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

[mrmojo]

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

And that doesnt include the two title games in 66 and 67 against the Packers....what a great run.

 

[mrmojo]

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

And that doesnt include the title games against the Packers in 66 and 67......what a great run....that why us old timers who grew up in that era are so spoiled

 

[Kinski]

I started watching the Cowboys in 62, those Cowboy teams playing in the 60's with Meredith were way better than they have been given credit. The 70's were fun, I listened to our first SB win in 72 with a transistor radio on my chest at 3am on a small firebase in MR II. Hollering out loud in the bunker. One more SB in 70's. Then a string of almost but not quite there. The 90's were the best for me. I wanted, and still want, the Cowboys lot crush teams in big games. Those teams rarely disappointed. I sure hope they get one or two more before I'm gone.
Bruce in Texas

 

[tyke1doe]

I know this topic has been hashed a million times, but I don't think it would have been as easy as "if Jimmy stays, we win more." In a later NFL Films documentary, Jimmy himself said he was so fatigued by 1993 that he might have quit football anyway even had Jerry not had that spat with him. In addition, some Cowboys players felt that Jimmy's overbearing nature was starting to backfire rather than help (in the Jeff Pearlman book Boys will be Boys.) They said that Switzer's congenial nature helped the team relax more and keep it together mentally, at least in the short run.

We'll never know one way or the other.

 

[DuncanIso]

I started watching the Cowboys in 62, those Cowboy teams playing in the 60's with Meredith were way better than they have been given credit. The 70's were fun, I listened to our first SB win in 72 with a transistor radio on my chest at 3am on a small firebase in MR II. Hollering out loud in the bunker. One more SB in 70's. Then a string of almost but not quite there. The 90's were the best for me. I wanted, and still want, the Cowboys lot crush teams in big games. Those teams rarely disappointed. I sure hope they get one or two more before I'm gone.
Bruce in Texas

good post!

 

[Pantone282C]

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.

Not to mention we all know we should have won SB XIII against the Steelers - we got hosed on two calls. Not to mention Jackie Smith's drop in the end zone. We outplayed them.

 

[Pantone282C]

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?

Being a fan of the Cowboys seasons from their inception, I can say I enjoyed both eras. But, it's hard to beat the years of success of the Landry teams. After he established winning teams, it was a given to realistically expect an appearance in the NFCCG and most likely, a Super Bowl. There wasn't the frequent free agency change that makes for relatively short windows of championship opportunity, so we knew who we had and it was fun to watch them - our guys against your guys. Hard to beat that kind of consistency.
For a pure adrenaline rush, the Jimmy Johnson teams ruled the day. But that's the nature of today's NFL beast, and it creates a different expectation - one that can be briefly successful and exciting, but for most team's fans, it's one of disappointment and misery.
SB hardware is a nice thing to have, but having a team to count on year after year is satisfying in its own way.

 

[SuspectCorner]

The Cowboys of my youth were 'funner.' It's more fun to watch a team seriously contend for championships over a couple of decades than to watch a team contend in a window of about five-to-six years - even though the latter resulted in minimally MORE CHAMPIONSHIPS.

I want to watch a serious contender as often as possible... and the early dynasty under Landry/Schramm/Murchison delivered with a regularity that may go unmatched in Cowboys history into perpetuity.

 

[MikeB80]

The Dallas dynasty really got going midway through 1990. The most satisfying wins were in the 91 season. That season was so much fun and then was a gut punch in Detroit.

The 95 team felt like a different team, a team that was clinging to the last hairs on its head of success. you could see it all year they were not the same and it really didnt feel at all like the team from 90-93.

 

[dallasdave]

Being a fan of the Cowboys seasons from their inception, I can say I enjoyed both eras. But, it's hard to beat the years of success of the Landry teams. After he established winning teams, it was a given to realistically expect an appearance in the NFCCG and most likely, a Super Bowl. There wasn't the frequent free agency change that makes for relatively short windows of championship opportunity, so we knew who we had and it was fun to watch them - our guys against your guys. Hard to beat that kind of consistency.
For a pure adrenaline rush, the Jimmy Johnson teams ruled the day. But that's the nature of today's NFL beast, and it creates a different expectation - one that can be briefly successful and exciting, but for most team's fans, it's one of disappointment and misery.
SB hardware is a nice thing to have, but having a team to count on year after year is satisfying in its own way.

I was there for all the Super Bowls also -but have to go with the 90's The Team won all 3 Super Bowls and the 70's teams lost 3 Super Bowls.

 

[dallasdave]

Not to mention we all know we should have won SB XIII against the Steelers - we got hosed on two calls. Not to mention Jackie Smith's drop in the end zone. We outplayed them.

Jimmy had the team ready to play and the 2 games against the Bills were won as soon as the ball was kicked off.
Jimmy Johnson

 

[MikeB80]

Jimmy had the team ready to play and the 2 games against the Bills were won as soon as the ball was kicked off.
Jimmy Johnson

not true. Dallas got outplayed in sb 28 in the first half. They looked tired or hung over or something. Aikman was suffering from that concussion from the week before and they were not playing well.

They came out and just gave the ball to Emmitt every damn play and just like that they took the lead and won the game. That first half though they did not play well at all...Kind of like the second half vs pittsburgh two years later...they stunk in the second half and O'donnell's mistakes swung the game.

That super bowl also showed how emmitt was the most important player on the team in that era. He was simply amazing.

 

[dallasdave]

not true. Dallas got outplayed in sb 28 in the first half. They looked tired or hung over or something. Aikman was suffering from that concussion from the week before and they were not playing well.

They came out and just gave the ball to Emmitt every damn play and just like that they took the lead and won the game. That first half though they did not play well at all...Kind of like the second half vs pittsburgh two years later...they stunk in the second half and O'donnell's mistakes swung the game.

That super bowl also showed how emmitt was the most important player on the team in that era. He was simply amazing.

The team was composed and came out and kicked butt in the 2nd half.