Most dominant NFL franchise ever?

[ABQCOWBOY]

they gave up a total of 10 points in 3 post season games and lost 1 mere game to an extremely motivated and very good team that season, they were a juggernaut, I wish the 92 Boys would beat them but I would not put money on it if it were somehow possible to bend time and have such a game

I think it's interesting that the Bears are compared to the Cowboys of the early 90s. I look at this comparision and I can't help but think about the Eagles, who ran that same type 46 defense and probably had a stronger offense. The Eagles, of the time, were an excellent defensive team. They had White, Simmons, Brown, Golic, Joyner, Hopkins, Allen, Waters, Otis Smith, Byran Evans, Pitts, Harmon and Thomas on that defense.

They also had a better offense, IMO, the the Bears did. They had Hershel Walker, Keith Byers, Fred Barrnet, Mark Bavaro, Ricky Waters, Randel Cunningham, Bubby Brister, Ken Obrien and even a guy named Jim McMahon. I just think that you look at these Philly teams and it's not so hard for me to see us beating those Bears the same way we dominated a pretty good Philly team. JMO of course.

 

[jackrussell]

I think it's interesting that the Bears are compared to the Cowboys of the early 90s. I look at this comparision and I can't help but think about the Eagles, who ran that same type 46 defense and probably had a stronger offense. The Eagles, of the time, were an excellent defensive team. They had White, Simmons, Brown, Golic, Joyner, Hopkins, Allen, Waters, Otis Smith, Byran Evans, Pitts, Harmon and Thomas on that defense.

They also had a better offense, IMO, the the Bears did. They had Hershel Walker, Keith Byers, Fred Barrnet, Mark Bavaro, Ricky Waters, Randel Cunningham, Bubby Brister, Ken Obrien and even a guy named Jim McMahon. I just think that you look at these Philly teams and it's not so hard for me to see us beating those Bears the same way we dominated a pretty good Philly team. JMO of course.

I would point out that none of those Philly teams came close to what Chicago did in '85. Not saying Philly wasn't a good team, just not to the standard of the Bears you may think.

1985 Bears

Pts Scored= 452 (2nd)
Pts Allowed=198 (1st, even with the 38 Miami posted)

I would remember alot of those points scored were in fact due to the most relentless, head banging defense I've seen. Like when the reporter asked Mr. T in Rocky for a prediction of the upcoming fight, he replied "Pain..."

Philadelphia in it's best year scored 396 points in 1990. There best defensive effort was allowing just 244 points in 1991.

I'll also point out Philly's best year record wise was 11-5, not even close to the 15-1 Chicago posted.

So far I've seen everything from the Bears being no better than Buffalo and Philadelphia, to being destroyed by Dallas. I've seen it pointed out that supposedly the players were bigger and faster in 1992 than they were in 1985, yet it's not a given that players today are bigger and faster than in '92. I've seen that the Patriots aren't in the same class because their championships were won during the FA period of a watered down league, yet, Denver(in the very same period as NE) would also destroy the Bears.

Taking the logic presented that Dallas was head and shoulders above Chicago, AND the same being true as far as nE because of a supposed watered down league, heck that pretty much settles it for ALL TIME, there was never a better team than the 92 Cowboys, and there NEVER will be a better team than the 92 Cowboys. Why even play the games?

Get a grip folks, it's not life and death. The world will not stop because it's possible another team could be in the same ballpark with your 'sacred' Cowboys.

 

[ndanger]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Commanders fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Commanders. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

 

[StylisticS]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Commanders fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Commanders. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

People overrate the 94 Niners. What makes them so much better than the 92 Cowboys or even a better team, the 93 Cowboys. I wish Jimmy Johnson continued as head coach for the 94 season. You would probably see a repeat of the 93 season seeing as how neither team really changed personel much and the Cowboys simply dominated the Niners in 93.

 

[jackrussell]

I'm not a Cowboys fan (nor am I a Bears, 49ers, or Commanders fan). I admit I wanted to get a dig in with that 44-0 score (and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year).
I am coming from a non-bias viewpoint here and the '92 Cowboys simply were not better than the '85 Bears, '94 49ers, or '91 Commanders. I came to this conclusion from watching all those teams play. Then I looked at an assortment of stats. My opinion did not change. Then I read "Dominance" by Eddie Epstein and my opinions were pretty much confirmed. I strongly recommend that book to anyone who is interested in reading about the greatest pro football teams. The 1971 Cowboys made the book. The 1992 Cowboys received honorary mention.

So in your assortment of stats, in which you claim '(and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year)' did they show that those good Cowboys from '85 lost to a 7-9 Detroit team, a 7-9 Philadelphia team, a 5-11 Cardinals team, and a 7-9 Cincinnati team(50-24), not to mention the 44-0 shallacking by Chicago, and then got shutout in the first round of the playoffs by the Rams 20-0? They weren't that good.

So given that opinion of being a good Dallas team, your conclusions of being less than the Skins and Niners can be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Mentos]

So in your assortment of stats, in which you claim '(and remember the Cowboys were a good team that year)' did they show that those good Cowboys from '85 lost to a 7-9 Detroit team, a 7-9 Philadelphia team, a 5-11 Cardinals team, and a 7-9 Cincinnati team(50-24), not to mention the 44-0 shallacking by Chicago, and then got shutout in the first round of the playoffs by the Rams 20-0? They weren't that good.

So given that opinion of being a good Dallas team, your conclusions of being less than the Skins and Niners can be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, you are correct. I see the light now. The 1985 Cowboys were about as bad as the 1981 Colts.

To be serious now, yes the 1985 Cowboys along with the 1986 Jets are in the running for worst ever 10-6 teams. But c'mon now, 10-6 is 10-6. Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are." Since when was 10-6 not a good mark? Maybe when you were expected to go 14-2 I suppose or if you were coming off a 13-3 Super Bowl season, but none of that applied to the 1985 Cowboys.

Edit- I can't believe your response. Can it be that we just define "good" a little differently?

Sheesh.

 

[Mentos]

Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

Well that's a fairly childish response, is it not?

What you thought I pulled out game film, looked at numerous statistics, and read a book all in one day? I mean, I'm good, but not that good.

 

[cowboywho?]

Just by posting "back when" it is clear you dont understand the thread and its title.

Try again?

And how do you show that you are dominent in the nfl? By winning the superbowls.

People dont really care how good you are, if you dont win the superbowl more then likely they wont remember you.

 

[Silverstar]

The Cowboys have the most postseason victories in NFL history with 32. This stat is even more daunting, when you consider the Cowboys have not won a playoff game in almost 10 years! The Cowboys also hold the record for most consecutive winning seasons in NFL history with 20 between 66'-85'. Combine this with their 5 SB victories in 8 appearances and there's little doubt, the Cowboys have become the most dominant franchise in NFL history.

I think it's safe to say, the Cowboys are ready to pad some of those records very, very soon.

 

[jackrussell]

Yes, you are correct. I see the light now. The 1985 Cowboys were about as bad as the 1981 Colts.

To be serious now, yes the 1985 Cowboys along with the 1986 Jets are in the running for worst ever 10-6 teams. But c'mon now, 10-6 is 10-6. Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are." Since when was 10-6 not a good mark? Maybe when you were expected to go 14-2 I suppose or if you were coming off a 13-3 Super Bowl season, but none of that applied to the 1985 Cowboys.

Edit- I can't believe your response. Can it be that we just define "good" a little differently?

Sheesh.

!0-6 against superior talent is good, 10-6 against not so good is...not so good.

What the heck, if I can get some people to tell me that the 15-1 Bears are over rated, I certainly can say the 10-6 '85 Cowboys were not at that good.

 

[Mentos]

They did go 4-0 against the Giants and Commanders who were a combined 20-8 when not playing Dallas.

They also defeated Cleveland who was a division winner, albeit with a .500 record.

So they lost to a couple subpar teams, but did beat some good record teams, as well. (Note I changed "good" to "good record"- I'm going to have to do that here from now on.)

The 49ers one year lost 4 games to non-playoff teams and still won the Super Bowl.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would point out that none of those Philly teams came close to what Chicago did in '85. Not saying Philly wasn't a good team, just not to the standard of the Bears you may think.

1985 Bears

Pts Scored= 452 (2nd)
Pts Allowed=198 (1st, even with the 38 Miami posted)

I would remember alot of those points scored were in fact due to the most relentless, head banging defense I've seen. Like when the reporter asked Mr. T in Rocky for a prediction of the upcoming fight, he replied "Pain..."

Philadelphia in it's best year scored 396 points in 1990. There best defensive effort was allowing just 244 points in 1991.

I'll also point out Philly's best year record wise was 11-5, not even close to the 15-1 Chicago posted.

So far I've seen everything from the Bears being no better than Buffalo and Philadelphia, to being destroyed by Dallas. I've seen it pointed out that supposedly the players were bigger and faster in 1992 than they were in 1985, yet it's not a given that players today are bigger and faster than in '92. I've seen that the Patriots aren't in the same class because their championships were won during the FA period of a watered down league, yet, Denver(in the very same period as NE) would also destroy the Bears.

Taking the logic presented that Dallas was head and shoulders above Chicago, AND the same being true as far as nE because of a supposed watered down league, heck that pretty much settles it for ALL TIME, there was never a better team than the 92 Cowboys, and there NEVER will be a better team than the 92 Cowboys. Why even play the games?

Get a grip folks, it's not life and death. The world will not stop because it's possible another team could be in the same ballpark with your 'sacred' Cowboys.

Conversly, I would point out that Philly had to play in the same division we did. The Bears didn't. Personel wise, that Philly team was probably better then the Chicago team. That front line alone, IMO was superior to Dent, McMichael, Hampton and Perry.

 

[djmajestik]

Dang you did all that just to post a reply?That's either a lie or you have no life!

ndanger, did you get my last PM? Hadn't heard back from you in a while, just checking that all is good.

Let me know how you are.