Who the better Dynasty? Cowboys (90's) or Patriots (00's)
 

Between these two teams only

Who the better Dynasty? Cowboys (90's) or Patriots (00's)

and why?



i have to go with the patriots. 3 championships in 4 years and going 34-2 in regular season and playoffs

Seriously?

Did you ask a lot of questions as a child?

Tell me you are not just now noticing this.

Or have we discovered that your breaking point is 2,457 questions?

Pats.

Because I hate the Cowpies.

But also because the Cowpies were built almost entirely pre-free agency and salary cap. The Pats have a better record under tougher circumstances.

The Cowboys, because I said so.

34-2 over four years? Where in the hell did you get that crap?

Ahh ok...my bad. I read this wrong initially. I thought you were going for better team.

Ok sure...better dynasty "story?" Pats.

You guys have a problem with him, right, since were thought provoking questions looked down upon at FOFC. :confused:

The 4-year record is 57-16

2001: 14-5
2002: 9-7
2003: 17-2
2004: 17-2

no i meant 34-2 in there last 36 games including regular season and playoffs. :)

That is amazing that you know the exact count. Were you an idiot savant as a child?

oh, and the Cowboys 4 year record was 60-15. So, they're better. The Pats didn't make the playoffs in 2002, while the worst the Cowboys did over their 4 years was 12-4 and an NFC championship game loss to the 49ers.

I have them all in a three ring binder.

lol :)

what 6 numbers should i play in the calfornia lottery? :)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Same combination as my luggage.

They are about the same to me, but the Patriots can still pull ahead obviously, since they are still going.

Neither of them are better then the 49ers (80's), Steelers (70's), or Packers (60's) in my opinion.

I think the Cowboys had more stars, but the Patriots accomplishment is more impressive given the salary cap.

I voted Pats, as well. With the salary cap, it's so much harder to field a good team from year to year. Baltimore, Tampa, St. Louis...they've all "fallen", but New England keeps on going.

Where's the Trout option?

Really the only answer this question deserves...

There is nothing mightier than the great Trout Dynasty of the 30's

That's why I voted Cowboys...they had to face powerhouse teams every year (49ers, Redskins, Giants, Bills) who were cohesive and had big game experience. Any contenders to the Pats fall off the map after a season or two. I'd think that it's much harder to face teams that already function well, rather than teams who have new pieces, new schemes and new experiences.

Interesting angle on the FA dynasty - have to say I haven't heard this thought before - makes sense...

I hear where you're coming from, but to nitpick I don't think it's fair to include the Redskins and Giants in that mix. The Redskins were good in '92 but that's it (during the dynasty run) and the Giants were good in '93 but that's it. Their most impressive run was probably during '92 when they dispatched the Eagles, 49ers, and Bills on their way to their first Super Bowl victory of the 90's...three solid serious contenders for the title that had been strong teams for a number of years. Anyway, getting sidetracked a bit...

To be fair, how would you say this year's Pats team faced something different than what Dallas faced? The Eagles and Colts, for example, come to mind as teams that have had most of their key parts and schemes in place for 3-4 years now, while Pittsburgh has had the same coach / schemes in place for even longer, even if a number of the pieces were new. Dallas probably faced teams with more veterans on them, but I wouldn't say the teams the Patriots played made more mistakes than the ones Dallas did.

I agree.

Jari Rantanen's Tube Top

:D

There's an image I do not want to think about...

How about Jeri Ryan's Tube Top?

Dallas played in a different era money wise, but they also had toughter competition to go against (San Francisco/Green Bay in conference, Buffalo in the Super Bowl)

Much better! Who the hell is she?

You must not get Star Trek: Voyager on that side of the pond...

We do, but I'm not a big star trek fan. Correction: was not a big star trek fan.

I hate the Cowboys but they were a better team hands down. Not only did they win three Super bowls but they had to go through the Packers and the 49ers to do it. When they did get to the big game they were able to win by more than a three point margin.

he hit my breaking point a long time ago. And the pace he's on will make Jeeber look like a lurker soon.

That picture is about as close to a camel toe as you can get without actually having one.

It was an observation, not a complaint. I come here for the semi-nude photos of b-list actresses since I know that my opinions are beyond question.

Although the Pats only won by 3 points in the SBs, let's not forget that they wiped the floor with the Colts and the Steelers this year, and their record against teams with winning records the last couple of years is amazing. Throw in the FA and salary cap and it gets interesting.

Skill Wise: no doubt Dallas was better; but . . . .

I will agree with Troy Aikman himself who said during the broadcast that what the Patriots have done "is more impressive" that what the Cowboys did (when you factor in FA, salary cap, injuries, etc.)

So, better talent: Dallas
Better TEAM/better accomplishment: New England

As an aside, I still love seeing the old NFL Films SB36 film with Ricky Proehl on the Rams looking right at the camera in the tunnel just before game time saying "tonight a dynasty is born." He sure spoke the truth that night. Absolutely, positively, the greatest single ironic/boomerang sports comment ever made.

I am a HUGE Steelers fan but I'll also be the first to say that they are notorious for choking on the big post-season games. A point I think is validated by the fact that the Steelers whiped the floor with the Pats earlier in the season.

As for the Colts, Peyton Manning, and the rest of team for that matter, play like crap outside the dome in the cold.

I'm not only saying that I think that Dallas was better but I think that the 49ers and the Packers of the early 90's would have had their way with the Pats too.

All of this talk of Dynasty just turns my stomach. As far as I'm concerned the Patriots are nine point away from being this decade's Buffalo Bills!

I heard someone say yesterday that the Pats can't be a Dynasty because they haven't covered the spread in 2 of the 3 winning years. :D That's kinda silly, but I think there is a point that they only won by three points in each Super Bowl.

What point is that exactly?

That the Cowboys winning three Super Bowls in four years by an average of nearly three touchdowns makes for a better 'dynasty' than winning three of four by just a three point average.

I guess. I suppose that allows you to discount 32-4 in the regular season and 6-0 in the playoffs the past two years. Forget demolishing the top offense and defense in the league en route. Oh and forget 80% of your games in that span.

Yeah those two extra Superbowl TDs make it.

I thought that the New England 'dynasty' was four years...not two. Pittsburgh was 15-1 in the regular season this year...was that just a short dynasty?

Firstly, please post a warning if there are pics in the thread- Im at work, and that wasn't particularly helpful.

Secondly, the correct answer is the 49ers.

Let me agree with VPI. The Pats also did not have to face the uber-teams that the Cowboys had to. The 49ers of that era were a great team that was loaded with talent, and probably would have won those Superbowls if the Boys didn't. Secondly, the Bills also were loaded with talent, who the Boys had to beat twice in the Superbowl. Saying there was a salary cap cuts both ways, the teams the Boys had to face also could stay together than keep talent. Also, free agency was in its infancy. You had to draft well in that era to have a contender and couldn't just buy the final piece or so. And finally, the year the Boys didn't win the Superbowl, they lost in the NFC Title game. If they didn't shoot themselves in the foot early on in that game, they probably would have won 4 in a row.

And I HATE the Cowboys! But you can't deny how good they were.

I believe the point would be that if the Cowboys were indeed facing more talented teams in their era and blowing them out it is a bigger accomplishment than the Patriots barely beating the mediocre teams of today's NFL.

Well, when I think "Dynasty," I think of 5+ years of established excellence.

The Cowboys were built by Jimmy Johnson. They were outstanding for two years under him, then Barry Switzer rode his coattails for two years, then they pretty much fell off the map.

On the other hand, the Niners were almost always in the playoffs under Walsh/Siefert, and I can't remember too many losing seasons under that regime. Same with Joe Gibbs' first tour of duty - 12 years, and his two worst seasons were 8-8 and 7-9. Four Super Bowl appearances, winning three of them.

And, yes, I'm pissed that the 'Skins of the 80's/early 90's get NO respect when people talk about dynasties. Their run was vastly longer than that of the Jimmy Johnson Cowpies, and more impressive than that of the 'Niners, when you consider what divisional competition each team had during that decade. (Redskins had to face very good Eagles, Giants, and Cowboys teams, and had only one cupcake - the Cardinals. Niners had mediocre Rams teams, pathetic Saints and Falcons teams, and didn't even have the expansion Panthers until later on.)

If the '83 Redskins (arguably their best team of all time) hadn't blown the Super Bowl against the Raiders, there'd be no argument here.

What he said.

Well, to be fair...

1991 - 11-5 (1-1 in playoffs)
1992 - 13-3 (3-0 in playoffs)
1993 - 12-4 (3-0 in playoffs)
1994 - 12-4 (1-1 in playoffs)
1995 - 12-4 (3-0 in playoffs)
1996 - 10-6 (1-1 in playoffs)

The Niners were a far more sustained dynasty, but it's not like the Cowboys were missing the playoffs like the Pats did when they weren't winning it all.

The Patriots are NOT a Dynasty!!
 

Puhlease!!

So they won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls, big deal. Look at the Era they play in. The Era of mediocrity. They are "hot" and on a streak, that much I'll give you. But they are not dominant, like the Cowboys of the 90's (or the 80's for that matter). Nor are they dominant like the Steelers of the 70's or the Packers of the 60's, or the Celtics of the 50's and 60's or the Yankees of the late 30's to the early 60's, or the Canadians of the...well you get the picture! Those were Dynasties.

The Patriots are a good team, a very good team for these times. I would consider them a dynasty if they win 5 Superbowls and are in the playoffs for 9 out of 10 years.

Honestly I do not think you will see any dynasties in any sports, these days, because of free agency, the salary cap and expansion (too much mediocrity and selfishness).

How can they be considered a dynasty when they barely squeeked out the three Super Bowl wins. IMO for a team to be considered a true dynasty, they must dominate for at least a decade. So come back and ask this quesiton in 6 years.

To call them a Dynasty now is to insult the true dynasties of the last century.

That's fair. I had forgotten how good they were in '91 (the year the Redskins won), and '96.

Here's a complete breakdown:

San Francisco Dynasty (more sustained than I gave credit for):


Washington Redskins Dynasty:


VPI already broke down the Cowboy's run.

The Patriots have had four good years. Prior to that, they were 5-11 under Belichick his first season, and had three years of mediocrity under Pete Carroll.

That's a good run, but, in my opinion, it's not a dynasty. Yet. If they're a playoff team for the next 2+ years, then I'd say they qualify.

If you go back a while with the Pats you see a history that may start to approach the Skins run from above...but still, they have a while to go before comparing them to the Cowboys or Niners.

1994 - 10-6 (0-1 in playoffs)
1995 - 6-10
1996 - 11-5 (2-1 in playoffs)
1997 - 10-6 (1-1 in playoffs)
1998 - 9-7 (0-1 in playoffs)
1999 - 8-8
2000 - 5-11
2001 - 11-5 (3-0 in playoffs)
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 14-2 (3-0 in playoffs)
2004 - 14-2 (3-0 in playoffs)