming away with multiple titles in a very brief time.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

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?

The 1st era produced......AMERICAS TEAM!!!

 

[birdwells1]

Second

 

[Shake_Tiller]

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.

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?

 

[conner01]

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.

Both were fun
But the length of the first was so amazing
But I’m not a win the SB or bust guy
Landry era was so dominate
Jimmy era was short but very successful
The end of the Jimmy era is so sad because he could have won another or two had it lasted

 

[KJJ]

The first dynasty was more like from 71 to 78. Until the Cowboys won their first championship in 1971 they were known as bridesmaids and next years champions. After the Cowboys lost to the Steelers in the Super Bowl in 1978 and Staubach retired after the 79 season that was pretty much it. It was really never the same once Roger retired. The Cowboys made it to three NFC title games after that but lost all of them. They were back to being bridesmaids and next years champions until the team crumbled in the mid to late 80s.

 

[Cowboys22]

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?

There is no question it was an amazing run and as enjoyable a period of time to be a Dallas fan as there ever has been. No one can diminish that era because the team was great every year, was full of amazing HOF players, and had one of the best head coaches of all time. You just can't claim a dynasty for a period of time when another team won twice as many championships as you did and they beat you twice to do it. Pittsburgh was the dynasty of that era with Dallas being no more than a hair behind them. One or two plays and Dallas could claim dynasty but as it happened, that title belongs to them for that era.

 

[MWH1967]

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.

 

[MarkP88]

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 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.

 

[Williamsboys]

The second Cowboy's dynasty would have continued if Jimmy Johnson would have been allowed to stay and the salary cap never happened.

 

[75boyz]

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.

Appreciate you sharing. Nice post.

 

[Jipper]

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.

I think it’s more like choosing between a wagu porterhouse or a smaller wagu filet

 

[Established1971]

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.

did spell check cause the "granite"?

 

[OmerV]

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.

That was definitely the downside to the 1970's, but I still enjoyed the 70's because the Cowboys were legitimate SB contenders the entire decade.

And even with the losses to the Steelers, at least we had the thrill of Super Bowl competition 5 times (including the 1969 season/1970 SB).

As a side note to that comment, I've never understood how some fans (not saying you) feel they would rather watch a bad team than to watch the team get to the Super Bowl and lose. The thrill is in the competition, and even though a Super Bowl loss hurts, if the season was a thrill for 5 months you should have had a fun ride.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

They both had their charms. The Landry and Staubach era was magical and is imprinted in my memory from when I was a young kid. The come-from-behind stuff that Staubach did was mind blowing.

But .....

This wonderful era ended with a lot of pain. Basically, that ripoff '81 NFC Championship with that awful "catch" and bad calls was the last great chance for a championship in that era. They did get to the NFC title game the following year, but Danny White was hurt early in it and Hogeboom was inexperienced.

So that created the big hurt that accentuated the painful decline of the 80s.

Then ......

The new Sheriff, Jimmy Johnson, came to town, starting at the very bottom of the NFL and built a great team. The NFC Championship of the '92 season was SWEET! We finally got revenge against the 49ers whom I was SICK AND TIRED of hearing about how great they were. That is my favorite game in Cowboys history because it erased the pain of the '81 NFC title game.

 

[viman96]

The first dynasty definitely was relevant for much longer but the salary cap and Jerry/Jimmy split made a much smaller window for the second dynasty.

For those unaware just how many times the first Dallas dynasty team played in the NFCC game.

NFCC wins: 1970, 1971, 1975, 1977,1978
NFCC runner-up: 1972, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1982