You could say that about most QB's.
You don't think Joe Montana was a system QB?
- Thread starter Midswat
- Start date
You could say that about most QB's.
You don't think Joe Montana was a system QB?
- Messages
- 1,274
- Reaction score
- 0
Right. It does not minimize what they do. In all honestly, Aikman was a system guy too, but he is a Cowboy...so you know, let's not mention that.
Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd go New England.
They've REMAINED competitive and are always in the playoffs.
Dallas won their last Superbowl and basically sputtered the rest of the 1990s. Up and down, up and down for like 4 years until finally the bottom fell out and they stayed down for a few years.
If anyone were given the choice of emulating each's run I doubt anyone would pick blowing their load in a short period over consistently being competitive.
They've REMAINED competitive and are always in the playoffs.
Dallas won their last Superbowl and basically sputtered the rest of the 1990s. Up and down, up and down for like 4 years until finally the bottom fell out and they stayed down for a few years.
If anyone were given the choice of emulating each's run I doubt anyone would pick blowing their load in a short period over consistently being competitive.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
*
- Messages
- 57,917
- Reaction score
- 8,687
The Cowboys had two non playoff seasons in the 90's, 1990 (when they were poised to make the playoffs until Aikman got hurt in the next to last game of the season) and 1997, Switzer's last year. We won one playoff game in the 90's after our last Super Bowl appearance in 1995.
The Pats "dynasty" missed the playoffs 3 times in the 00 decade, and they havent won a postseason game since the AFC Championship game in 2007. Dallas' collapse beginning in 2000 not surprisingly coincided with Aikman's career ending. When Brady is done, I would suspect you'll see a similar fall back from New England.
Dallas' championship teams were more dominating than New Englands. In fact Dallas' non championship teams in 1991 and definitely in 1994 would have probably beaten any of the New England's championship teams. As others also noted, the teams we ebat in the playoffs and Super Bowl those years were also probably better teams than New England, or anyone they faced in their run.
- Messages
- 1,274
- Reaction score
- 0
Aikman's injury is used as a valid excuse to miss the playoffs...Brady's injury is not.
- Messages
- 8,534
- Reaction score
- 0
Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
Two of the Pats' four misses, they had records better than one of Dallas' qualifying years. Nobody on earth would suggest a 8-8 playoff appearance is worth mentioning in comparison to a 9-7 season that didn't make the playoffs or an 11-5 season that didn't make the playoffs (without Brady).
That's fine. I'd probably agree that Dallas' strongest team would beat the Pats strongest team but that's not the topic. The topic is about which team has had the more successful "Dynasty". Longevity means something in my book. The Pats are still at the top of the food chain in the NFL.
Whether or not either team played better opponents is irrelevant. Different time and different game.
The Pats have had a longer run and are still going. It's possible they go for another 4-5 years and that's the difference IMO.