Most Impressive Super Bowl Runs: Cowboys or Patriots?

Gryphon

Merge Ahead
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
31
Most Impressive Super Bowl Runs: Cowboys or Patriots?
January 20, 2009
by Bruno Somerset

As a life-long Dallas Cowboys fan I cannot remember a more thrilling time than the Super Bowl wins of the mid-1990s, and I believe the team that won the Super Bowl in January of 1993 may be the best ever. But as hard as this is to admit, the NFL legacy of the 2000s New England Patriots is much more impressive than that of the 1990s Dallas Cowboys. In many ways the two teams were very similar, but there are some key factors that make New England's run more remarkable.

Both of these teams won three Super Bowl titles in a four-year span, a feat no other team has accomplished. Dallas won Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and XXX, while New England won Super Bowls XXXVI, XXXVII, and XXXIX. Both had outstanding young quarterbacks; one (Troy Aikman) is in the Hall of Fame, and the other (Tom Brady) will be after he retires. Both had "genius" head coaches in Jimmy Johnson and Bill Belichick (Barry Switzer was the coach of the Cowboys' 3rd 1990s Championship, but it was still Johnson's team). And both squads had dominant defensive units that were responsible for much of their success.

In spite of these similarities, however, the differences were much greater. New England was a huge underdog in their first Super Bowl win, with no one expecting them to beat the defending champion St. Louis Rams. New England also faced considerably tougher opponents than did Dallas; all three of the Patriots' wins were three-point victories, while Dallas won by 35, 17, and 10 points, respectively. And while Dallas had the best running back of his generation in Emmitt Smith as well as Aikman and Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin, New England relied almost exclusively on quarterback Tom Brady for its offensive production.

Another point in the Patriots favor is that they made this amazing run in an era of parity in the NFL. The league sought to level the field to such a degree that anyone could win the Super Bowl in anygiven year, as opposed to years past when a few teams dominated. This is born out by the fact that between Super Bowl I and Super Bowl XXX, twenty of the thirty games (66%) were won by only five teams (Dallas, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Washington, and Oakland). During the last twelve contests, only Denver and New England have won more than once.

But the single most important difference between these teams, and the thing that makes New England's Super Bowl run in the 2000s more impressive than maybe any other "dynasty" in sports history, is the fact that they achieved it in the era of free agency and the salary cap. Dallas was able, for the most part, to keep the core of its team together for a six or seven-year period, which is unheard of today. New England was forced to replace key positions almost every year, yet still competed at a championship level.

In the end, my loyalty remains with the Cowboys, even as they have fallen on hard times. But the Patriots accomplished something this decade that is simply amazing, whether you like them or not.
 

jackrussell

Last of the Duke Street Kings
Messages
4,165
Reaction score
1
For me just the fact that Dallas had to get through a very tough NFC East AND the 49ers each year gives them the nod.

I know, very short comparatively, but it's hard typing with paws.
 

Q_the_man

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,931
Reaction score
578
We won 3 bowls in 4 years...... more impressive period......

Plus the NFL cheated the Raiders which should have won against NE, but now we have a tuck rule, which was clearly a fumble.....
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,654
Reaction score
42,998
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Maybe it is me, but at this current time, I find it hard to argue about the cowboys super bowls. :eek:: :(
 

Established1971

fiveandcounting
Messages
5,800
Reaction score
4,322
Gryphon;2592786 said:
Most Impressive Super Bowl Runs: Cowboys or Patriots?
January 20, 2009
by Bruno Somerset

As a life-long Dallas Cowboys fan I cannot remember a more thrilling time than the Super Bowl wins of the mid-1990s, and I believe the team that won the Super Bowl in January of 1993 may be the best ever. But as hard as this is to admit, the NFL legacy of the 2000s New England Patriots is much more impressive than that of the 1990s Dallas Cowboys. In many ways the two teams were very similar, but there are some key factors that make New England's run more remarkable.

Both of these teams won three Super Bowl titles in a four-year span, a feat no other team has accomplished. Dallas won Super Bowls XXVII, XXVIII, and XXX, while New England won Super Bowls XXXVI, XXXVII, and XXXIX. Both had outstanding young quarterbacks; one (Troy Aikman) is in the Hall of Fame, and the other (Tom Brady) will be after he retires. Both had "genius" head coaches in Jimmy Johnson and Bill Belichick (Barry Switzer was the coach of the Cowboys' 3rd 1990s Championship, but it was still Johnson's team). And both squads had dominant defensive units that were responsible for much of their success.

In spite of these similarities, however, the differences were much greater. New England was a huge underdog in their first Super Bowl win, with no one expecting them to beat the defending champion St. Louis Rams. New England also faced considerably tougher opponents than did Dallas; all three of the Patriots' wins were three-point victories, while Dallas won by 35, 17, and 10 points, respectively. And while Dallas had the best running back of his generation in Emmitt Smith as well as Aikman and Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin, New England relied almost exclusively on quarterback Tom Brady for its offensive production.

Another point in the Patriots favor is that they made this amazing run in an era of parity in the NFL. The league sought to level the field to such a degree that anyone could win the Super Bowl in anygiven year, as opposed to years past when a few teams dominated. This is born out by the fact that between Super Bowl I and Super Bowl XXX, twenty of the thirty games (66%) were won by only five teams (Dallas, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Washington, and Oakland). During the last twelve contests, only Denver and New England have won more than once.

But the single most important difference between these teams, and the thing that makes New England's Super Bowl run in the 2000s more impressive than maybe any other "dynasty" in sports history, is the fact that they achieved it in the era of free agency and the salary cap. Dallas was able, for the most part, to keep the core of its team together for a six or seven-year period, which is unheard of today. New England was forced to replace key positions almost every year, yet still competed at a championship level.

In the end, my loyalty remains with the Cowboys, even as they have fallen on hard times. But the Patriots accomplished something this decade that is simply amazing, whether you like them or not.


all due respect this is one of the most illogical things Ive heard in some time.
They only won by 3 points vs blowouts = more impressive. They have fewer great players = less impressive. The Patriots are the most impressive dynasty in sports history. Are you living in bizarro land?
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
BrAinPaiNt;2592807 said:
Maybe it is me, but at this current time, I find it hard to argue about the cowboys super bowls. :eek:: :(

It's not just you.

I just don't care about the Super Bowls we won at this point in time. I am extremely proud that the Cowboys Organization was able to accomplish so much throughout its history, but in the end, that is exactly what it is, history.
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,957
Reaction score
8,174
Please. The 'Boys all the way. The Pats cheated and still didn't accomplish as much. Oh, and they lost in the SB and finished an undefeated season, defeated.
 

stiletto

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,499
Reaction score
15,075
I think they are both remarkable in their own ways. I think the Cowboys had much tougher competition but the Patriots did accomplish all they've done and are still doing during the salary cap time. So they get bonus points for that and they do get some points taken away for spygate so I'll take the Cowboys run overall. If the Pats win 1 or 2 more in the next cpl years, all bets off...
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Gryphon;2592786 said:
But the single most important difference between these teams, and the thing that makes New England's Super Bowl run in the 2000s more impressive than maybe any other "dynasty" in sports history, is the fact that they achieved it in the era of free agency and the salary cap.

The cap and free agency started in 1993, immediately after our first title in the 1990s. Teams still had to learn how to handle it. They hadn't been preparing for it for years. By the time the Patriots started winning titles, everyone knew how to handle the cap and how to prepare for it in future seasons.

The fact that the 1990s Cowboys won EVERY playoff game in their championship seasons by double digits and had to overcome a 49ers team that some consider to be one of the best ever, far outweighs the Patriots squeaking through by the skin of their teeth (and the rule book) for all three of their titles.
 

ringmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
437
fiveandcounting;2593063 said:
all due respect this is one of the most illogical things Ive heard in some time.
They only won by 3 points vs blowouts = more impressive. They have fewer great players = less impressive. The Patriots are the most impressive dynasty in sports history. Are you living in bizarro land?
There is no way in hell that the Patriots dynasty, was superior to that Cowboys dynasty of the 1990s that is like comparing apples to oranges.

Whatever this writer is smoking he needs to chill with that the only thing he didn't say that those Patriots teams, could beat those Cowboys teams and that would be laughable.
 

ringmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
437
AdamJT13;2593128 said:
The cap and free agency started in 1993, immediately after our first title in the 1990s. Teams still had to learn how to handle it. They hadn't been preparing for it for years. By the time the Patriots started winning titles, everyone knew how to handle the cap and how to prepare for it in future seasons.

The fact that the 1990s Cowboys won EVERY playoff game in their championship seasons by double digits and had to overcome a 49ers team that some consider to be one of the best ever, far outweighs the Patriots squeaking through by the skin of their teeth (and the rule book) for all three of their titles.
I agree 100% with this post and your posts are enjoyable to read.
 

Rack

Federal Agent
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
3,106
It's not even debateable, the cowboys superbowl run was A LOT more impressive. They did it during a time where there were other ELITE teams (something that doesn't exist nowadays). We had to get through one of the greatest teams of all time just to GET to the superbowl.


And the cowboys won w/o the aid of video tape.



And they completely decimated another ELITE team.



The pats? They cheated to get to the superbowl. They cheated in the superbowl. And even with that, they barely beat teams that couldn't hold the cowboys/49ers/Bills JOCKS (of the 90's).
 

LittleBoyBlue

Redvolution
Messages
35,766
Reaction score
8,411
Gryphon;2592786 said:
Most Impressive Super Bowl Runs: Cowboys or Patriots?


No contest. The Cowboys.




It is NOW known that the Pats cheated. They won all their SB's by 3 points.
Teams always said over the years,

"its like they knew the play before we ran it"

or

"they knew the play better than we did"


Like I said. No contest. Cowboy MOST impressive!
 

The Panch

New Member
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
0
New England relied almost exclusively on quarterback Tom Brady for its offensive production.
That's a lie. Corey Dillion was arguably the best back in the league in '04, and Troy Brown had a pro bowl season in '01. Meanwhile, Branch never had any great regular seasons, but he was awesome in their back to back SB wins as well as the AFCC against the Steelers. People try to make up things to add to Brady's legacy, especially when comparing him to Peyton, but Brady wasnt working with a bunch of bums either. Not to mention the '01 and '03 offenses were not high scoring by any means and pretty safe with their playcalling relying on alot of screens and short intermediate routes to keep Brady out of trouble.




Looking at this from an unbiased perspective, what the Patriots did was a remarkable feat. They were never stacked with talent(even on defense which was their pedigree) and relied heavily on a system and basically outsmarting their way to victory.


That being said, you cant compare the competition NE had to go thru to what Dallas had to go thru. Back then, the NFL relied alot more on talent than it does now and as good as these Colts teams have been, they're not as good as the 49er teams Dallas had to beat. As good as the Steeler teams have been, they're not as good as the Packers teams Dallas had to beat. Not to mention, Dallas played in the toughest division in football while NE has played in one of the worst. And like it's been pointed out, Dallas was much more dominant in the postseason SB runs against much better competition. The AFC this decade isnt anywhere close as dominant as the NFC was back then.


The only dominant team throughout a season NE had was the '04 Pats. The '01 Pats were a cinderalla story and regardless of the record, the '03 Pats were far from dominant and won alot of ugly games with their defense.


And this belief that we didnt have to go thru free agency and salary cap is crap cause if that wasnt the face, the 3rd one wouldnt have came cause we loss numerous players thru free agency from 93-95 while also losing a head coach and having to comeback from an 0-2 start in '93 due to our best player's holdout and still ended up with the #1 overrall seed.
 

MONT17

New Member
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
0
the Cowboys players r much better than the Pats... the 9ers used free agency (they signed like 9 guys) to build (notice i did not say rebuild) an entire Defense to beat the boys Boys!


needless to say Jerry was cheap back then and only paid stars, something he picked up from Jimmy. Now Jerry pays guys like Pat Crayton when back then he would let guys like Ken Norton go to an arch rival over a few dollars...


the Cowboys players had another handicap... Barry Switzer!!!! if Belicheck and his camcorder left the Pats the way Jimmy left the boys, they would be lucky to have 2!
 

Billy Bullocks

Active Member
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
22
Gryphon;2592786 said:
Most Impressive Super Bowl Runs: Cowboys or Patriots?

In spite of these similarities, however, the differences were much greater. New England was a huge underdog in their first Super Bowl win, with no one expecting them to beat the defending champion St. Louis Rams. New England also faced considerably tougher opponents than did Dallas; all three of the Patriots' wins were three-point victories, while Dallas won by 35, 17, and 10 points, respectively. And while Dallas had the best running back of his generation in Emmitt Smith as well as Aikman and Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin, New England relied almost exclusively on quarterback Tom Brady for its offensive production.

Why does Bruno think that the margin of victory means New England played better opponents? The Bills teams that Dallas beat were probably better than most Super Bowl winners in the salary cap era. All that the victory margin points to is that NE was good at winning close games, and that they did not dominate in any of their wins.

Pittsburgh might not have been the greatest team of all time, but they had some pretty stellar defensive players. Just look at their defense (2nd ranked)...Kirkland, Lloyd, Kevin Greene, Woodson, Carnell Lake.

And as good as Brady was, let's not short change guys like Faulk and Smith. Kevin Faulk was a work horse on all those NE teams.

Another point in the Patriots favor is that they made this amazing run in an era of parity in the NFL. The league sought to level the field to such a degree that anyone could win the Super Bowl in anygiven year, as opposed to years past when a few teams dominated. This is born out by the fact that between Super Bowl I and Super Bowl XXX, twenty of the thirty games (66%) were won by only five teams (Dallas, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Washington, and Oakland). During the last twelve contests, only Denver and New England have won more than once.

Dallas had to get through teams like that to get to those SBs..Especially SF...and not to mention GB, who appeared in the two SBs following Dallas' final victory.

Yes I agree that what New England accomplished is amazing in the Salary Cap era. But let's not forget that they also missed the playoffs following their 1st SB.

I think we will soon see other teams have prolonged success in the NFL. New ENgland pretty much helped set a blue print in terms of having long term success...and of course, they do have one constant that succesful teams over the last few years have had...a franchise QB (See the Colts, Philly [hate to say it], etc.)

But the single most important difference between these teams, and the thing that makes New England's Super Bowl run in the 2000s more impressive than maybe any other "dynasty" in sports history, is the fact that they achieved it in the era of free agency and the salary cap. Dallas was able, for the most part, to keep the core of its team together for a six or seven-year period, which is unheard of today. New England was forced to replace key positions almost every year, yet still competed at a championship level.

No, the core of their team stayed together. The heart of their defense was ultimately the same. Brady was on all of those teams.

Did they have to replace key players, yes. Did the rest of the league? Yes. You can't have it both ways.

Both teams did a great job of drafting, and a majority of their success came through the draft.


In the end, my loyalty remains with the Cowboys, even as they have fallen on hard times. But the Patriots accomplished something this decade that is simply amazing, whether you like them or not.

I agree. And since it's all hypothetical, you can't say for sure one is better than the other.
 

OAM

New Member
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
We've come to history as always. Shanny where art thou?
 

WV Cowboy

Waitin' on the 6th
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
1,744
Many of you have made some very good points about each of Dallas & NE winning 3 Super Bowls in four years.

Margin of victory, level of competition, FA, etc.

But for me, in my mind, the thing that has always made our run of 3 titles in 4 years better than theirs, was that in the year that we did not win it, we lost in the NFC Championship game, ... the Pats didn't even make the playoffs the year they didn't win the SB.

End of discussion.

(p.s. this is my first post since our loss to the Eagles, ... I have suffered greatly :eek:: )
 

LittleBoyBlue

Redvolution
Messages
35,766
Reaction score
8,411
WV Cowboy;2593890 said:
Many of you have made some very good points about each of Dallas & NE winning 3 Super Bowls in four years.

Margin of victory, level of competition, FA, etc.

But for me, in my mind, the thing that has always made our run of 3 titles in 4 years better than theirs, was that in the year that we did not win it, we lost in the NFC Championship game, ... the Pats didn't even make the playoffs the year they didn't win the SB.

End of discussion.

(p.s. this is my first post since our loss to the Eagles, ... I have suffered greatly :eek:: )


Steve Young STILL sends Thank You Gift Baskets to Troy, Emmitt and Michael and uh, uh, err.. ah, uh Jerra.
STILL.


That was the closest any team came to winning 4 straight. It will probably never happen now.
 

WV Cowboy

Waitin' on the 6th
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
1,744
YoMick;2593898 said:
Steve Young STILL sends Thank You Gift Baskets to Troy, Emmitt and Michael and uh, uh, err.. ah, uh Jerra.
STILL.

That was the closest any team came to winning 4 straight. It will probably never happen now.

3 Turnovers in the first quarter, ... 21 pt deficit.

And still if Deion gets called for PI on Irvin, which it was, we would have won anyway.

Best 4 yr run EVER!
 
Top