Who was more talented? The 70's Cowboys or the 90's Cowboys?

[ABQCOWBOY]

The 70s team was great. No doubt. I'd even go so far as to agree with Joseepheus that, on the whole, it had the better talent and depth on offense (though I disagree with you that the offensive line had an advantage over the 90s team).

In terms of the defense, I think you're way off base. But ultimately, this debate boils down to a matter of perception, so whatever.

My last remaining quibble with you, however, is that by your logic, the 90s Cowboys would have been only the 3rd or 4th best team of the 70s, since I think we'd have to agree (objectively speaking) that the 70s Cowboys were only the 2nd best team of the 70s (possibly the 3rd best team, depending on one's view of the Raiders). I just find that too difficult to believe, and it's not for want of love of that 70s team. Any chance that you had your own hay-day in the 70s and that this colors your perception of all things from that era?

I think you may be missing my point here. The question, so far as I'm concerned, is not which team was better. I think the 90's team was better, because of there Offensive Line. The question, to me, is which team had more talent? My logic would not dictate that the 90s team would be 3rd or 4th best at all. I am sorry if that is the impression I gave you.

Defensively, the teams of the 70s were much deeper. In my mind, all you have to do is look at who played. You can pick out several HOF players and pernial Pro Bowlers on that defensive squade of the 70s. In the 90s, you didn't have that. You may disagree but you would have to show me the side by side comparison and explain to me how they rate better then the clubs of the 70s.

Your question of "hay-day", as it were, is fair if somewhat short sided. No, was young in the 70s and a mature adult in the 90s. My "hay day" was in the 80s, if I had to put a date on it.

Any chance you were too young to really see and appriciate the teams of the 70s?

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Any chance you were too young to really see and appriciate the teams of the 70s?

Possibly. I was just a pup (didn't turn 10 until 1981), and had just begun following football when I was 5 or 6. But since Dorsett and Staubach were my first true heroes, it's not that I didn't love the team. Still, it's possible that a more mature view would have lent itself to a greater appreciation of that team's overall talent and place in football history.

 

[fortdick]

This is like asking who is better?

Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

This is like asking who is better?

Jessica Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

I can: give me Jolie everyday and twice on Sundays (for a marathon session each time, no less).

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

This is like asking who us better?

Jessic Simpson or Angelina Jolie

Can't answer!

I can. Angelina Jolie by a mile!

I'm shocked the 90's Cowboys are winning by such a large margin. There must be some heavy sentimental votes with their Ring of Honor induction coming soon. The 90's Cowboys had more rings, but there are a lot of players on that 70's team I'd rather have starting when compared to the 90's players.

 

[burmafrd]

1971 Team vs 1977 Team. Pick one of those first.
To me, it is real close. 71 Team had the same QB, but had 3 RB's that were very good in Thomas, Garrison and Hill. 77 Had Dorsett and Newhouse. Thomas that season was as good as any RB in the league, and Hill was not far behind. Garrison was a fine FB.
So for backfield it is 71. But it is close due to the fact that Roger had a lot more experience. WR: Alworth and Hayes- no contest- 2 HOF's (should be). Pearson and Richards for the 77 team just were not that good. TE- Ditka a HOF vs dupree who was very good. So TE and WR its 71. O line. Still had Wright, but the rest were new. I give the edge a little to the 71 team. So overall it is the 71 squad as O goes.
On D: Lilly, Andrie ( who was very underrated), Pugh, and Cole. Edge to 77 team as Manster equals Lilly, and Martin was a little better then Andrie. Cole vs Too Tall- Edge to Too Tall. LB- Lee Roy Jordan, DD Lewis, Howley- edge to 71. Secondary. Waters and Harris same- but you also had Renfro and Green. So slight edge to 71.
Except for the D line, the 71 team was better.
On D, the 71 team totally outclasses the 92 team. Only Haley and Lett are even close on the D line, and the edge there is big. LB the edge is even bigger. Secondary- Same. ALl down the line you really cannot say other wise. Not to mention that there were many fewer teams in 1971 so the talent was nowhere near as spread out as they were during even the 90's. The 71 team was clearly the best team in football - and I think it would have kicked the Steelers butts just like it did Miami's in the SB.
Remember, one dropped TD catch would have had us right even with the Steelers. And the 75 game was just as close. For my money, the 71 Dallas Cowboys was the finest team from 1971 to today. The only teams I think match up was the 1962 GB Packers and the 1940 Chicago Bears.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Possibly. I was just a pup (didn't turn 10 until 1981), and had just begun following football when I was 5 or 6. But since Dorsett and Staubach were my first true heroes, it's not that I didn't love the team. Still, it's possible that a more mature view would have lent itself to a greater appreciation of that team's overall talent and place in football history.

I would take the early 90s teams over any team, in any era. I think there offense was that dominating. The defense, on the other hand, was not built to stay in the game. If the Cowboys had to rely on there defense to win, like the Giants for example, I think they would have worn down. The 90s teams also have the disadvantage, IMO,of really only having 5 years to work with. The teams of the 70s had good players for 10 years. FA changed that for the 90s Cowboys. Essentially, you've got a situation where fewer teams were available so the talent pool was less deluted. You had the opportunity to draft players and develope them for longer periods of time. You had not salary cap so you were not forced to give players away due to contracts. Players didn't have the option to move from team to team, per say, so players stayed in schemes longer and actually learned and understood the game better. Lastly, you didn't have to study as many opposing teams or players. Because there were fewer teams and players, it gave players of the 70s era a better opportunity to learn opposition/player tendancies. Lots of reasons why I believe the teams of the 70s, overall, were of better quality, if you will. This is not to be confused with who was the best team. As I said earlier, in my mind, the Cowboys team of the early 90s was the best of all time. That is only my opinion, of course. The best but not deeper or better over all IMO.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

I can. Angelina Jolie by a mile!

What's that they say about great minds? (Let's just ignore the competing and contrary saying to the effect that fools seldom differ)

I'm shocked the 90's Cowboys are winning by such a large margin. There must be some heavy sentimental votes with their Ring of Honor induction coming soon. The 90's Cowboys had more rings, but there are a lot of players on that 70's team I'd rather have starting when compared to the 90's players.

As ABQ Cowboy suggests, there may be an age bias involved (and I may not be spared from its effects myself). A lot of people on this board may have been too young (if even alive) to remember or fully appreciate the 70s team.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

1971 Team vs 1977 Team. Pick one of those first.
To me, it is real close. 71 Team had the same QB, but had 3 RB's that were very good in Thomas, Garrison and Hill. 77 Had Dorsett and Newhouse. Thomas that season was as good as any RB in the league, and Hill was not far behind. Garrison was a fine FB.
So for backfield it is 71. But it is close due to the fact that Roger had a lot more experience. WR: Alworth and Hayes- no contest- 2 HOF's (should be). Pearson and Richards for the 77 team just were not that good. TE- Ditka a HOF vs dupree who was very good. So TE and WR its 71. O line. Still had Wright, but the rest were new. I give the edge a little to the 71 team. So overall it is the 71 squad as O goes.
On D: Lilly, Andrie ( who was very underrated), Pugh, and Cole. Edge to 77 team as Manster equals Lilly, and Martin was a little better then Andrie. Cole vs Too Tall- Edge to Too Tall. LB- Lee Roy Jordan, DD Lewis, Howley- edge to 71. Secondary. Waters and Harris same- but you also had Renfro and Green. So slight edge to 71.
Except for the D line, the 71 team was better.
On D, the 71 team totally outclasses the 92 team. Only Haley and Lett are even close on the D line, and the edge there is big. LB the edge is even bigger. Secondary- Same. ALl down the line you really cannot say other wise. Not to mention that there were many fewer teams in 1971 so the talent was nowhere near as spread out as they were during even the 90's. The 71 team was clearly the best team in football - and I think it would have kicked the Steelers butts just like it did Miami's in the SB.
Remember, one dropped TD catch would have had us right even with the Steelers. And the 75 game was just as close. For my money, the 71 Dallas Cowboys was the finest team from 1971 to today. The only teams I think match up was the 1962 GB Packers and the 1940 Chicago Bears.

Good stuff.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

What's that they say about great minds? (Let's just ignore the competing and contrary saying to the effect that fools seldom differ)



As ABQ Cowboy suggests, there may be an age bias involved (and I may not be spared from its effects myself). A lot of people on this board may have been too young (if even alive) to remember or fully appreciate the 70s team.

Well, I'm too young to fully appreciate the 70's team but from what I've watched, read, and heard, I can tell you that Aikman's butt would be on the bench in favor of Staubach, Harvey Martin and Randy White would show our linemen how a real man rushes the QB, Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters would tell Woody to wait until Roy comes to town, and everyone would just have to sit in awe of Hollywood Henderson's abilities. Michael Irvin and that 90's offensive line are the only things I'm keeping, so yes, even Emmitt might be benched in favor of Dorsett.

 

[joseephuss]

Thanks for filling in the gaps. On Donalson and Stepnoski, my point wasn't that one was backing up the other. Only that, even when we lost a key player, we always seemed to find an impact starter to replace him (I don't think Gogan and Williams were on the team at the same time either, though I'm not positive. Gogan was lost to the Raiders only to be ably replaced by the best RT in the game, Erik W).

Gogan and Gesek played right guard with Big E at right tackle.

 

[tyke1doe]

Easy. The 70s team was more talented.

 

[DallasKnight]

Compared to the other teams in the league at the time, both the 70's and 90's teams were head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent. The Steelers were a close second, and schemed us better in the SB's we lost to them.

Overall, I don't think you can beat the talent and depth of the 90's team.

The 70's team was so full of probable HOF, and ROH candidates is because they stayed with the team longer. Most of those guys spent their whole careers with the Cowboys. Whereas, once free-agency hit and the salary cap hit the league, we got rid of a lot of players we would have kept had we still been in the 70's.

 

[burmafrd]

How many of the players that left us after 95 really accomplished much?
There really is no comparison- 71 team all the way.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Compared to the other teams in the league at the time, both the 70's and 90's teams were head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent. The Steelers were a close second, and schemed us better in the SB's we lost to them.

Overall, I don't think you can beat the talent and depth of the 90's team.

The 70's team was so full of probable HOF, and ROH candidates is because they stayed with the team longer. Most of those guys spent their whole careers with the Cowboys. Whereas, once free-agency hit and the salary cap hit the league, we got rid of a lot of players we would have kept had we still been in the 70's.

Roger retired and we still went on to play in several more NFC championship games.

Same can be said about Lilly, Cole, Dutton, Neeley, Niles, Green, Ditka, Jordan, the list goes on and on and we were able to compete and win for years to come.

Novacek went away and we stopped winning.

 

[Cbz40]

My favorite Cowboy teams were the teams from 66-71......

Can never forget the 77 team.

The best talented Cowboy Teams:There is no doubt in my mind the teams with the best talent from top to bottom were the 90's teams. 1991-95
Those teams were solid in every position there wasn't a weak link anywhere. The 91-92 teams may be the best ever assembled.

 

[DipChit]

Novacek went away and we stopped winning.

Not to mention that for all this supposed depth we had, it sure wasnt at certain skill positions on offense.

Even from 92-96 if Irvin or Emmitt didnt play, the offense seemed to look about as clueless as a 3 year old wandering around a grocery store lookin for it's momma.

Thankfully though those guys didnt miss an awful lot time.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not to mention that for all this supposed depth we had, it sure wasnt at certain skill positions on offense.

Even from 92-96 if Irvin or Emmitt didnt play, the offense seemed to look about as clueless as a 3 year old wandering around a grocery store lookin for it's momma.

Thankfully though those guys didnt miss an awful lot time.

I do agree with this. I believe the starters were exceptional but the depth was questionable on offense. Defensively, I believe the sum was much better then the parts but without our offense contolling the clock, scoring points and keeping them off the field, they would have worn down.