Is 12 enough for the Lombardi Packers?


Vince Lombardi photo courtesy of the Green Bay Packers

With the election of Jerry Kramer to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, there are now 12 Green Bay Packers from the 1960s … plus coach Vince Lombardi … enshrined in Canton.

In addition to Kramer, the 1960s’ Packers are represented in Canton by quarterback Bart Starr, halfback Paul Hornung, fullback Jim Taylor, tackle Forrest Gregg, center Jim Ringo, defensive end Willie Davis, defensive tackle Henry Jordan, middle linebacker Ray Nitschke, outside linebacker Dave Robinson, cornerback Herb Adderley and safety Willie Wood.

That Green Bay team appeared in six NFL title games in a span of eight years and won the championship five times in seven years, including the first two Super Bowls. Should the line now be drawn on the Packers – is 12 enough for the Lombardi-era Packers?

Not so fast. There is still some unfinished business. There are two other Lombardi Packers who were voted to the NFL’s 50th anniversary team but have never been discussed as Hall of Fame finalists — tight end Ron Kramer and wide receiver Boyd Dowler. Green Bay historian Bob Fox addresses those two Packers here:

https://greenbaybobfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-both-boyd-dowler-and-ron-kramer-deserve-consideration/

Previous Why John Lynch's Hall-of-Fame candidacy may be in trouble
Next Voter's dilemma: First-ballot vs. respecting the Hall's queue

131 Comments

  1. Tom K
    February 15, 2018
    Reply

    In my opinion, if you deserve to get then you deserve to get in. How many other HOFers that were on your team should be irrelevant. With that said, I’m not sure Ron Kramer or Boyd Dowler should be in the HOF but Dowler certainly has a much stronger case.

  2. Rasputin
    February 15, 2018
    Reply

    Do you agree, Rick, that there’s still unfinished business for Landry’s Cowboys too, whose greatness spanned not just 8 years but 20 seasons of sustained excellence? At the top of the list:

    Chuck Howley
    Cliff Harris
    Drew Pearson

    Do you agree or disagree that at the very least those men belong in the Hall of Fame?

    • Scott Remington
      February 15, 2018
      Reply

      Lombardi’s Packers five titles in eight years, Noll’s Steelers four titles in six years, or even Montana/Walsh’s 49ers four titles in nine years are way more impressive than Landry’s Cowboys two titles in 20 years.

      It also doesn’t help the Landry Cowboys legacy that the Lombardi Packers (twice), the ’70s Steelers (twice), and the Montana/Walsh 49ers (The Catch) blanked them in head-to-head playoff competition.

      Even in regular season matchups, Landry’s Cowboys never beat Lombardi’s Packers, won once then lost four straight to the ’70s Steelers, and–after running up the score on a weak 1980 ‘Niners team QBed by Steve DeBerg–never again beat the Montana/Walsh 49ers.

      Donnie Shell, Mike Wagner, Dwight Hicks, and even Glen Edwards (more INTs; more or equal Super Bowls) were better than Harris. Andy Russell was just as good as Chuck Howley (with more rings). As for Drew Pearson, give his HOF spot to Dwight Clark (More catches; equal number of TDs; more rings).

      • Rasputin
        February 18, 2018
        Reply

        I dispensed with your central argument by using the facts posted below. Here I’ll just add that actually 20 consecutive winning seasons, including 18 playoff years, is arguably more impressive than a single burst of greatness with the same set of players lasting only a few years. That’s especially true since even those two Lombardi title wins came when the Packers had been an established NFL franchise for decades while Dallas was still a recent expansion team, and yet both games were decided by 1 TD or less.

        But setting “impressive” aside, length of sustained team success is more pertinent here when we’re talking about the quantity of Hall of Fame caliber players. The longer time period you’re talking about the more chances you have for HoF players, all else being equal. There wasn’t much difference between the mid 1960s Cowboys and Packers, and yet Dallas hadn’t even hit their high point yet. Two of the Landry players I listed who are most deserving of Canton weren’t even on the team yet. Landry had more great players over his 29 years than Lombardi did in his Green Bay stint. Period.

        You mention the Danny White Cowboys losing to the Montana 49ers (barely). But you omit that the Cowboys repeatedly beat the 49ers in the playoffs in the early 1970s (3 years in a row! Otherwise San Francisco’s dynasty might have began earlier). Dallas also owned the Steelers in the 1960s through the early 1970s (including into the Bradshaw era), which is as relevant as whatever point you were trying to make. Even the two later SB losses were by only 4 points each, one of them decided in extremely controversial fashion. The 3 point SB V loss to the Colts was even more controversial and featured the worst officiating in SB history, as proved by video footage and admitted in a lengthy piece by a Baltimore writer recently. A game of inches. Good calls. Bad calls. Luck. A couple of slight changes and Landry would have won 5 Super Bowls. That’s not the kind of thing that should decide the HoF fate of several players one way or the other. What matters is that the Cowboys were consistently excellent in the mix at the top. And they did win it all twice. The rest is about individual players’ cases.

        Cliff Harris and Drew Pearson were each voted first team All Decade, the best at their respective positions in the NFL during the 1970s, by HoF selectors shortly before the rise of the anti-Cowboys bias in the early 80s through the 2000s. So I disagree with your laughable claims.

        Andy Russell over Chuck Howley? LOL! Howley was named AP first team All Pro, the best at his position in the NFL, 5 times. Russell never had such honors. Howley was Super Bowl MVP and a member of the prestigious “20/20” sack/interception club. Russell accomplished neither of those feats either. In fact Howley had 43 combined takeaways, 2nd in NFL history among NFL OLBs to only Jack Ham.

        Chuck Howley’s career peak straddled decades (though he still should have been 1960s All Decade), but he was named “Mid Decade First Team OLB” (1965-1975) recently by respected football historian John Turney, alongside fellow starters (and HoFers) Dick Butkus and Bobbie Bell, and AHEAD of HoFers Chris Hanburger, Dave Robinson, and Dave Wilcox.

        Chuck Howley should have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago.

        • Scott Remington
          February 24, 2018
          Reply

          The “facts below” lack the most important fact of all–Landry’s Cowboys never beat Lombardi’s Packers. How many rings did the Pack have in the ’60s vs. the Landry Cowboys of the ’60s? 5-0.

          Five titles in a nine-year period trumps 20 consecutive years of winning seasons with only two years of World championships. The Landry Cowboys went home post-losers 90 percent of the time. Hardly a dynasty.

          Once Noll’s ’74 draft was done (Lynn Swann, Jack Lambert, John Stallworth, Mike Webster, Donnie Shell) the Steelers completed the ’70s with four Super Bowl Titles in six years. That’s two trophies ever three years. They beat Dallas every time they played them. Wagner and Edwards had INTs in SB X and Edwards put out Cowboys WR Golden Richards with broken ribs. In SB XIII, Wagner wasted Drew Pearson with broken ribs. Cliff Harris was a non-factor in either game. Swann and Stallworth essentially were put into the HOF by those games with record-setting performances. Where was Harris? Other than taunting kicker Roy Gerela and immediately getting thrashed by Jack Lambert, You hardly knew he was even in the game. Quote from one of your assistant coaches, Mike Ditka, in 1996: “We (Dallas) thought we were the best. They (Pittsburgh) KNEW they were the best.”

          Four Super Bowls in nine years is better than two Super Bowls in 20 years. After Landry ran up the score on the Steve BeBerg QBed 49ers, Walsh and Montana destroyed them four straight times.

          Two (Landry’s Cowboys Super Bowl Titles) is never greater than four (Steelers, 49ers) and definitely never greater than five (Lombardi’s Packers).

          • Rasputin
            February 24, 2018

            “The “facts below” lack the most important fact of all–Landry’s Cowboys never beat Lombardi’s Packers.”

            Lombardi’s Packers only existed for a few years in the 1960s. Cliff Harris and Drew Pearson weren’t even in the NFL yet. That you would call those two down-to-the wire 66/67 conference championship games “the most important fact” in a discussion about Harris and Pearson’s HoF credentials is hilariously stupid and discredits everything you have to say.

            The rest of your post was just a bit of inept trolling, but you unwittingly underscore my point. You’re having to compare MULTIPLE DYNASTIES to the Cowboys because Landry’s era of elite success lasted across three different decades while the others were all much shorter. So thanks for that. 🙂 As I said, the Cowboys owned the Steelers through most of the 60s into the mid 70s. Pittsburgh had one relatively brief burst of greatness in the mid to late 70s with one group of players (most of whom are already in the HoF) then went into long term decline, until they made it back to the Super Bowl in 1995 where the Cowboys beat them. Dallas even won more games and conference championships in the 1970s than the Steelers did. While you’re childishly trying to knock Harris’ performance in 2 Super Bowls (you’re even wrong about that but it’s not worth getting into it), the intelligent question is why did the Cowboys keep making it to the Super Bowl over Harris’ career? He was a huge part of that which is why he was rightly named first team All Decade.

            The Lombardi Packers were only good for 8 years. What’s notable about their games with Dallas isn’t that Green Bay won, but that both games were so close when the Cowboys were still a recent expansion team. After Lombardi left the Packers sucked for decades. Even if Harris and Pearson had been on the team in the 1960s and the result stayed the same (which it may not have), no HoFer won the championship every year. Lots of HoFers never won any titles. You also didn’t address what I said about the Landry era Vikings having more players in Canton than the Landry era Cowboys despite Minnesota never winning a Super Bowl. And for the record Landry’s Cowboys did beat Lombardi’s Redskins a couple of years later. That’s not very pertinent but it’s about as relevant as most of the crap you spewed.

            For instance, Staubach and Harris both went 3-0 against the 49ers in the playoffs. They never lost to San Francisco in the postseason. While Danny White was a very good QB I’m not pushing him for Canton so you really have no point with your comments about what Montana did in the 80s. Cliff Harris was retired, Staubach was retired, and Howley was long retired. Harris’ departure really hurt the Dallas secondary, especially against passing team’s like Montana’s.

            Dallas Cowboys’ NFL Pass Defense Ranking
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd
            —-Cliff Harris retires—-
            1980 – 16th

            Pearson was still around and making plays, which is partly why Dallas made it to 3 conference championships in a row from 1980-1982 and remained a contender through the mid 80s. Since you didn’t directly reply to the facts I posted I’ll repost them here in this line.

            Super Bowl Wins
            Landry Cowboys – 2
            Lombardi Packers – 2

            NFC Championship/Pre-SB NFL Title Wins
            Landry Cowboys – 5
            Lombardi Packers – 5

            NFC Championship/Pre-SB NFL Title Appearances
            Landry Cowboys – 12
            Lombardi Packers – 6

            Winning Seasons
            Landry Cowboys – 20
            Lombardi Packers – 9

            Division Championships
            Landry Cowboys – 13
            Lombardi Packers – 6

            Playoff Seasons
            Landry Cowboys – 18
            Lombardi Packers – 6

            Primary Players Currently in the Hall of Fame
            Landry Cowboys – 7
            Lombardi Packers – 12

            Landry’s Cowboys posted more than twice as many division titles and winning seasons, and three times as many playoff years, and yet only have about half as many players in Canton. I’ll add this:

            Primary Players Currently in the Hall of Fame
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 7 (not counting Michael Irvin)
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1974-1979) – 9
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 14 (not counting Dermontti Dawson)

            The Steelers have 9 HoF players from that 6 year dynastic period alone, not counting some other HoFers they have from the 60s and 80s.

            Playoff Seasons
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 18
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 11

            Winning Seasons
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 20
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 15

            Division Titles
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 13
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 9

            Super Bowl Appearances
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 5
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 4

            Conference Championship Appearances
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 12
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 7

            Total Games Won
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 270
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 228

            Playoff Games Won
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 20
            Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 15

            The Canton disparity isn’t justified based on the on the field results. The Cowboys won over 40 more games and appeared in almost twice as many conference championships during that span.

            The Hall of Fame is ultimately an individual award, but if one is to take team success into account as a major factor to consider, as this article does in its premise, then the Dallas Cowboys are one of the most underrepresented teams in Canton.

            While I’d put the championship Cowboys teams up against anyone in history, I’m really not even necessarily saying one dynasty was better than another. I’m just pointing out the fact that the Landry Cowboys encompassed a very long era of sustained success spread across three decades. By only accepting 7 players from this long period Canton selectors are performing an historical disservice.

    • Rasputin
      February 16, 2018
      Reply

      After all, the Landry Cowboys still only have 7 HoF players representing that entire 29 year period, which, unlike some other dynasties, wasn’t just a few years’ burst of greatness mostly powered by the same group of guys but instead featured multiple waves of great players over the decades.

      • Scott Remington
        February 17, 2018
        Reply

        Two titles in 29 years is hardly a “dynasty.” Two titles in seven years hardly qualifies, either.

        • Rasputin
          February 18, 2018
          Reply

          That’s hardly the only metric of on field success.

          Super Bowl Wins
          Landry Cowboys – 2
          Lombardi Packers – 2

          NFC Championship/Pre-SB NFL Title Wins
          Landry Cowboys – 5
          Lombardi Packers – 5

          NFC Championship/Pre-SB NFL Title Appearances
          Landry Cowboys – 12
          Lombardi Packers – 6

          Winning Seasons
          Landry Cowboys – 20
          Lombardi Packers – 9

          Division Championships
          Landry Cowboys – 13
          Lombardi Packers – 6

          Playoff Seasons
          Landry Cowboys – 18
          Lombardi Packers – 6

          Primary Players Currently in the Hall of Fame
          Landry Cowboys – 7
          Lombardi Packers – 12

          Landry’s Cowboys posted more than twice as many division titles and winning seasons, and three times as many playoff years, and yet only have about half as many players in Canton.

          Heck, even the Vikings, who started just a year after Dallas and have never won a Super Bowl, have NINE(!) Hall of Famers who played during Landry’s tenure alone.

          The Hall of Fame is ultimately an individual award, but if one is to take team success into account as a major factor to consider, as this article does in its premise, then the Dallas Cowboys are one of the most underrepresented teams in Canton.

          • Tom K
            February 18, 2018

            To say the Cowboys come anywhere close to the 60’s Packers is absolutely ridiculous. They at worst, had the 2nd most dominant period in NFL history.

          • Rasputin
            February 18, 2018

            “Close” in what? I posted facts. You didn’t. The Packers weren’t close to the Landry Cowboys in number of winning seasons, playoff years, or division titles. Landry had more HoF worthy players than Lombardi did. He certainly had more than 7 to Lombardi’s 12. That’s a ridiculous skew. Even the Vikings, with 0 SB wins, have more players in Canton (9) than Landry. That’s inexcusable.

          • Rasputin
            February 18, 2018

            And that’s 9 HoF Vikings who played during the Landry era, not counting the ones since then. There are only 7 Landry Cowboys in. That’s too low.

          • Tom K
            February 18, 2018

            Cowboys won 2 league titles in 20 years. Green Bay won 5 in 7. More HOF players??? In what world? There’s a reason Lombardi has 12 (13 if you count Tunnell) and possibly isn’t done either per the post. Green Bay didn’t just win, they dominated. In 1962, they were winning games on average by nearly 20 points, that’s insane. 20 straight winning seasons is very impressive. However, getting only 2 championships out of it is minuscule compared to Lombardi winning 7 in 9 years. Not to mention Lombardi didn’t let any team win more than 1 championship during his reign. He also has a great track record vs HOF coaches and legendary teams.

          • Rasputin
            February 18, 2018

            A pre-Super Bowl “league title” is more equivalent to a conference championship than a Super Bowl championship, and Landry won as many as Lombardi did, while playing in twice as many, as I showed. As for “dominance”, those two head to head title games were decided by 4 and 7 points respectively. They both went down to the wire despite Dallas being a recent expansion team.

            Don’t you at least agree that a team with 20 years of sustained success likely had more great players on its rosters than a team with 9 years of sustained success? If nothing else they certainly had a lot more players. And what about the comparison with the Vikings?

            Shouldn’t the numbers at least be less skewed against the Cowboys than they are? Maybe there should be 10 Landry primary players in Canton instead of just 7?

          • Tom K
            February 18, 2018

            A pre super bowl title is = to a super bowl as confirmed by the NFL, HOF, and every major news outlet. So get out of here with your ignorant bias statements. I said his teams were more dominant than the 70s Cowboys ever were.

            I’m not saying the Cowboys shouldn’t have more players in. I agree that Chuck Howley should be in and Harris certainly has a great case. However, the Packers rightfully have more. How many years isn’t really very relevant. Otherwise, the Cardinals would be near the top of teams with the most HOFers but the reality is they aren’t

          • Rasputin
            February 19, 2018

            Equating a pre-SB NFL title completely with a Super Bowl as if there’s no difference at all just means you’re ignorant of math, Tom K. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. And no, the NFL lumps them together when counting “NFL championships” but it also routinely lists them separately and doesn’t pretend they’re exactly the same. The 1966 and 67 Dallas/Green Bay games were officially called “NFL Championships” too. They were the same thing the Packers had won earlier in the decade. Except this time the winner went on to play in what we retroactively call the “Super Bowl”. Be honest. That sounds a lot like a conference championship. I wouldn’t say NFL titles are exactly the same as modern conference championships either, but it’s a fact that there were far fewer teams involved pre-merger. A Super Bowl win is a bigger deal for good reason. If Lombardi’s head coaching career had started in 1966 instead of 1959 and he lived and coached much longer I doubt he wins 5 Super Bowls. He probably just wins a couple as he did in real life.

            None of that matters much though. Let’s pretend the 60s Packers did win 5 Super Bowls. They did so WITH BASICALLY THE SAME ROSTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. That’s a small group of potential HoF guys. Landry’s Cowboys had many more great players even if they were spread out over time.

            The “Cardinals”? LOL! I listed the metrics of on field success I did for a reason. Landry’s Cowboys had more playoff seasons in a little over a decade than the Cardinals have in their entire 98 year history.

            Playoff Games Won
            Landry Cowboys (1960-1989) – 20
            Cardinals (1920-2017) – 7

            And yet the Cardinals DO have 12 HoF players despite that lackluster team success. Quantity of time matters. Even if the Landry Cowboys matched the Lombardi Packers (and Cardinals) with 12 HoF players, you could still say the Packers had a greater concentration in one time period. Heck though, at this point I’d be satisfied if they had just 10 players rather than a measly 7. That’s an injustice.

          • Sam M. Goldenberg
            February 19, 2018

            Rasputin

            I certainly think Chuck Howley should be a Hall of Famer. However, both Cliff Harris and Drew Pearson, although fine players, fall just short in my opinion.

            I understand your argument that Landry’s Cowboys sustained a long period of winning, but this cannot be compared to Lombardi’s Packers. Lombardi’s Packers were a dynasty! The ultimate team of the sixties. The Steelers of the 70’s are the comparison.

          • Rasputin
            February 19, 2018

            Sam, how can you object to Cliff Harris and Drew Pearson? They’re the only two starting members of the 1970s All Decade team not already in the Hall of Fame.

            Harris made 6 Pro Bowls and was named AP first team All Pro 3 years. He won 2 Super Bowls and 5 conference championship games, and never had a losing team. I’ve posted Doomsday’s pass defense stats here before and they were among the NFL’s elite while Harris anchored the secondary. As soon as he retired before the 1980 season they plunged to mid-pack.

            As one of the hardest hitters in NFL history he even had a revolutionary impact on the game. HoF safety Larry Wilson said, “I feel Harris is the finest free safety in the business today. He changed the way the position is being played. You see other teams modeling their free safeties around the way Harris plays the pass, and striking fear in everyone on the field because he hits so hard.”

            Cliff Harris was even the starting free safety on Sports Illustrated’s All Time NFL team a while back, alongside and ahead of loads of Hall of Famers, making his omission even more glaring.

            Given all that, do you really think he doesn’t measure up to Canton?

            Drew Pearson was also first team All Pro 3 years and was the key player in 3 of the 75 greatest plays in NFL history as ranked by NFL Films in the 1990s, including the original “Hail Mary” catch. He was the most skilled receiver in Cowboys history and is widely considered to be the most clutch WR in NFL history. His stats were among the best in the league for his era and he led the NFL in yards in 1977, the same year he won the Super Bowl.

            Pearson was a key part of keeping the Cowboys offense among the NFL’s best while Harris was a big part of keeping the defense among the league’s best. I’m glad we agree Howley is Canton worthy, but both those other guys measure up too in my book.

            I think I’ve already dealt with the “dynasty” argument with the facts posted elsewhere on this page. Also note what I posted about the Cardinals having 12 HoF players despite only having 7 playoff wins in their entire 98 year history compared to the Landry Cowboys with 20 playoff wins and only 7 HoFers. If winning literally half the NFC championships of the 1970s and winning as many Super Bowls as Lombardi did (both in blowouts, with the losses all by 4 points or less) doesn’t qualify as a “dynasty” then the word has little meaning, especially since the Cowboys also played in 7 NFC championships in the 1970s alone and won more games that decade than any other team. At some point terms like “dynasty” become semantics. What matters is that Dallas was a dominant team that had an awesome run of on field success.

            This record setting run of success was fueled by more than just 7 Hall of Fame quality players.

  3. Kerouac
    February 15, 2018
    Reply

    Hall of Fame

    Kansas City Chiefs: the team that played in 2 of the first 4 Superbowl’s has 9 enshrined ‘Hall of Fame’, including Owner Hunt & Coach Stram; reality is they should have several more: Johnny Robinson, Jim Tyrer, Jerrell Wilson, Otis Taylor and Ed Budde.

    Were the venue a workplace other than the gridiron, ‘discrimination’ comes to mind – there oughta be a law agin’ it, HOF voting. ‘Justice’ is supposed to be blind – ditto re; a ‘league’. Alas, bias is precisely what occurs terms the old AFL teams/players (at minimum), my opine.

    Both the Chiefs & Raiders repudiated the myth of inferiority hanging with the Packers SB’s I and II until well into the second half, followed by the Jets & Chiefs beating ‘the best NFL team(s) ever’ according the media pundits/self-appointed experts back to back SB’s III & IV in ’68 and ’69 seasons.

    Tex Maule/his ilk still twisting arms and casting aspersions/HOF votes?

  4. Sam M. Goldenberg
    February 16, 2018
    Reply

    Rick: First off, great job and much thanks from all Jerry Kramer fans for assisting in finally getting Jerry inducted to the Hall of Fame. Clark, Ron and yourself kept Jerry’s case current and you are all aces in my book.

    That being said Jerry’s case was clearcut (in my view). His resume was overwhelming. Bob Fox does an excellent job in highlighting the cases for Boyd Dowler and Ron Kramer. Both were outstanding players. Dowler in particular doesn’t get enough credit for the big plays he made in the postseason. One of the most important plays in the Ice Bowl was a first down throw from Starr to Dowler in the final TD drive. Dowler made a sliding catch and then his head bounced off the frozen turf. An amazing and under rated play. He was clutch in the post season, and his numbers are comparable to Lynn Swann. Ron Kramer was one of first pass catching tight ends and a great blocker. However, I think you have say he was not as good a player as Mike Ditka or John Mackey who were his contemporaries.

    Unfortunately, you have to get back to how many Lombardi Packers can be Hall of Famers? The Lombardi Packers were my all time favorite team, but even I have admit 12 players is a lot. (I think Jim Ringo is a special case because he was a Packer for 5 years before Lombardi, so maybe you can say 11 players?). The other problem is, as discussed many times, there so many great senior candidates. I definitely think both Dowler and Ron Kramer’s cases should be heard and debated. Both are worthy candidates. If a proposal is accepted where a one time pool of senior players could be inducted these two should be strongly considered.

  5. Greg D. Rupnow
    February 17, 2018
    Reply

    Boyd Dowler and Ron Kramer would have been HOF on other teams as the Packers could spread the ball around so well. Bob Skoronski should be in the conversation also as he is a seldom mentioned as a one of the best offensive linemen at the time .

  6. Scott Remington
    February 26, 2018
    Reply

    Wrong, Rasputin. The Lombardi Packer post-season victories over Landry’s Cowboys further validates my exposing your claim that the Landry Cowboys were a dynasty is garbage. Five championships (Lombardi’s Packers) is always greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys). This wasn’t about Cliff Harris and Drew Pearson’s HOF credentials. The fact is, the Pack under Lombardi dominated the ’60s. The Cowboys got nothing.

    Two Championships in 29 years is hardly a dynasty. Even if you condense the Landry Cowboys’ case to two world titles in seven years, with a huge five-year gap between world titles, it is unimpressive. They never repeated as champions.

    Although the Cowboys finally broke through in the ’70s, they were hardly a dynasty. The dominant team was the Steelers, who dominated Landry’s troops repeatedly in the decade. Once again, Mike Wagner, Donnie Shell, and even Glen Edwards did more and won more than Cliff Harris. Swann and Stallworth are both deservedly in the Hall and Drew Pearson is rightfully on the outside looking in. Of course, Pearson can thank Cliff Harris for that (Swann and Stallworth are HOFers in large part because of their record-breaking Super Bowl performances against Harris and the Cowboys’ secondary). Four Super Bowls in six years (’70s Steelers) is far greater than two in seven (Landry’s Cowboys). What’s more, the Steelers beat them in the two Super Bowls they played within that decade, and after the ’74 draft (Swann, Lambert, Webster, Stallworth, Shell) completed the building process of Chuck Noll, won four straight wins over Dallas to close the decade.

    In the ’80s, after running up the score on a weak, Steve DeBerg QBed team, Bill Walsh promoted Joe Montana in 1981 and proceeded to dominate the Landry Cowboys four straight times, and took the mantle as “Team of the Decade” from the Steelers, including an ’81 win in Pittsburgh (something Landry’s Cowboys never did). The 49ers dynasty started with The Catch over the Landry Cowboys. To even think Cliff Harris would have cut into the effectiveness of the Montana/Walsh machine is sheer lunacy. Terry Bradshaw was a streak passer and he destroyed Landry’s defenses with Swann and Stallworth. Montana beat them four straight games–WITHOUT Jerry Rice. Four Super Bowl titles in 10 years (including a decade-concluding repeat) is greater than two Super Bowls in seven years–and zero in the ’80s. The Cowboys were in the NFC title game three straight years? Losing each one? Well, congratulations! For three years, Landry’s Cowboys were the NFC Championship Game’s official doormat.

    When the Lombardi’s Packers are mentioned, pitiful Cowboys fans of the Landry era have to bring up the post-Lombardi Packers to deflect the fact that Lombardi owned them in the ’60s with his Green Bay crew. When the Super Bowl Steelers of the ’70s are mentioned, pitiful Cowboys fans immediately jump to the years BEFORE ’74 and AFTER ’82 to celebrate any success against the Steelers (that includes, of course, the Neil O’Donnell gift-wrapped Super Bowl XXX “win”). And, understandably, whenever the Montana/Walsh 49ers’ dominance over the Landry Cowboys is mentioned, only pitiful Cowboy fans will rewind to the ’70s or fast-forward to the Jimmy Johnson years to find success against San Francisco. The fact of the matter is, Landry’s Cowboys did nothing vs. Lombardi’s Packers, were manhandled by Pittsburgh every time during the Steelers Super Bowl run in the ’70s, and failed every time vs. the Montana/Walsh Machine in the ’80s.

    Landry’s Cowboys were hardly a “dynasty.”

    • Rasputin
      February 27, 2018
      Reply

      You again failed to explain why other teams like the Vikings should have more HoFers from the Landry era than the far more successful Cowboys do, Scott Remington. You just repeated a bunch of idiotic nonsense I’ve already debunked. Boring.

      • Scott Remington
        March 1, 2018
        Reply

        The fact that the Lombardi Packers, ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers won more titles than the Landry Cowboys, with each of them squashing Dallas in the process within those eras, is hardly idiotic nonsense. Calling the Landry Cowboys a “dynasty” (Two World Championships in 29 years; one every 15 years–the 2000s Baltimore Ravens have a better ratio than that–you want to call THEM a “dynasty?”) is a bunch of idiotic nonsense. The ’90s Cowboys that Jimmy Johnson built were a dynasty. The Landry Cowboys were not.

        I never mentioned the Vikings. Stay focused. The discussion is about how you are wrong in calling the Landry Cowboys a “dynasty,” how Lombardi’s Pack, the ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh machine owned Landry’s crew from Dallas (combined 5-0 vs Landry’s teams in playoff competion during those respective reigns that occurred in Landry’s era), and how five (Lombardi’s Pack’s world titles) and four (’70s Steelers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers’ respective world title reigns) is greater than two (the Landry Cowboys’ “dynasty”). Those teams walked over Landry’s Cowboys to claim Super Bowl titles. Those teams also repeated. Those Landry Cowboys had their chances to detrone the Packers (’66, ’67) and Steelers (’75) and hold off the 49ers (’81)–and failed.

        Even the Raiders (’76, ’80, ’83) and Joe Gibbs’ Wahington Redskins (’82, ’87, ’91) had better rates of World Championship success than the Landry Cowboys. And, of course, like the Packers of Lombardi, the ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh machine, the Redskind plowed Landry’s Cowboys aside to win their first Super Bowl. Of course, the Dallas Cowboys were the early ’80s NFC Championship Doormat.

        • Rasputin
          March 1, 2018
          Reply

          Actually the discussion is about whether the Landry Cowboys should have more players in the HoF or not, not semantics over the word “dynasty” or your childish historical ignorance where you feel a game decided by less than a TD is “squashing”. Again, your sad attempt at anti-Cowboys trolling was inept, verbose, and repetitive, especially since I already debunked it with the facts posted above.

  7. Scott Remington
    March 1, 2018
    Reply

    Your point is that because the Landry Cowboys were a “dynasty” they should have more players in the Hall of Fame. Seven is about right for that group of Cowboys. If anything, take Bob Hayes (an experiment at best) out and put Drew Pearson in. Chuck Howley’s name is only mentioned because he is the only Super Bowl-losing MVP (Mike Curtis, John Mackey, or even Jim O’Brien should have received it) and Cliff Harris was vastly overrated (Willie Wood–HOFer, Mike Wagner, Donnie Shell, and even Glen Edwards and Dwight Hicks were better safeties. They did far more and were not exploited like Harris in Super Bowl competition). Two titles in 29 years or even a seven-year span (1971-77) is not a “dynasty.”

    There was no “debunking.” As for one of your previous childish, in-massive-denial posts regarding “If Lombardi’s coaching career started in 1966 instead of 1959 blah, blah, blah…” The fact of the matter was, the Packers were the best team in all of football in the ’60s. No one was close to them. They had a repeat (1961-62) and a three-peat (1965-67). The ’61 Houston Oilers don’t beat them. The ’62 Dallas Texans don’t beat them (see Super Bowl I) . The ’65 Buffalo Bills don’t beat them (That year the Pack dethroned the defending NFL champ Cleveland Browns while holding the great Jim Brown to 50 yards rushing. Buffalo Bills and Cookie Gilchrist? No problem). In 1966, the Cowboys had them in the Cotton Bowl (home-field advantage) and couldn’t beat them. In the Ice Bowl, they let running back Donny Anderson–“slow as molasses,” according to Gil Brandt–combine with Bart Starr to drive the Pack down the field for Starr’s last-second QB sneak behind the Hall of Fame block of guard Jerry Kramer.

    The ’70s Steelers won four Super Bowls in six years. Two of those titles came at the expense of Landry’s Cowboys. When the time came to take control of the decade, Landry’s players couldn’t deliver. The Steelers beat them every time during that six-year span. Former Dallas assistant coach Mike Ditka–1995: “We (Landry’s Cowboys) thought we were the best. They (’70s Steelers) KNEW they were the best.”

    In 1980, Landry ran up the score on a weak 49ers team QBed by Steve DeBerg. The next year, Head Coach Bill Walsh installed Joe Montana at QB and Montana squashed Landry’s Cowboys every time. That includes, of course, The Catch. Montana and Walsh coolly combine to take the ‘Niners 89 yards on the Doomsday Defense, culminating in Dwight Clark’s leaping grab that set off the 49ers’ dynasty. Clark outplayed Pearson in that game. The ‘Niners took four Super Bowls for the decade. Dallas got nothing.

    Deal with the facts. In every case (Lombardi’s Packers, the ’70s Steelers, the Montana/Walsh 49ers), the Landry Cowboys had multiple opportunities to redeem themselves in rematches after being pummeled by these teams in post-season competition–where dynasties are born–and they were turned away every time. Whenever Lombardi’s Packers out- executed them, whenever the ’70s Steelers outhit them, or whenever the Montana/Walsh 49ers outwitted them, what was the deal with Landry’s Cowboys: Lack of talent? Lack of pride? Lack of heart? And whenever you can show us when two world championship titles in football is greater than four or five, Rasputin, give us a response.

  8. Rasputin
    March 2, 2018
    Reply

    Wrong, “Scott”. My point is that the Cowboys were continuously at or around the NFL’s top for a very long period of time stretching across 3 different decades, and therefore should have more than 7 HoFers if one is taking team success into account.

    Even if you feel they were “only” the second best team in the 1960s, the 70s, and the early 80s, which seems to be your argument (LOL!), that you have to resort to different “dynasties” to compare them to in each era only proves my case.

    Dallas was the constant throughout the Landry era, not the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers. It takes more great players to sustain elite success that long than it does to win a few championships in a small period of time.

    The facts I’ve posted here on wins, titles, playoff seasons, etc. debunk your childish idiocy on how great the Cowboys team and the individuals in question were, whether you want to apply the word “dynasty” or not, but even if they didn’t the quantity of time involved makes the case. There’s a reason even the lowly Cardinals have 12 HoFers, more than the 70s Steelers and 80s 49ers and as many as the 60s Packers (how do you feel about that, btw?), because they’ve been around 98 years. The Landry Cowboys were vastly more successful, with 20 playoff wins in those 3 decades compared to the Cardinals’ 7 in 98 years. But I’m not arguing that the Landry Cowboys should have more in Canton than the Cardinals.

    If you take the 3 most individually deserving Cowboys, Howley (the first DEFENSIVE SB MVP and was considered for it again the following year when they won because the huge multiple big impact play game he had), Harris, and Pearson, then there’d be 10 Landry era HoFers representing 3 decades, which would be fair, and that’s still leaving other worthy candidates like Lee Roy Jordan, Cornell Green, John Niland, Ralph Neely, Tony Hill, Ed Too Tall Jones, Harvey Martin, Herschel Walker, George Andrie, and Everson Walls out.

    • Rasputin
      March 2, 2018
      Reply

      Should also mention Don Perkins there, the best NFL RB from the 60s among those not already in the HoF.

  9. Scott Remington
    March 2, 2018
    Reply

    “Dallas was the constant throughout the Landry era, not the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers. It takes more great players to sustain elite success that long than it does to win a few championships in a small period of time.”

    I love the idiocy of this weak, misguided response. The Cowboys took 29 or seven (1971-77; I’ll let you take the pick) years to win two Super Bowls. The Baltimore Ravens have won two at the same rate of time. Anyone outside of Baltimore calling THEM a “dynasty?”

    Let’s go the 29-year route. Landry’s Cowboys could have dethroned the Packers and been in the first two Super Bowls. They failed. When Lombardi left the Pack, Landry’s Cowboys could have seized the ’70s but what happened? They conquered the NFC but let the Pittsburgh Steelers leap-frog them, knock them out of the way and take the title of Team of the Decade despite multiple opportunities to at least force a share of that title. The Cowboys failed to beat the Steelers every time in Pittsburgh’s Reign of ’74-’79.

    Pittsburgh gets old in the ’80s (that doesn’t prevent them from thumping Dallas–in Dallas–on the Monday Night Football season opener in 1982), and the ’80s are ripe for the taking. What happened? Dallas became the official NFC Championship Game Doormat. Landry runs up the score on a weak 1980 49er team QBed by Steve DeBerg. A year later, ‘Niners’ Head Coach Bill Walsh promotes Joe Montana at QB and Montana squashes Landry and the ‘Boys every time and San Francisco becomes the Team of the ’80s. even the Raiders and Redskins swiped two Super Bowls in the ’80s. Dallas got nothing.

    Landry’s Cowboys have gotten just what they deserve for their 29-year performances. You are praising the Cowboys for REGULAR season success. Dynasties require CHAMPIONSHIP success. Good to see you termed the ’60s Packers, ’70s Steelers, and ’80s 49ers’ success as a “few championships in a small period of time.” A “few” is about three or four (’70s Steelers; ’80s 49ers). Maybe five (’60s Packers). Either way, they are all greater than “a couple” (Landry’s Cowboys).

    • Rasputin
      March 3, 2018
      Reply

      Yeah you already said all that and I already explained why it was idiotic nonsense that failed to address almost everything I said. Here’s a new misleading claim you made though:

      “You are praising the Cowboys for REGULAR season success”

      I’m also praising them for their great playoff success.

      Playoff Seasons
      Landry Cowboys – 18
      Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 11
      Lombardi Packers – 6

      Playoff Games Won
      Landry Cowboys (1960-1988) – 20
      Pittsburgh Steelers (1960-1988) – 15
      Lombardi Packers – 8

      See? Playoff success. Facts.

      “Dynasties require CHAMPIONSHIP success.”

      Well the Landry Cowboys won 2 Super Bowls, 5 conference championships, and 13 division titles, but are you trying to claim that only what you consider to be true “dynasties” should have more than 7 players in the HoF, regardless of the length of time being discussed? You must REALLY be upset about teams like the Vikings and Cardinals having as many in Canton as they do then. I’m sure you’ll get right on complaining about that, and that you aren’t just some bitter anti-Cowboys troll or anything, LOL.

    • Rasputin
      March 3, 2018
      Reply

      Also, Scott, if recently acquired TE Jackie Smith hadn’t dropped a TD pass while wide open in the end zone and Dallas had won SB 13, despite Randy White wearing a cast along with numerous other injuries and atrocious officiating that went against them, giving them 3 SB wins to the Lombardi Packers’ 2 and tying them with the 70s Steelers in SB wins (Dallas would still have more total 70s wins and conference championships than Pittsburgh of course), if that was the only thing that changed, how many HoFers do you feel the Landry Cowboys would merit then?

  10. Scott Remington
    March 6, 2018
    Reply

    Dandy Don Meredith once said, “If ‘Ifs’ and ‘Buts’ were cherries and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.” Love the Landry Cowboy Alibi Mill: “If Jackie Smith hadn’t dropped that pass…” Well, HE DID. “Randy White wearing a cast…” Well, the kickoff came to him. He is a cast-wearing defensive lineman. Simply toss it back to who was stationed behind him to return it. Randy White didn’t. Numerous other injuries for the Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII? Drew Pearson being drilled by Mike Wagner, resulting in broken ribs? Late in the game? Wagner (and the overall Steelers’ defense) simply hit harder that Cliff Harris, that’s all. And John Stallworth missed the entire second half of Super Bowl XIII with leg cramps after destroying Cliff Harris and the Cowboys secondary with a record-setting first half. And the Steelers STILL won. As for Randy White’s injury, well in Super Bowl X Mean Joe Greene played about only half the game but the Steelers still beat Dallas. Once again in that game, another Pittsburgh safety–Glen Edwards–put out Dallas receivers (Jean Fugett and Golden Richards) with hits harder than Cliff Harris could muster. The bottom line is Landry’s Dallas teams rarely stood up and seized the moment (or decade) like the dynasties (Lombardi’s Packers; The ’70s Steelers; the Montana/Walsh 49ers) that regularly squashed them did.

    Dallas assistant coach Mike Ditka: “We (Dallas) thought we were the best. They (Pittsburgh) KNEW they were the best.” I take it Lombardi’s Packers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers felt the same way when they faced Landry’s Cowboys. History thoroughly proves that. The films don’t lie. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

    Playoff success is different from CHAMPIONSHIP success. Marty Schottenheimer had PLAYOFF success. Typical of a Landry Cowboy, Dan Reeves had PLAYOFF success. Championships. Not Divisional. Not Conference. LEAGUE/WORLD.

    Two titles in 18 playoff years (Landry’s Cowboys) doesn’t even compare to four titles in eight ( ’70s Steelers) and five titles in six years…Rasputin, you’re embarrassing yourself. Call us back when you can either 1) Show us how five (Lombardi’s Pack) or four (’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh ‘Niners) is inferior to a couple (Landry’s Cowboys) or 2) When you are man enough and adult enough to admit Landry’s Cowboys were inferior to these dynasties because the Landry Cowboys were NOT a dynasty.

    • Rasputin
      March 7, 2018
      Reply

      “Dandy Don Meredith once said, “If ‘Ifs’ and ‘Buts’ were cherries and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.””

      But answering an hypothetical can help clarify one’s thinking on an issue and in this case would illustrate the absurdity of your position, which is why you dodged the question completely like the coward you are, Scott. Once again you just repeated already debunked garbage. Your descriptions of the games aren’t even accurate. I doubt you’ve seen them.

      Try again. If that one 4 point game had gone the other way, tying the Cowboys and Steelers with 3 SB wins in the 70s versus the Packers’ 2 in the 60s, how much higher than 7 do you think the Landry Cowboys’ HoF total should be? 10? 12? 14?

  11. Scott Remington
    March 7, 2018
    Reply

    What are the inaccuracies, Rasputin (“Your descriptions of the games aren’t even accurate. I doubt you’ve seen them.” Not in the truth-validating world of YouTube)?

    You have debunked absolutely nothing. History backed up by film or video doesn’t lie. Five (Lombardi’s Packers) or four (’70s Steelers, Montana/Walsh 49ers) World Titles is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys). They (five and four) become exponentially greater when those World Titles came at the expense of an opponent (Landry’s Cowboys) claiming to be just as great (two) .

    You asked, “If that one 4-point game had gone the other way, tying the Cowboys and Steelers with 3 SB wins in the 70s versus the Packers’ 2 in the 60s, how much higher than 7 do you think the Landry Cowboys’ HoF total should be? 10? 12? 14?” The problem is, Landry’s Cowboys didn’t make Super Bowl XIII “go(ne) the other way.” Or the playoff games with Green Bay in the ’60s or the Montana/Walsh 49ers in the ’80s. Why? Because the Landry Cowboys didn’t have Hall of Famers beyond the seven that got in the Hall to make those games “go the other way.”

    The Lombardi Packers, ’70s Steelers, and Montana/Walsh 49ers had better players and, therefore, established themselves as historically better teams–dynasties–than the Landry Cowboys. The Landry’s Cowboys had opportunities to stop them (’66–Packers; ’75–Steelers; ’81(regular season)–49ers) and multiple chances for revenge and redemption (’67–Packers; ’77, ’78,’79–Steelers; ’81(NFC Title), ’83, ’85–49ers) and failed every time. What was the Cowboys’ problem? Lack of talent? Lack of pride? Lack of heart?

    Whenever you can change the course of math and show us that two is greater than five (Lombardi’s Pack) or even four (’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers), let us know, Rasputin. Frankly, you’re foolishly fighting a lost cause.

    • Rasputin
      March 7, 2018
      Reply

      The Landry Cowboys appeared in 12 conference championship games in 17 years. Think about that. Which dynasty was “better” is subjective, Scott, and it depends on which metric you look at. The 70s Steelers and 80s 49ers were better at winning Super Bowls than Dallas or Green Bay, because they factually won more. But the Landry Cowboys were better at getting to Super Bowls and sustaining overall elite success much longer than the Steelers, Packers, and even the 49ers, as measured by facts like number of winning seasons, playoff years, division championships, etc.. I also think that individual teams like the 71 and 77 Cowboys were among the greatest in NFL history by the time they peaked in the playoffs, and I’d put them against the best the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers had to offer.

      The early 70s Dolphins were a truly great team that would go undefeated in 72 and win a second SB in 73. The 71 Cowboys didn’t just beat that great team, but utterly crushed Miami in the Super Bowl 24-3. This wasn’t a 4 point Steelers-style squeaker or a 3 point Colts-style robbery.

      That Cowboys team is still the only team in NFL history to hold its Super Bowl opponent without a TD. The 85 Bears didn’t do it. The 2000 Ravens didn’t do it. None of the Steel Curtain teams did it. The Packers certainly didn’t do it. Chuck Howley was a prominent leader of that Doomsday defense and in addition to flying around the field making tackles he accounted for both a fumble recovery and the game sealing interception that he returned 41 yards, both leading to Dallas scores. Cliff Harris was the starting FS of a secondary that held HoF QB Bob Griese to an atrocious 51.7 passer rating and shut down HoF WR Paul Warfield.

      The 1977 Cowboys ranked #1 in the NFL in both offense and defense by the end of the season and Harris and Drew Pearson (who led the league in receiving yardage) were a big part of that (Howley had long since retired). They elevated their game even higher in the postseason, outscoring their 3 opponents 87-23, including the 27-10 thumping of Denver in a Super Bowl dominated by Doomsday. That day the Cliff Harris-led secondary held Bronco QB Craig Morton to just 4 completions on 15 attempts and a staggering 0.0 passer rating. Morton was a good QB who had just lit up Pittsburgh and Oakland with ratings of 100.6 and 102.9 respectively in the previous 2 playoff games. Harris personally knocked Rick Upchurch, the Broncos’ best playmaker that day, unconscious at one point with a clean hit.

      None of the Packers or Steelers teams showed that level of postseason domination.

      Playoffs Scored/Allowed

      1971 Cowboys: 58-18
      1977 Cowboys: 87-23

      1966 Packers: 69-37
      1967 Packers: 54-31

      1974 Steelers: 72-33
      1975 Steelers: 65-37
      1978 Steelers: 102-46
      1979 Steelers: 92-46

      While the 77 Cowboys only allowed 23 postseason points, the 71 Cowboys only allowed ONE TD IN THE ENTIRE PLAYOFFS! They allowed a total of 18 points in those 3 games, mostly field goals. The Packers allowed 31 and 37 respectively despite only playing 2 playoff games in each of their 2 Super Bowl winning seasons. All the Steelers SB teams surrendered in the 30s or 40s.

      So the Cowboys are second to none when it comes to their pinnacle of team greatness, and the three HoF candidates being discussed here were instrumental in reaching that greatness. That’s the highest level of resolution. If you zoom out one level and look at number of SBs won, the Steelers have the edge. But if you take one more step back and look at the bigger picture, the Cowboys have the big advantage there too, judging from total wins and sustained success.

      Your entire argument hinges on number of SB wins being the only factor that matters in judging team success. By your logic the 2017 Patriots were no better than the 2017 Browns because neither won a Super Bowl.

      You’ve been a squirrelly coward so far by dodging my fair question, but I’ll give you one more chance:

      IF the Landry Cowboys had won SB 13, do you think they’d deserve more than their current 7 HoFers? If so about how many more? Note that no one is claiming they did, so there’s no use in repeating “they didn’t”. The question is valid because it elucidates the criteria for the claims you’ve made about how “dynastic” success impacts HoF totals.

  12. Scott Remington
    March 8, 2018
    Reply

    “The 70s Steelers and 80s 49ers were better at winning Super Bowls than Dallas…because they factually won more.” Fine. Couldn’t have said it better myself. End of discussion. And had the Super Bowl been in effect throughout the ’60s, the Packers would have taken home the World titles in ’61, ’62, and ’65. All of them (Lombardi’s Pack; the ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) were better than Landry’s Cowboys. Additionally, they were better because they beat Landry’s Cowboys–REPEATEDLY.

    The question was already answered–on the field and by me: The Landry Cowboys didn’t have more than seven HOFers to try cut into the success of Lombardi’s Packers, the ’70s Steelers, or the Montana/Walsh 49ers, so they don’t have more than seven HOFers. It’s that simple. Taking it further, Landry’s Cowboys HOF representation (7) exceeds the Montana/Walsh machine’s (5)–Montana, Rice, Fred Dean, Charles Haley, Ronnie Lott . And you want more LANDRY COWBOYS in? They lost repeatedly to a less talented team. Right?

    As for this childish fantasy of yours–“I also think that individual teams like the 71 and 77 Cowboys were among the greatest in NFL history by the time they peaked in the playoffs, and I’d put them against the best the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers had to offer.” The Lombardi Packers took care of Otis Taylor, Warren Wells, Mike Garrett, Daryl Lamonica, and Len Dawson (Super Bowls I and II). In addition, they controlled Bob Hayes, Bob Lilly, and Mel Renfro in their prime years. Unlike Shula’s ’71 Dolphins, Lombardi had better players on defense (Willie Davis, Henry Jordan, Ray Nitschke, Dave Robinson, Herb Adderley, Willie Wood) to better deal with the ’71 Cowboys. Plus, Lombardi had a better QB and a more effective passing game than Miami.

    The Steelers beat the Cowboys in their ’77 Super Bowl season and again in Super Bowl XIII–dethroning them in the process. Matching up either of the two Landry Super Bowl winners against any of the ‘Niners champions isn’t even worth discussing. If Swann, Stallworth, and Dwight Clark danced through that Dallas secondary on a regular basis, imagine what a prime Jerry Rice would do.

    Get back to us when you can figure out how two (Landry’s Cowboys World Titles) is greater than four (’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) or five (Lombardi’s Packers).

    • Rasputin
      March 14, 2018
      Reply

      “All of them (Lombardi’s Pack; the ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) were better than Landry’s Cowboys.”

      Arguably not at peak and certainly not on longevity. Landry’s Cowboys were way better. The facts are the facts. Are you really too dense to realize that you having to compare them to three different dynasties only proves my point?

      “The Landry Cowboys didn’t have more than seven HOFers to try cut into the success of Lombardi’s Packers, the ’70s Steelers, or the Montana/Walsh 49ers, so they don’t have more than seven HOFers. ”

      Except Dallas, a recent expansion team, only had 3 of those HoFers in the 60s when they took the vaunted Lombardi Packers and their 12 HoFers down to the wire in back to back title games decided by one score. How did they accomplish this feat twice in a row if Green Bay supposedly had 4 times the HoF talent? Was each extra Green Bay HoFer only worth a fraction of a point?

      The Steelers dynasty didn’t really get going until the great Bob Lilly and Hayes had retired, and Mel Renfro was in his last couple of years before transitioning to a backup role in 1977. In 1975 Randy White was a rookie and backup LB who wasn’t even yet at the position he would be great at. Tony Dorsett wasn’t a rookie until 1977.

      How did the 1975 Cowboys take the Steelers down to the wire in a 4 point game when Dallas only had 3 starting HoFers, Staubach, an offensive lineman, and Renfro at the end of his career? Pittsburgh had 9 HoFers and only 4 more points.

      The Cowboys won more games than any other team in the 70s and were the best team in the NFL in both 1971 and 1977. They posted 20 consecutive winning seasons and appeared in 12 conference championship games in 17 years.

      As it stands now they accomplished all this with ONLY A FEW HOFERS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. They never had all 7 HoFers at once. That’s my point that you still haven’t gotten. We aren’t comparing the 60s Cowboys to the 60s Packers, or the 80s Cowboys to the 49ers. We’re talking about all the deserving Dallas HoFers who were instrumental to that INCOMPARABLE stretch of success. It took more than just 7 HoF quality players scattered over 29 years.

      “Plus, Lombardi had a better QB and a more effective passing game than Miami.”

      Dallas didn’t have Roger Staubach until years later, you buffoon! LOL! That trumps the difference between HoFers Griese and Starr. They also didn’t have Cliff Harris, Charlie Waters, or Drew Pearson, among others, and HoFer Rayfield Wright was a rookie backup in 67.

      The Lombardi Packers barely escaped the mid 60s Cowboys and the early 70s Cowboys were way better. It’s not even close. You’re deluding yourself, wallowing in fantasy. You want to put almost every member of your cherished team in Canton. I only want deserving players there, even from the Cowboys.

      “The Steelers beat the Cowboys in their ’77 Super Bowl season”

      Mid-season, long before they peaked in the playoffs. The Steelers got rolled in the playoffs by a Broncos club Dallas utterly crushed in one of the most hard hitting, dominant defensive displays in Super Bowl history.

      Only the 1972 Dolphins went undefeated (the team you’re ignorantly running down that the Cowboys had crushed in the previous year’s Super Bowl).

      By your logic the Vikings, Rams, 49ers, Colts, and Steelers were all better than the Packers in 1966 and 67 since all those teams beat Green Bay in one or both of those years. Heck, the 67 Packers were only 9-4-1 in a 14 game season. Hardly historically dominant.

      “If Swann, Stallworth, and Dwight Clark danced through that Dallas secondary on a regular basis, imagine what a prime Jerry Rice would do.”

      Probably a lot less with Cliff Harris bearing down on him. Remember when I educated you with this?

      Dallas Cowboys’ NFL Pass Defense Ranking
      1976 – 7th
      1977 – 2nd
      1978 – 5th
      1979 – 3rd
      —-Cliff Harris retires—-
      1980 – 16th

      From 3rd with Harris to 16th one year later without him. And the Cowboys didn’t play the Steelers “on a regular basis”. I’ll note that Dallas put up almost as many points on the HoF-laden “Steel Curtain” the couple of times they did. None of the Steelers (or Packers, or 49ers) teams were ever as defensively dominant as either of the Cowboys teams were in the 71 and 77 postseasons. In fact no team in history has been except the 85 Bears, who pitched 2 playoff shutouts. Even the Bears gave up a TD in the SB, something the 71 Cowboys did not do.

      “End of discussion.”

      Except for all the other stuff I said refuting your position.

      “And had the Super Bowl been in effect throughout the ’60s, the Packers would have taken home the World titles in ’61, ’62, and ’65.”

      You were babbling something about “ifs”, “buts”, “candies” and “nuts” earlier? Hypocrite. My hypothetical was a pertinent question you’re too cowardly to answer. Yours is just a speculative boast.

      PS – No one “controlled” Lilly.

    • Rasputin
      March 14, 2018
      Reply

      I’ll add that each of these 3 salient Canton exclusions are bridge players who help account for the Cowboys’ era of unmatched sustained success.

      Chuck Howley helps explain why a recent expansion team that currently only has 3 starting HoFers took a Packers team with 12 HoFers to the wire in the title game 2 years in a row. Four is more realistic than three. He also helped Doomsday achieve something in SB 6 that even the 85 Bears failed to.

      Cliff Harris also helps explain that 71 team’s dominance in the season’s climax, as well as its continued defensive greatness in the mid to late 70s after legends like Lilly, Howley, and Lee Roy Jordan had retired. Cliff Harris was the most important defensive constant in Dallas’ 1970s success.

      Drew Pearson helps explain why that 75 Cinderella team made the SB (he literally caught the Hail Mary pass) and remained good enough to make it to 3 consecutive NFC championships in the early 80s in the post Stabuach, post Harris period.

      If the HoF is supposed to include players without whom the story of the NFL can’t be told, then there are currently gaps in the historical record. Finally inducting these three men would fill those gaps.

  13. Scott Remington
    March 15, 2018
    Reply

    “Landry’s Cowboys were way better. The facts are the facts. ” What numerical world are you living on? They had two opportunities to dethrone Lombardi’s Packers–and they didn’t. They had multiple opportunities (’77, ’78, ’79) to beat the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers–and they failed. They had multiple opportunities to redeem themselves vs. the Montana/Walsh 49ers–and got crushed virtually every time. “Way better?” The Landry Cowboys that these teams destroyed in the process of establishing their legacies as dynasties?

    “Chuck Howley helps explain why a recent expansion team that currently only has 3 starting HoFers took a Packers team with 12 HoFers to the wire in the title game 2 years in a row.” But Landry’s Cowboys lost both games. Bart Starr throws six TDs and runs for another in the two games. That’s a Hall of Fame performance by Howley? Close only counts in the game of horse shoes. With Chuck Howley’s “great” defensive contribution the Cowboys surrendered 34 points–at home–to enable the Packers to go to the first Super Bowl. With Howley “terrorizing” the Pack all over the field, Starr took Green Bay down the field utilizing Donny Anderson (“slow as molasses” according to Dallas’ Gil Brandt) to score the winning touchdown in the last minute after burning them with two TD passes. Without the fumble recovery for a touchdown and the gadget TD pass form Dan Reeves, The Landry Bunch goes down 14-3.

    “The Steelers dynasty didn’t really get going until the great Bob Lilly and Hayes had retired.” When did Landrys Cowboys ever knock the Steelers out of the playoffs? What are you talking about? You could say the Landry Cowboys didn’t really get going until Lombardi left and the Packers got old. You could say that the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys didn’t get going until the ’80s 49ers got old. But Dallas was never in the Steelers way in the ’70s. They were in different conferences. When they did meet in the playoffs, the ’70s Steelers swatted Landry’s Cowboys aside. “We (Dallas) thought we were the best. They (Pittsburgh) KNEW they were the best.”–Dallas assistant coach Mike Ditka.

    ” In 1975 Randy White was a rookie and backup LB who wasn’t even yet at the position he would be great at. Tony Dorsett wasn’t a rookie until 1977.” Both Dorsett and White were prominent stars as defending champions going into Super Bowl XIII. Who won that game? There was a rematch in ’79 the next season in Pittsburgh. How did that work out?

    The success that Lynn Swann and John Stallworth had vs. Dallas secondary was record-breaking and undefeated. Cliff Harris was badly exposed. The regular season stats that Dallas pass defense composed during the regular season were immediately thrown out the window by Swann and Stallworth, getting them into–and, therefore, keeping Harris OUT OF–the Hall of Fame. In games with Joe Montana at the helm, Dwight Clark had even greater success than Swann and Stallworth against Landry’s Cowboys. So now, embarrassingly and idiotically, you are saying Cliff Harris is going to cut into the performance of the greatest receiver in the history of all of football, Jerry Rice? And keep in mind, Rice has a much better coach (Walsh), passing scheme, and QB (Montana) than Paul Warfield did. You are humiliating yourself.

    Dwight Clark’s The Catch was legit and kept Landry’s Cowboys out of the Super Bowl. Drew Pearson’s Hail Mary was an unenforced offensive pass interference call.

    It took you six days after I flattened you to come up with the all-too-familiar Landry Cowboys’ Alibis. Remember these words from my last post: “All of them (Lombardi’s Pack; the ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) were better than Landry’s Cowboys. Additionally, they were better because they beat Landry’s Cowboys–REPEATEDLY.” And “Get back to us when you can figure out how two (Landry’s Cowboys World Titles) is greater than four (’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) or five (Lombardi’s Packers).”

    • Rasputin
      March 16, 2018
      Reply

      “Destroyed”? All the games you listed were decided by one score. Destruction is what the 71 and 77 Cowboys both did in the Super Bowl. Head to head to dominance is the Cowboys beating the Steelers 7 times in a row from the mid 60s through the early 70s (and yet the Steelers have 14 HoFers from the Landry era, 5 of which don’t even come from the 70s dynasty, while the Cowboys are shortchanged with only 7 from those 3 decades). You’re still mostly just repeating crap I’ve already debunked, you idiot. You have yet to explain why it’s always Dallas going up against these other dynasties (sustained success with many HoF quality players over the decades), though it’s hilarious watching you shoot yourself in the foot every post by bringing that back up.

      Harris wasn’t “exposed”. The Steelers threw away from him, especially in SB 10. I’ve even linked to a Pittsburgh news article talking about that before here. If any part of the Dallas defense was allegedly “exposed”, then what about the vaunted Steel Curtain that gave up almost as many points? Were they “exposed”?

      This site just put up an interview with Jack Ham where he’s talking about how much tougher the Cowboys were to play than the Vikings (who have more HoFers than Dallas from the Landry era for some reason). They were basically evenly matched teams. You just posted on that page too, LOL!

      The 71 Cowboys (who still had Howley and Lilly) are the only team in NFL history to hold their SB opponent without a TD, so maybe they’re the only defense in NFL history that wasn’t exposed.

      “You could say the Landry Cowboys didn’t really get going until Lombardi left and the Packers got old”

      Except they had already made it to two consecutive “NFL title” games and took mighty, long established Green Bay down to the wire both times. Lombardi also said Dallas was better than the AFL champion Chiefs.

      They would have been even better with guys like Roger Staubach and Cliff Harris on the team.

      PS – No, Drew Pearson’s Hail Mary catch was a good no call. The DB lost his balance and fell.

  14. Scott Remington
    March 17, 2018
    Reply

    “‘Destroyed’? All the games you listed were decided by one score.”
    Not all of them. In addition to Super Bowls X and XIII, Steelers beat the Cowboys in ’77 and ’79. Were THOSE games “decided by one score?” And in these so-called “squeakers” vs. the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, The Steelers enjoyed 11- (X) and 18-point leads (XIII). In each game, Pittsburgh safeties outplayed Cliff Harris (Wagner: INT in X, finished off Drew Pearson with broken ribs in XIII; Edwards: Finished off Golden Richards with broken ribs and made game-ending INT in X)

    Three of the four defeats to the Montana/Walsh 49ers were done with San Francisco running away.

    The Lombardi’s Packers were always better than Landry’s Cowboys. When did they ever beat the Packers with Lombardi on the sidelines?

    These must be painful memories for you. But, until math changes five (Lombardi’s Pack) and four (’70s Steelers; ’80s 49ers) are greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys). Good night, Rasputin.

    • Rasputin
      March 17, 2018
      Reply

      Weren’t you the guy who claimed regular season doesn’t matter? Landry went 3-1 against the 49ers in the playoffs. Chuck Howley and Cliff Harris were both undefeated against them in the postseason. And Dallas led Super Bowl X for most of the game until the 4th quarter. Landry took over an expansion team. Lombardi didn’t last long enough at Green Bay for Landry to face him with a truly seasoned team, though the Cowboys did beat Lombardi’s Redskins at the end of the decade. Pearson beat the Packers in his only playoff game against them in 1983 (Cowboys won by double digits). Harris never played them in the postseason because the Packers weren’t good enough to make it to the playoffs for most of the Landry era.

      You’ve got nothing. Again, the constant from the mid 1960s through the mid 1980s was the Dallas Cowboys.

      More wins. More players. More great players. There’s your math, boy.

  15. Scott Remington
    March 20, 2018
    Reply

    First off, stay focused. We are talking about the Montana/Walsh 49ers (who the Cowboys NEVER beat; not the weak early ’70s group that the Landry “dynasty bullied), the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers (who utilized Swann and Stallworth to expose the Cowboys regular season pass defense stats as irrelevant and beat the Cowboys every time they matched up; not the weak teams that the Steelers were fielding in the ’60s), and the Lombardi Packers (who the Landry Cowboys never beat; Not the post-Lombardi Packers). The Cowboys were good bullies over these teams when they weren’t dynasties or even good teams. How embarrassing and desperate that you had to reach for a victory over Lombardi’s REDSKINS to claim a Cowboys’ win over Vince. Pathetic. When these teams became dynasties, the Landry Cowboys were nothing more than overmatched, obedient doormats–regular season and post season–going 0-13 against them. If Landry’s Cowboys were a true dynasty, the could have come away with at least ONE victory during these dynasties’ reigns (Lombardi’s Packers; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers)

    “You have yet to explain why it’s always Dallas going up against these other dynasties (sustained success with many HoF quality players over the decades), though it’s hilarious watching you shoot yourself in the foot every post by bringing that back up.” Why it’s always Dallas going up against these dynasties? Well, SOMEBODY has to be the doormat, raw meat, or patsies to get feasted on and knocked over to make it official. You could make that argument about the Minnesota Vikings, late ’80s Broncos, or the early ’90s Buffalo Bills. The Landry Cowboys just didn’t measure up to the Lombardi Packers, Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or Montana/Walsh 49ers, teams that beat them repeatedly in the regular season and postseason. The Landry Cowboys got nothing on these dynasties ever, despite multiple opportunities to redeem themselves, take revenge, and/or dethrone these teams.

    Let’s take a look:

    1966, 1967: Chance to detrone NFL Champion Packers–Dallas failed; Chance to dethrone Packers and crush three-peat–Dallas failed

    SB X, 1977, 1978, 1979: Chance to dethrone World Champion Steelers–Dallas failed; Chance for revenge against Steelers for SB X–Dallas failed; Chance to force a share of team of decade, get revenge, redeem themselves for SB X defeat–Dallas failed; Chance for revenge for SBs X AND XIII–Dallas failed.

    1981, NFC Title Game, 1983, 1985: Blown out by Montana and Walsh; Chance to redeem themselves for earlier regular season blowout and go to Super Bowl–Dallas failed; Chance for revenge for events of 1981–Dallas failed; Chance to eliminate 49ers, therefore dethroning them in season finale–Dallas failed.

    That’s 0-13. and five (Green Bay) and four Pittsburgh/S.F.) is greater than two (Dallas) All the math I need.

    • Rasputin
      March 20, 2018
      Reply

      Wrong. We’re talking about the entire Landry era, not your cherry-picked periods. After all, even the 49ers, who have only been in the NFL 10 years longer than the Dallas Cowboys, have 12 pre-1989 players (not counting Steve Young) in Canton compared to the Cowboys’ 7, and the 49ers sucked for most of that time. They were awful in the 1950s and 60s. They only made 1 postseason in that two decade span. They became good for a while in the early 1970s but the Landry Cowboys beat them 3 years a row in the playoffs and they resumed sucking again until the 80s and 90s. They’ve even mostly sucked in the 21st Century, though they somehow have 14 primary HoF players overall, more than the Cowboys’ total including the 90s dynasty.

      7 of those 49er HoFers weren’t even from their 80s-90s run. Go ahead and try to justify San Francisco having more HoFers from the 1950s-1970s than the Landry Cowboys do from 1960-1988. This should be more entertaining than you just repeating crap I’ve already debunked.

      • Rasputin
        March 20, 2018
        Reply

        Meant it would be funny to watch you try to justify the 49ers having as many HoFers from the 1950s-70s as the Cowboys do from 1960-1988.

        Playoff Seasons
        Cowboys (1960-1988) -18
        49ers (1950-1976) -4

        Double Digit Winning Seasons
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 16
        49ers (1950-1976) – 1

        Regular Season Wins
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 250
        49ers (1950-1976) – 171

        Playoff Wins
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 20
        49ers (1950-1976) – 2

        Division Championships
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 13
        49ers (1950-1976) – 4

        Conference Championships
        Cowboys (1960 -1988) – 5
        49ers (1950-1976) – 0

        Super Bowl Wins
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 2
        49ers (1950-1976) – 0

        HoFers
        Cowboys (1960-1988) – 7
        49ers (1950-1976) -7

        The Cowboys had literally 10 times as many playoff wins as the 49ers during that span and 2 crushing SB victories to San Francisco’s zero, and yet only have the same number of HoF players. One can do this with lots of other less deserving franchises. Even those runner up Bills teams you mentioned have as many HoF players and more in Canton overall counting the coach than the 1992 and 1993 Cowboys who obliterated them, and unlike Landry’s Cowboys the Bills and Vikings never broke through and won it all. Something’s rotten in Denmark.

        The Cowboys are one of the most underrepresented teams in Canton given their success on the field and their great individual candidates who have been omitted.

  16. Scott Remington
    March 20, 2018
    Reply

    Just can’t get around the fact that five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) and four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers world titles; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys world titles). To be a dynasty–a world championship dynasty–the criteria is very simple. Win the most world titles over a decade or a series of decades and have a run of consecutive world titles along that period of time, starting from the first title. Lombardi’s Packers won the most world titles during the 1960s with consecutive world titles in ’61 and 62 and ’65, ’66, and ’67. The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers went back-to-back in ’74 and ’75 and again in ’78 and ’79 giving them the most world titles in the 1970s. The Montana/Walsh 49ers won world titles in ’81, ’84, then achieve a repeat in ’88 and ’89 giving them the most world titles in the 1980s. All these teams defeated the Landry Cowboys during their respective world title reigns repeatedly to the combined tune of 13-0 (Lombardi’s Pack 5-0; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers 4-0; Montana/Walsh ‘Niners 4-0). The Landry Cowboys were regularly beaten by these dynasties during their runs. So, Dallas only had only two world titles–spread out over seven years in the ’70s–and were shut out in world titles in the ’60s and ’80s completely. And as defending world champs, Landry’s Cowboys never repeated. Therefore, they were NOT a “dynasty.” End of discussion.

    • Rasputin
      March 20, 2018
      Reply

      I’ve humiliated you enough on the Landry Cowboys, the questions you were too cowardly to answer, and your sad repetition of debunked material, Scott. Let’s shift the discussion to another team.

      The Arizona Cardinals have 12 primary HoF players. Do you think that’s too many, too little, or just about right? Why?

      PS – Do you think the 1950-1976 Steelers merit their 7 HoFers? If so, why?

      • Rasputin
        March 20, 2018
        Reply

        Meant the 1950-1976 49ers, though the pre dynasty Steelers have a lot too.

      • Rasputin
        March 20, 2018
        Reply

        And actually the Cardinals have 10 primary HoF players since a couple of the others were inducted as coaches. That’s almost as many as the 60s Packers and MORE than the 70s Steelers!

        So do they deserve those 10 HoF players, Scott? If so, why?

  17. Scott Remington
    March 21, 2018
    Reply

    No. We are not shifting the focus, as you cowardly want us to, onto the Cardinals. Let’s stay focused on the subject at hand that you stupidly created: “The Landry Cowboy ‘dynasty.'”

    They were destroyed regularly by the real dynasties of the NFL (Lombardi’s Packers; The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; and the Montana/Walsh 49ers). Despite your denial and lies, you have debunked nothing, Rasputin, about the futile, failed, disastrous attempts by the Landry Cowboys to defeat these dynasties even once.

    Every time Landry’s Cowboys matched up with these dynasties (claiming to be the better team, no less) they were swatted aside EVERY TIME (Landry’s Cowboys were 0-13 in these matchups–Chuck Howley did nothing to stop Bart Starr; Cliff Harris did nothing to stop Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth; Drew Pearson was a virtual non-factor vs. the secondaries of the Steelers or the 49ers in the regular or post-season matchups–that is why they are not in the Hall of Fame). The Cowboys were inferior to each of these dynasties, in large part, because Landry’s Cowboys WERE NOT a dynasty. A team that IS a dynasty beats the best at their best in playoff competition. A team that is a dynasty successfully defends its crown (repeats) at least once.

    “Landry’s Cowboys won more conference championships than the Steelers.” THAT’S a good one. The Buffalo Bills won more conference championships than Jimmy Johnson’s Cowboys. You want to call THEM a “dynasty” and elevate THEM over the Johnson Cowboys? That’s what you are unsuccessfully trying to do with the ’70s Cowboys with the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers. Of course, you can’t manipulate anything when it comes to the Landry Cowboys of the ’60s vs. Lombardi’s Packers. And, of course, there’s nothing you can fabricate regarding the ’80s Cowboys vs. the Montana/Walsh 49ers. Because, in the ’60s and ’80s Landry’s Cowboys got nothing.

    “…the Steelers had a few good years in the mid-70s…” Did you actually call winning four Super Bowls in six seasons “a few good years?” LOL! Well, let me add “a couple” of those “few good years” ended with Super Bowl beatings of Landry’s Cowboys.

    Why couldn’t Landry’s Cowboys win ANY of the 13 matchups with the Lombardi Packers, The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers or the Montana/Walsh 49ers during their respective reigns? They didn’t win even ONE!!! Dallas under Landry was 0-13! NOT A DYNASTY. It is history, Rasputin. Deal with it, stop being in denial about it, and move on. Five world titles (Lombardi’s Packers) or four world titles (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys). When you factor in the constant playoff victories over Landry’s Cowboys (Dynasties 5, Landry’s Cowboys 0) that these dynasties were built on (which includes The Ice Bowl; Super Bowls X and XIII; and The Catch) it crushes the claims of Landry’s Cowboys of being the best all the worse. Which brings us to this quote: “We (Dallas) thought we were the best. They (Pittsburgh) KNEW they were the best.”–Dallas assistant coach Mike Ditka. And I am sure Lombardi’s Packers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers felt the same way when facing Landry’s Cowboys.

    We will not be talking about the Cardinals. We will be focusing on true Dynasties and why they are superior to Landry’s Cowboys. Give it up, Rasputin. It’s a lost cause. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    • Rasputin
      March 21, 2018
      Reply

      You’re awesome, Scott. In your sad, clumsy, obsessive attempt to troll against the Cowboys, you’ve volunteered to serve as a mindless punching bag where your verbose posts (which just consist of you repeating already debunked claims) can be used as props and excuses for me to keep posting different facts showing anyone reading this page how underrepresented the Cowboys are. Thanks!

      Are the Vikings a “true dynasty”, Scott? Because they have 12 HoF players overall, including more from the Landry era than the Cowboys do.

      Primary HoFers
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 8 (not counting Randall McDaniel)
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 7 (not counting Michael Irvin)

      Super Bowl Wins
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 0
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 2

      Double Digit Winning Seasons
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 8
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 16

      Regular Season Wins
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 218
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 250

      Playoff Wins
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 13
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 20

      Conference Championship Game Appearances
      Vikings 1961-1988 – 6
      Cowboys 1960-1988 – 12

      Head to Head Playoff Wins Against Each Other (1960-1988)
      Vikings – 1
      Cowboys – 3

      PS – While you’re too cowardly to answer the questions about these other teams I AM discussing, Scott, again, even those 80-90s Bills you mentioned have as many HoF players as the 1992 and 93 Cowboys who destroyed them in back to back Super Bowls do. So feel free to answer your own question: Were those Bills a “true dynasty”? Is it right that those great Jimmy Johnson Cowboys teams only have 4 HoF players?

  18. Scott Remington
    March 21, 2018
    Reply

    Good to see that you concede that the Landry’s Cowboys (re: your Buffalo Bills parallel) were not a true dynasty like Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or the Montana/Walsh 49ers. I rest my case. You’re a good loser, Rasputin.

    • Rasputin
      March 21, 2018
      Reply

      The Rams also have more HoFers from the Landry era than the Cowboys do.

      Primary HoFers
      Rams (1960-1988) – 9
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 7

      Super Bowl Wins
      Rams (1960-1988) – 0
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 2

      Conference Championship Wins
      Rams (1960-1988) – 1
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 5

      Conference Championship Game Appearances
      Rams (1960-1988) – 6
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 12

      Regular Season Wins
      Rams (1960-1988) – 236
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 250

      Playoff Wins
      Rams (1960-1988) – 8
      Cowboys (1960-1988) – 20

      The Landry Cowboys had more than twice as many playoff wins as the Rams and multiple SB championships while the Rams had none, and yet Dallas has fewer players in Canton?

      The shortchanging of the Landry Cowboys looks more glaring the more it’s scrutinized.

      PS – You’re not already fleeing are you, Scott? While you’ve suffered a crushing defeat on the order of the Dolphins in SB 6, that’s part of the punching bag job you volunteered for. I didn’t concede anything and I never cared about the semantics of “dynasty”, but the Landry Cowboys won a lot more games and fielded more great players over those decades than the 49ers, 70s Steelers, or 60s Packers did, let alone all these other teams I’m posting about. At the very least the disparity in HoFers should be reduced.

  19. Scott Remington
    March 21, 2018
    Reply

    Who cares about the other teams that never won world titles? The point that you are desperately, and unsuccessfully, I might add, trying to deflect is that the Landry Cowboys were never a dynasty–a term YOU erroneously and undeservedly crowned them with. So, NOW you say “I never cared about the semantics of “dynasty.'” So why did you feel compelled to bring it up? If the Landry Cowboys had more great players than Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers why did they go a combined 0-13 against these dynasties during their respective reigns? So, you’re saying they lost 13 consecutive games to less talented teams?

    “I never cared about the semantics of ‘dynasty.'” Glad to hear that and good to see you are conceding that Landry’s Cowboys WERE NOT a “dynasty.” Not even close. Dallas under Landry may have won more games but Lombardi’s Packers (5), The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers (4) and the Montana/Walsh 49ers (4) won more WORLD TITLES, which is the bottom line. What’s more, those dynasties won five (Lombardi’s Pack–2; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers–2; Montana/Walsh 49ers–The Catch) at Landry’s Cowboys’ expense. You can’t get around the bitter truth, Rasputin: All those dynasties were far better than Landry’s Cowboys.

    • Rasputin
      March 21, 2018
      Reply

      The Raiders have more HoFers than the Cowboys overall despite starting the same year and having less success across all worthwhile metrics.

      Primary Player HoFers
      Raiders – 14 (including 8 from the 60s/70s uninvolved in the 83 SB run)
      Cowboys – 13 (counting Charles Haley)

      Super Bowl Wins
      Raiders – 3
      Cowboys – 5

      Conference Championship Wins
      Raiders – 5
      Cowboys – 8

      Conference Championship Game Appearances
      Raiders – 14
      Cowboys – 16

      Playoff Seasons
      Raiders – 22
      Cowboys – 32

      Regular Season Wins
      Raiders – 462
      Cowboys – 502

      Playoff Wins
      Raiders – 25
      Cowboys – 34

      Division Championships
      Raiders – 16
      Cowboys – 23

      Double Digit Winning Seasons
      Raiders – 19
      Cowboys – 28

      Not even close. The main problem is that the Raiders have more HoFers from 1960-1982 alone (who weren’t even involved in the 83 SB season) than the Cowboys do from the entire Landry era despite the Cowboys dynasty having more success in that span.

      PS – Glad to see I shamed you into coming back after all, punching bag! Even if you are just repeating already debunked material, I’ve got lots of fresh material to post, so I’d appreciate it if you stayed in this trap I caught you in and kept posting.

      • Scott Remington
        March 22, 2018
        Reply

        I wasn’t shamed into anything. I just love to show your ignorance for all to see, Mr. “Two is greater than four. Two is also greater than five.”

        Even if you look at the Raiders or Joe Gibbs’ Redskins, they had better success and had a better runs of world titles than the Landry Cowboys.

        The Raiders peak run was from 1967-1986. Their string of world titles came from 1976-1983. That’s three in eight years. Better than the Landry Cowboys two in seven (’71,’77). They were in the Super Bowl once in the ’60s (Landry’s Cowboys–0), won one in the ’70s (Landry’s Cowboys–2), and took two more in the ’80s (Landry’s Cowboys–0). Within this period the Raiders beat the Landry Cowboys three out of four times–including once at home to a Raiders team QBed by Marc Wilson. Pathetic.

        The Joe Gibbs’ Redskins peak run was 1982-1992. They won three world titles in 11 years, which is better than any 11-year run Landry’s Cowboys had. And, like Lombardi’s Pack, the ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers, Gibbs’ ‘Skins pummeled the Landry Cowboys in the playoffs, thus keeping them out of the Super Bowl.

        Sneaking the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys into your mix doesn’t count. YOU were talking about the “LANDRY COWBOY (snicker) ‘DYNASTY.”

        Even the prime Raiders (1967-86) and the Gibbs’ ‘Skins 1982-1992 were more impressive than the Landry Cowboys. SMH.

        BTW. Landry’s Cowboys have more HOFers than the Montana/Walsh 49ers and the Gibbs’ ‘Skins. Now THAT is an injustice. As for Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, and Drew Pearson, the line starts at the back–in a century or two.

        • Rasputin
          March 24, 2018
          Reply

          You must have missed where I pointed out that 8 of the Raiders’ Landry era HoFers WEREN’T INVOLVED IN THE 83 SB YEAR. They weren’t playing for the team in 1983. That means they won at most 2 Super Bowls. Two of those Raiders didn’t win any. By contrast every Cowboy HoFer has at least one SB ring. Dallas hasn’t gotten the relatively borderline candidates into Canton that other teams have. Most of the Landry HoFers were first ballot slam dunks—Staubach, Lilly, Randy White, Tony Dorsett— that even the anti-Cowboys bias couldn’t derail. The Cowboys were more impressive in the Landry era overall and certainly more impressive than the Raiders from 1960-1982, even using your infantile “nothing but Super Bowl wins matter” logic.

          1960-1982

          Primary HoF Players
          Raiders – 8 (excluding anyone involved in the 83 SB season; includes 2 players with no SB ring)
          Cowboys – 7 (0 players with no SB ring)

          Super Bowl wins
          Raiders – 2
          Cowboys – 2

          Conference Championships
          Raiders – 3
          Cowboys – 5

          Conference Championship Game Appearances
          Raiders – 10
          Cowboys 12

          Playoff Seasons
          Raiders – 12
          Cowboys – 16

          Double Digit Winning Seasons
          Raiders – 10
          Cowboys – 15

          Dallas had 4 more playoff years and 5 more double digit winning seasons in that span. They played in 3 more Super Bowls. The Cowboys even beat the Raiders in Oakland’s 1980 Super Bowl season (at Oakland to boot), which by your (inconsistent) logic means the 1980 Cowboys were better than the SB champion Raiders.

          No, you were definitely shamed into rushing back which is why you faceplanted even worse than usual, little Scotty. Your reading comprehension sucks.

          And I didn’t “sneak” the 90s Cowboys in, moron. I was explicit about including the franchises’ entire histories. The anti-Cowboys bias affects the modern era players too. Darren Woodson, for example, was robbed of 90s All Decade status. Football historian John Turney agreed with me on that in a response on his website, btw. The Cowboys have had way more success than the Raiders overall and yet have fewer HoFers.

          Even you have to admit there’s something wrong with the Levy Bills having more HoFers than the 92/93 Cowboys.

          Dallas was the first team to win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. That’s more impressive than the Gibbs Redskins you mentioned. At a minimum Woodson and coach Jimmy Johnson should be inducted.

          The Redskins have 6 HoFers from the 1960s/70s who didn’t play for ANY of their Super Bowl winning teams. Let’s see who’s more impressive:

          1960-1981

          Primary HoF Players
          Redskins – 6 (6 with no SB rings)
          Cowboys – 7 (0 with no SB rings)

          Super Bowl Wins
          Redskins – 0
          Cowboys – 2

          Conference Championships
          Redskins – 1
          Cowboys – 5

          Playoff Seasons
          Redskins – 5
          Cowboys – 15

          Conference Championship Game Appearances
          Redskins – 1
          Cowboys – 11

          Winning Seasons
          Redskins – 9
          Cowboys – 16

          Double Digit Winning Seasons
          Redskins – 5
          Cowboys – 14

          Division Championships (same division)
          Redskins – 1
          Cowboys – 12

          That’s not a typo. The Cowboys dominated their division rivals 12-1 in division titles. And yet the Redskins have only 1 fewer HoFer from that span than Dallas. Hanburger is in but SB MVP Chuck Howley isn’t. THAT’S a disgrace.

          The 49ers dynasty was built on a system offense but they still have 7 HoF players and 2 non-players from their 80s/90s run, with more potentially to come given how relatively recent it was.

          What’s noteworthy about the 49ers is that they have 7 HoFers from the 1950s-1970s when the team sucked so bad they only had 4 playoff seasons, 1 in 1957 and 3 in the early 70s when the Cowboys beat them in the postseason all 3 years. And yet they have just as many HoF players from that span as Dallas does.

          THAT’S an injustice. So no, the Landry era Cowboys have been waiting much longer than the 80s/90s 49ers have been. They need to move to the front of the line.

          • Scott Remington
            March 24, 2018

            The ignorance (“Two is greater than Five or Four”) and desperate weasling and squirming (first it’s “Landry’s Cowboys,” then sneaking in “Johnson’s Cowboys,” talking about “Landry’s Cowboys” 29 years, then slicing it to 1960-82 to make them equal to the Raiders, cowardly omitting that the Raiders had three winning seasons before the Cowboys had even ONE, and avoiding explanation of how the Raiders had three Super Bowl titles to Landry’s Cowboys two despite the three more winning seasons, and how the Landry Cowboys have more HOFers than Joe Gibbs’ Redskins who had more Super Bowl Titles. Do we need to mention that the ‘Skins are 2-0 all-time vs Landry’s Cowboys in the playoffs and have a better overall Super Bowl record than Landry’s Cowboys?) of Rasputin is quite profound.

            Jim Otto. Art Shell. Gene Upshaw. Ken Stabler. Fred Biletnikoff. Dave Casper. Ted Hendricks. Willie Brown. Ray Guy. George Blanda. Who’s unworthy here? Who’s spot should Chuck Howley take? Certainly not Hendricks’. He was a game-changer and matchup nightmare. Howley was not. Who’s spot should Cliff Harris take? Certainly not Brown’s. He was a shutdown corner and at the time of his retirement was in the argument with “Night Train” Lane for greatest cornerback ever. He never get embarrassed by Swann and Stallworth in record-breaking fashion before the whole world, either. Whose spot does Drew Pearson take? Certainly not Biletnikoff’s. After Swann undressed Harris and the rest of the Cowboys’ secondary in Super Bowl X, Biletnikoff became the second wide receiver to be named Super Bowl MVP. The others were the best at their respective positions at various points in their careers.

            The Redskins of Joe Gibbs’ Era were more successful than the Landry Cowboys. Those Cowboys have less rings while having a greater span of time to get more. Gibbs’ ‘Skins did more damage in a smaller span of time. And they only have three players in the Hall to the Landry Cowboys’ seven?

            The Montana/Walsh 49ers won four Super Bowls in a decade, yet they have only five guys in the Hall to the Landry Cowboys’ seven? By your logic, Rasputin, they should have more. At least Dwight Hick or Eric Wrigh (better than Harris) or Dwight Clark (better than Drew Pearson).

          • Rasputin
            March 24, 2018

            I sliced it different ways to show how the Raiders and these various other teams have even gotten more HoFers from their non SB eras, you idiot, as I clearly explained. I also posted all time franchise totals without qualification showing that the Raiders have more HoFers despite the Cowboys having way more success, including 2 more SB wins. We’ve established you’re a moron, little Scotty, but surely even you noticed that so you feigning ignorance here is your cowardice manifesting itself, like when you dodge every pertinent question I’ve asked because you know answering them would force you to refute your own insipid position. While you have to resort to making up quotes I didn’t say, I’ve crushed you with numbers and facts all over this page.

            Chuck Howley was first team AP All Pro 5 years. That means he was judged to be the very best at his position in the NFL for fully half a decade. His 6 Pro Bowls and All Pros were spread over 7 different high accolade seasons. He was the first defensive player to be Super Bowl MVP, he’s in the exclusive 20/20 sack/interception club, and his career 43 takeaways are 2nd only to Jack Ham among OLBs in NFL history. When opponents faced Doomsday they had to game plan for two players above others: Bob Lilly, one of the greatest players in NFL history, and Chuck Howley.

            You ask which Raiders Howley should replace in the HoF. That’s a stupid question since I think they’re all deserving and you don’t have to replace players to add new ones, let alone replace players from just one team for some reason. But I’ll meet your ignorant challenge anyway.

            Jim Otto and George Blanda lost their only SB appearance, so by your logic they don’t belong in Canton anyway. Toss them out.

            Of the remaining players only Gene Upshaw has as many first team All Pro selections as Chuck Howley. Howley was more deserving than most of those guys you listed, but he certainly should have been inducted before Ken Stabler. Stabler only made 4 Pro Bowls and threw more interceptions than touchdowns in his career. He really just had one great season, about 3 good ones, and a lot of mediocre ones. Give me a break.

            Since you brought it up, Biletnikoff never won a receiving title like Drew Pearson did. He only posted 1 thousand yard season to Pearson’s 2. Pearson had more yards per catch and yards per game. Biletnikoff just played a few years more. If Pearson’s career hadn’t been shortened by a car wreck he would have surpassed Biletnikoff’s career yardage total and added some more Pro Bowls. As it was despite the longer career Biletnikoff only had 2 first team All Pros to Pearson’s 3, and he only played in 2 Super Bowls (splitting them) to Pearson’s 3. Pearson’s also not famous for cheating by slathering his hands and uniform in stickum.

            So one could easily argue Pearson was better. Contemporary HoF voters did since they named Pearson first team All Decade while leaving Biletnikoff off completely. He’s at least in the ball park. Biletnikoff was inducted after about a decade wait. How much longer will Pearson have to wait?

            As for secondaries supposedly getting embarrassed (Cliff Harris was never “embarrassed”), the Cliff Harris-led units consistently ranked higher than the 70s Raiders in pass defense. In fact while the Cowboys were often near the top the Raiders had one of the worst pass defenses in the league. That was their biggest weakness.

            “the Raiders had three winning seasons before the Cowboys had even ONE”

            Seriously? The Cowboys had to start as an expansion team in the established NFL against real football powers. Dallas didn’t even get to participate in the regular draft their first season because the league wanted them to start a year ahead of schedule to compete with the AFL for fans, much less get the extra picks and other perks more recent expansion teams have gotten. They fielded a bunch of walk-ons and cast offs and still managed to tie the NY Giants that first year.

            The Raiders got to start against a whole league of fellow expansion teams, and they still had a losing record in 4 of their first 5 seasons.

            Did you really just try to make that comparison? LMFAO!

            As for Joe Gibbs, his winning was condensed into a small time frame so one shouldn’t expect as many different HoF players. The Landry Cowboys should have way more over 29 years than Washington should have over a 10 year period (or the 80s 49ers for that matter) given the Cowboys’ sustained success. Plus perhaps Gibbs’ most impressive feat was winning with 3 different QBs and RBs, which is why he’s in the HoF, but it’s also why those Redskins don’t have a HoF QB. None of them have the individual resume to be one and Riggins is the only RB who was in the ballpark of qualified. Sonny Jurgensen is in though, along with 6 other Redskins from the 60s and 70s who never won a Super Bowl.

            “Do we need to mention that the ‘Skins are 2-0 all-time vs Landry’s Cowboys in the playoffs”

            They only played twice because the Redskins usually weren’t good enough to make the playoffs. Landry had 18 playoff years while the Redskins only made the playoffs 10 times and typically didn’t hang around long.

            Landry was 32-24-2 against the Redskins, even counting those 2 playoff games and the early Dallas expansion years.

            Landry swept the division rival Redskins 7 years. The Redskins only swept Dallas twice near the end. Landry even swept Washington 3 times in the 1980s and soundly beat the Redskins 24-10 in their only regular season meeting in the strike shortened 1982 season, Washington’s first Super Bowl season.

            At one point Landry beat Washington 6 games in a row in the late 60s and early 70s.

            That was during Howley’s career peak. Howley should have gone in before Hanburger.

            By your logic Cliff Harris, the decade’s best FS with 2 Super Bowl rings, should have been inducted before SS Ken Houston, who never won a Super Bowl.

            Drew Pearson is more deserving than Bobbie Mitchell, and maybe Charlie Taylor. Taylor played a long time but only posted 1 thousand yard season (in the relatively pass happy 60s) to Pearson’s 2 (both in the pass deflated 70s), never won a receiving title like Pearson did, and, like these other Redskins, never won a Super Bowl like Pearson did. Both those HoF Redskins WRs also only have 1 first team AP All Pro selection to Pearson’s 3, and Pearson was voted by his contemporaries as first team 1970s All Decade. Taylor was 1960s All Decade but apparently the HoF didn’t distinguish between 1st and 2nd teams for the 60s. Mitchell wasn’t All Decade.

            I’ve noticed you haven’t even tried to defend the 49ers having as many HoFers from the 1950s-70s as the Cowboys do in the Landry era, despite San Francisco sucking pretty much throughout that era. That’s wise.

            It’s not like those guys had outstanding, world beater individual resumes either. Bob St. Clair? 0 first team All Pro selections and 5 Pro Bowls as an offensive lineman for a mediocre team that only made the playoffs once in his career? Over Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, and Drew Pearson?!?!

            Or Dave Wilcox, a LB with only 2 first team All Pro selections who played during the years when the Howley’s Cowboys beat them head to head in the playoffs 3 years in a row?

            Even the 1980s player Fred Dean, who at least won a couple of SBs, was a reach and probably mostly an attempt to boost the 80s dynasty’s total. Harvey Martin (another SB MVP and Defensive Player of the Year) and Ed Too Tall Jones (the pass bat down king long before JJ Watt arrived) were better, more disruptive players. Certainly Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, and Drew Pearson were better.

            Skewing like that has resulted in the 49ers having more total HoFers despite the Cowboys having had more success on the field. That’s a clear pattern.

          • Rasputin
            March 24, 2018

            Meant to add that of those only Gene Upshaw, first ballot HoFer, has as many (but not more) first team All Pro selections as Chuck Howley. Long past time to get Howley inducted.

          • Rasputin
            March 24, 2018

            The Bears also have more HoF players from the Landry era than the Cowboys do.

            1960-1988

            Primary HoF Players
            Bears – 10 (5 with no SB ring)
            Cowboys – 7 (0 have no SB ring)

            Super Bowl Wins
            Bears – 1 (1 pre-1966 NFL title)
            Cowboys – 2

            Conference Championships
            Bears – 1
            Cowboys – 5

            Conference Championship Appearances
            Bears – 3
            Cowboys – 12

            Playoff Seasons
            Bears – 8
            Cowboys – 18

            Double Digit Winning Seasons
            Bears – 7
            Cowboys – 16

            Regular Season Wins
            Bears – 213
            Cowboys – 250

            Playoff Wins
            Bears – 6
            Cowboys – 20

            At one point from the early 70s through 1984 the Cowboys beat the Bears 6 games in a row. That includes Landry’s only playoff match up against them, when the 77 Cowboys obliterated them 37-7. Cliff Harris recovered a fumble and there’s a clip of him from that game completely stoning the great Walter Payton squared up one on one when Payton had a full head of steam.

            And yet the Bears somehow have 3 more HoFers from that era than the Cowboys. THAT’S an injustice.

  20. Scott Remington
    March 26, 2018
    Reply

    Had no idea that pointing out that five (Lombardi’s Packers) and four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) being greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys) could stimulate such ignorance, cowardice, manipulative scheming. not to mention sheer delusion in you, Rasputin.

    “The Cowboys were more impressive in the Landry era overall and certainly more impressive than the Raiders from 1960-1982,” The problem with this statement is that the Landry era lasted through 1988. So, the Raiders, who won one more World Title during this span of time (1960-88; no cheating and fudging, Rasputin. Try to be truthful. The Raiders won more Super Bowls) that started in 1960, were clearly more impressive. Deal with it. Howie Long and Marcus Allen are “Landry Era” players as is anyone who played between 1960-88. Super Bowl XVIII was played in the “Landry Era.”

    I have never tripped myself up in this successful display of exposing your numerical stupidity when pointing out what a dynasty is. Meanwhile, if you want to discuss a “faceplant,” deal with your own untied shoelaces spacial: “The 70s Steelers and 80s 49ers were better at winning Super Bowls than Dallas…because they factually won more.” Fine. Couldn’t have said it better myself. End of discussion. Thanks for the easy softball pitch that I launched out of the park!

    “I sliced it different ways to show…” That’s what coaches who are about to get fired, liars and politicians usually do. Manipulate and use misleading statistics to distract people from the truths of their failures and shortcomings. The regular season and on-paper (league statistical rankings) success didn’t translate into the most world title success when Landry’s Cowboys are measured against Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl 70s Steelers, the Montana/Walsh 49ers or even the Landry Era (1960-88) Raiders or the Gibbs Era Redskins (1982-92). The Raiders and the Gibbs’ ‘Skins won more world titles during Landry’s time as Dallas’ Head Coach. Without Jimmy Johnson, the Cowboys are still saddled at two world titles. Of course, what happened there? Jerry Jones stupidly fired the man who transformed the Cowboys into a genuine dynasty…One that Rasputin desperately and cowardly sneaks in the conversation while trying to annoint the LANDRY Cowboys as a “dynasty.” SMH.

    As for my favorite part of pulling down your pants and exposing your weasily, cowardly ass, we come to these “unjust HOF exclusions,”: Howley, Harris, and Pearson.

    “You asked who was the better player, not who had a better 2 games. Drew Pearson was the better player. And, unlike lots of guys in the HoF, he has a SB ring too. So check that box off.”

    Well, for a guy “who had a better 2 games,” they must have been an ENORMOUS two games! LOL!!! Thank you, Cliff Harris! Swann was a FAR better player than Drew Pearson. As for those “stats” that you gave, was Keyshawn Johnson better than Randy Moss? And Drew Pearson has a Super Bowl ring, too? Swann has four. He has two against Pearson. Swann was a factor in three of the four SBs he played in. Pearson was a factor in only one quarter (first-quarter TD in SB X, then nothing) of the three he played in. How about the All-Decade–’70s–team? 25 members of the Hall of Fame writers (Not his peers as you ignorantly wrote; Can’t get out of the way of your own ignorance, can you, Rasputin?) voted on who should be on this team. Ray Guy got the most votes with 24 (were you the ONE idiot who didn’t vote for the greatest punter of all time?) and O.J. Simpson had 22. Want to know how your beloved Hall of Fame voters made out on Swann and Pearson? Pearson received seven–7–votes. Swann got…21! LOL!!! So, they believe Swann was three-times better than Pearson.

    Let’s dissect this gem from you:

    “Here’s a partial list of players Chuck Howley is better than and should have been inducted earlier than (My opinions in parentheses):

    Dave Robinson (NO–Never lost to Landry’s Cowboys made more key plays than Howley in playoff matchups; Revolutionary figure as blitzing OLB); Dick LeBeau (Perhaps–Neither were Hall of Famers, though); Robert Brazile (No–All-Dacade) Jerry Kramer (ABSOLUTELY NOT–Voted Best Guard for Pro Football’s first 50 years; Made key block that gave Packers three-peat in ’67 Ice Bowl to beat…Landry’s Cowboys), Kenny Easley (NO–Best Strong Safety of his era, by far); Ken Stabler (NO–Two-time NFL MVP; Led league in Passing and TD passes twice; Arguably best at his position from ’73-’77), Dick Stanfel (Maybe); Mick Tingelhoff (Better but neither was a Hall of Famer); Claude Humphrey (See Dick LeBeau); Curley Culp (NO–revolutionary figure as Nose Tackle; Helped Chiefs shut down Vikings and win Super Bowl IV); Jack Butler (See Dick LeBeau); Les Richter (See Dick LeBeau); Chris Hanburger (Nope–CH made more plays than Howley in ’72 NFC Title Game. Just sayin’); Floyd Little (OK); Dave Wilcox (No. Wilcox was great player on a bad team and then a short-handed playoff-team; Sorry Chuck); Emmitt Thomas (Maybe–But Thomas made way more plays on defense) Charlie Sanders (Toss-up); Roger Wehrli (toss-up), Gene Hickerson (NO WAY–Jim Brown ran behind this guy. over Howley. en route to a then NFL-record 237 yards); Fred Dean (NO–Game-changing defender who made Montana/Walsh 49ers a defensive force with his pass rush; First game as a ‘Niner: three sacks in a 45-14 route of…DALLAS!): John Stallworth, Lynn Swann (Are you serious?!?!?Stupidest, most delusional entry of this misguided claim–Swann and Stallworth individually and as a tandem are the sources of Landry’s Cowboys’ worst memories AND nightmares; No, don’t even think about making up this lie: Howley wouldn’t have made a difference against the Pittsburgh receiving tandem in SBs X OR XIII. Not happening); Dan Hampton (ABSOLUTELY NOT–A major member of the ’85 Bears); Joe DeLamielleure (NO–Helped O.J. get 2,000 in a 14-game season); Ozzie Newsome (Toss-up; Ozzie is a better GM, though; Hey, Rasputin, you might like this one. Newsome built the “Ravens’ Dynasty.” LOL!!!); Henry Jordan (See Robinson, Kramer, Swann, and Stallworth), Bob St. Clair (Probably).

    “…but those Packers (Lombardi’s) didn’t last long.” If they had one only one or two titles (like the Dolphins) you could say that. The problem with your non-existent logic is Lombardi’s Packers won FIVE titles in seven years–one repeat and one three-peat. That is dominance. “The Landry Cowboys…and had many, many more elite seasons than Green Bay did.” Elite REGULAR seasons…AFTER Lombardi left, yes. Elite WORLD TITLE seasons, not so much. Love the misleading information.

    “Dallas was the constant among the NFL’s elite from the 60s through the 80s. You’re only proving my point.”

    Let’s uncover the lies and straighten out the facts: Dallas (coached by Landry) was a contender among the elite in the ’70s. They were merely a playoff team in the ’60s and ’80s. Lying about this fact only proves MY point, Rasputin: Your Landry Cowboys were NOT a dynasty.

    You say that the Steelers Super Bowl lasted “only a few years.” Six is more than “a few.” Especially when there are four world titles–both repeats–mixed in. You say that “until the Cowboys were well-seasoned” they never beat Lombardi’s Packers. The you hypocritically state “Before that (1974-79), Landry’s Cowboys beat Pittsburgh 7 games in a row.” Oh, really? Before the Steelers were a well-seasoned (Swann, Stallworth, Lambert) team? The Cowboys were beaten by Lombardi’s Packers, so they were not “well-seasoned?” Later, the “well-seasoned” Landry Cowboys constantly lose (four straight) to the Steelers from ’74-79. They are “well-seasoned” when Montana and Walsh emerge and they lose another four straight to another dynasty.

    “It’s like a requirement to have been SB champion to even be considered for Canton if you’re a Cowboy…” Stop your whining. If you are always crowing about how you are the best (Landry’s Cowboys were notorious talkers who usually couldn’t back it up, offering multiple, weak, ridiculous excuses in the sad aftermaths–WAY TOO MANY to chronicle) then you have only raised the bar for yourself. Either you live up to it or you suck it up and deal with the consequences (no HOF inductions; being called out as frauds).

    Nice talking to you and exposing your ignorance, Rasputin. Please give me more ignorance of yours to feast on and expose. I LOVE IT!!!

  21. Scott Remington
    March 26, 2018
    Reply

    Five (Lombardi’s Packers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total); Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers World Titles; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total); Stop bragging about dominating weak teams (Post-Lombardi Packers; Pre-’74, Post-’82 Steelers; Pre-Montana/Walsh 49ers; Pre-’85 Bears) while making excuses about being flushed by true dynasties constantly (0-13) without as much as even ONE win–all the while while lying to the world, saying, “We’re the better team.”

    I’m positive more misguided Rasputin ignorance is on the way. I live to expose you–constantly. Thank God, you can’t say #MeToo. LOL!!!

    • Rasputin
      March 27, 2018
      Reply

      You already said all that stuff and I disagreed. How about addressing all the teams that won FEWER or ZERO Super Bowls but have about as many or more HoFers from the Landry era as the Cowboys do? Even the Houston Oilers have more HoFers from the Landry era.

      1960-1988

      Primary HoF Players
      Oilers – 9
      Cowboys – 7

      Super Bowl Wins
      Oilers – 0 (2 early AFL championships)
      Cowboys – 2

      Conference Championships
      Oilers – 0
      Cowboys – 5

      Conference Championship Game Appearances
      Oilers – 3
      Cowboys – 12

      Playoff Seasons
      Oilers – 10
      Cowboys – 18

      Regular Season Wins
      Oilers – 183
      Cowboys – 250

      Playoff Wins
      Oilers – 8
      Cowboys – 20

      While I could argue that the Cowboys merit more HoFers from the 29 year Landry era than the Packers do from the brief Lombardi era, I haven’t even said they should have as many as the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers do from that era.

      I’ve only called for 10 Landry era HoFers at this point. That would still be less than the 60s Packers alone (12), the 1950-1988 49ers (12), or the Landry era Steelers (14) and Raiders (13), and even with the Landry era Redskins (10) despite the Cowboys utterly dominating the Redskins and the league generally for most of that era. But it would bump Dallas ahead of these other teams that had less success even by your own “Super Bowls are all that matter” standard.

      So you’ve wasted a ton of typing swiping at a straw man with arguments that have already been debunked anyway. You’ve been too stupid to realize that until now and too cowardly to address the actual arguments. But I appreciate you posting vapid props that have given me an excuse to post fresh, impactful information like the facts I shared above.

      “How about the All-Decade–’70s–team? 25 members of the Hall of Fame writers (Not his peers as you ignorantly wrote; ”

      I said “contemporaries”, not “peers”. They were the HoF voters of the time, before the infamous anti-Cowboys bias took hold in the early 80s. I love how you preen about “ignorance” only to exhibit your ignorance of basic English. You’re good for faceplants every post, Mr. Punching Bag, LOL! As for him “only” getting 7 votes, how many did all the WRs who DIDN’T get first team All Decade get, you self defeating buffoon?

      You also responded to the Howley stuff from the other article on the wrong page, moron, and tried to cover up your embarrassment over your error by posting this pathetic excuse on that other page: “Had to put this on this post, too. It looks so damn GOOOD.” Suuuuure, LMFAO! Even you could only bring yourself to post the intro on the other page, the one where the response belonged, and not repost the details you put here. You can’t help but shoot yourself in the foot, little, clumsy Scottie. For fun I’ll respond to it here anyway though.

      Howley – 5 First Team AP All Pro selections and 6 Pro Bowls spread over 7 total high accolade seasons, SB MVP, 20/20 sack/interception club, 1965-1975 first team All Decade team as selected by respected football historian John Turney, 43 takeaways ranks 2nd behind only Jack Ham among OLBs in NFL history.

      Dave Robinson – only 3 Pro Bowls and 1 first team All Pro, never SB MVP.

      “made more key plays than Howley in playoff matchups”

      LOL! Not even close. Howley was famous especially for making huge plays in the biggest games. While he was MVP in SB V, he was also considered the following year in SB VI when, in addition to all the tackles that helped that record setting Cowboys team be the only one in NFL history to hold its SB opponent without a TD, he accounted for a fumble recovery and interception with a 41 yard return that sealed the win.

      “Dick LeBeau (Perhaps–Neither were Hall of Famers, though);”

      Howley should be. Glad you concede he was better though.

      Robert Brazile – Only 2 first team All Pros and 0 Super Bowls, underscoring your hypocrisy yet again. No 20/20 club.

      Kenny Easley – Only 5 Pro Bowls and 3 first team All Pros in a short, 8 year career. No Super Bowls. Prematurely elected.

      Ken Stabler – Threw more interceptions than touchdowns in his career and only made 4 Pro Bowls.

      “Dick Stanfel (Maybe); Mick Tingelhoff (Better but neither was a Hall of Famer); Claude Humphrey (See Dick LeBeau)….Jack Butler (See Dick LeBeau); Les Richter (See Dick LeBeau)…Floyd Little (OK)….Bob St. Clair (Probably).”

      Glad to see you concede Howley was better than those guys, even if you’re wrong about Howley’s HoF credentials.

      Curley Culp – Only 1 first team All Pro. Not a SB MVP.

      “Chris Hanburger (Nope–CH made more plays than Howley in ’72 NFC Title Game. Just sayin’);”

      But still failed to win a SB, unlike SB MVP Chuck Howley. Howley’s Cowboys also utterly dominated the Redskins for most of their overlapping careers. Apart from that one game, Howley’s Cowboys went 11-5 against Hanburger’s Redskins in the years they really overlapped, from 1965-1972. Hanburger also isn’t in the 20/20 club. He has a couple of extra Pro Bowls but Howley has more first team All Pro selections, which are more prestigious because they mean you’ve been judged as the very best in your position in the league.

      Dave Wilcox – Only 2 first team All Pro selections, not in the 20/20 club, no Super Bowls mostly because his team was beaten by Howley’s Cowboys 3 years in a row in the playoffs, again underscoring your laughable hypocrisy.

      “Emmitt Thomas (Maybe–But Thomas made way more plays on defense)”

      No he didn’t. Some more turnovers but considering he played CB and Howley played LB it’s telling how small even that gap is. Howley made way more tackles. Thomas also only made 1 first team All Pro and wasn’t SB MVP.

      “Charlie Sanders (Toss-up)”

      Only 3 first team All Pro selections and not even close to a SB. No historically important league records set.

      “Roger Wehrli (toss-up)”,

      Only 3 first team All Pro selections, no SB wins, not even that many interceptions for a HoF CB (40).

      “Gene Hickerson (NO WAY–Jim Brown ran behind this guy. over Howley. en route to a then NFL-record 237 yards)”

      Wrong. Brown ran for a record 237 against the Rams in 1957 and the Eagles in 1961, and Hickerson wasn’t playing for the team in either of those years, LOL! You can’t even get your basic facts straight. Brown did run for one big (but not record setting) total against Dallas in 1963, but that wasn’t Howley’s fault. Dallas was still a recent expansion team. It’s more telling that despite that Brown only had two 100 yard days in 11 games against Dallas in his career. He retired a season before the Cowboys became really good.

      As for Hickerson, he only had 3 first team All Pros, 6 total accolade seasons, and no Super Bowls.

      “Fred Dean (NO–Game-changing defender who made Montana/Walsh 49ers a defensive force with his pass rush; First game as a ‘Niner: three sacks in a 45-14 route of…DALLAS!):”

      The 49ers weren’t a “defensive force” in the Walsh/Montana era, and that game was well after both Cliff Harris and especially Chuck Howley had retired. Dean only had 4 Pro Bowls and 2 first team All Pros. He was never SB MVP.

      Cliff Harris went 6-1 against the 49ers overall in his career and the Howley/Harris Cowboys went 3-0 against the 49ers in the playoffs. That’s at least as legitimate as you raising a game played after Harris and Howley had both retired.

      “John Stallworth, Lynn Swann (Are you serious?!?!?Stupidest, most delusional entry of this misguided claim–Swann and Stallworth individually and as a tandem are the sources of Landry’s Cowboys’ worst memories AND nightmares;”

      Not Howley’s. He was retired before the Steelers won their first SB. Howley’s Cowboys went 10-7 against the Steelers, with all the losses (and their first franchise win) coming early when Dallas was still an expansion team. During Howley’s career peak they beat Pittsburgh 7 games in a row(!), including a win in Howley’s last game against the (by then Bradshaw-led) Steelers in 1972. He also beat the Steelers 52-21 in 1966, the most lopsided blowout in the series’ history.

      Howley and Doomsday were the nightmares for them and other teams.

      “Dan Hampton (ABSOLUTELY NOT–A major member of the ’85 Bears);”

      So? That was just one year, and even the 85 Bears surrendered more yards/game in the season and more points in the Super Bowl (against lesser competition than the Shula Dolphins, btw) than the 71 Cowboys and some other Howley teams. More pertinently, Hampton only made 4 Pro Bowls and 1 first team All Pro. He certainly wasn’t SB MVP.

      “Joe DeLamielleure (NO–Helped O.J. get 2,000 in a 14-game season)”

      So? He didn’t win a single playoff game his entire career. He made 6 Pro Bowls and 3 first team All Pro selections. Good, but not Chuck Howley’s level.

      “Ozzie Newsome (Toss-up;)”

      Only 3 Pro Bowls and 1 first team All Pro. No Super Bowls.

      Henry Jordan – 5 first team All Pros but only 4 Pro Bowls. No SB MVP.

      Jerry Kramer – Only 3 Pro Bowls. In fairness he’s a rare player who tied Howley in first team All Pros with 5, and he did get the (questionable, probably influenced by Lombardi era Packers hype and nostalgia) 75th Anniversary Team spot, but was never SB MVP and his famous one block in the Ice Bowl (which many contest he false started on) was an overrated QB sneak play for short yardage when the defenders had no traction because of the ice. It was the easiest play imaginable in football and doesn’t compare to the multiple turnovers and big plays Howley accounted for in the Super Bowls and on a regular basis.

      All those guys I listed are HoFers, mostly the senior nominees inducted in recent years. While Howley is more deserving than all of them, even you had to admit that Howley was either better than or at least a “toss up” with about half of them. THAT’S telling.

      Me: ““Dallas was the constant among the NFL’s elite from the 60s through the 80s. You’re only proving my point.”

      You: “Dallas (coached by Landry) was a contender among the elite in the ’70s. They were merely a playoff team in the ’60s and ’80s. Lying about this fact only proves MY point,”

      Dallas played in 5 conference championship games in the 1960s and 1980s. That’s basically the final four. Lombardi even said Dallas was better than the best AFL team after the first SB. After all, they did take the long established Packers to the wire in one score games both years.

      If you’re denying that puts them “among the NFL’s elite” then YOU’RE the liar, Scott.

      “”…but those Packers (Lombardi’s) didn’t last long.” If they had one only one or two titles (like the Dolphins) you could say that. The problem with your non-existent logic is Lombardi’s Packers won FIVE titles in seven years–one repeat and one three-peat. That is dominance.”

      Well let’s be honest. 3 “titles” in a much smaller league with only 14 teams, some of them recent expansions (e.g. Dallas, Minnesota), and 2 Super Bowls against the champion of an entire league of expansion teams. Yeah, dominant. But we were talking about longevity, not dominance.

      7 years < 29 years, or even just the 20 year Landry elite/dynastic run. That matters because we're discussing HoF candidates, not the greatness of one dynasty versus another. More years = more potential HoF candidates.

      "You say that the Steelers Super Bowl lasted “only a few years.” Six is more than “a few.”"

      6 < 20, let alone 29. Not even close. I'm not sure which is worse, your math or your reading comprehension. Your critical thinking ability sucks the most though.

      "You say that “until the Cowboys were well-seasoned” they never beat Lombardi’s Packers. The you hypocritically state “Before that (1974-79), Landry’s Cowboys beat Pittsburgh 7 games in a row.” Oh, really? Before the Steelers were a well-seasoned (Swann, Stallworth, Lambert) team?"

      No hypocrisy. That sorry Pittsburgh era from the 1950s-early 70s produced several HoFers, as I noted.

      "The Cowboys were beaten by Lombardi’s Packers, so they were not “well-seasoned?” Later, the “well-seasoned” Landry Cowboys constantly lose (four straight) to the Steelers from ’74-79."

      Different eras, moron. That's part of my point. The 60s era guys mostly retired by the mid 70s. 1975 is famous for the Dirty Dozen draft and rookie heavy roster and it was shocking that the Cowboys made it to the Super Bowl because they were in the middle of rebuilding.

      On that note, you only want to discuss the short periods of a few teams at their dynastic heights. Your dishonest claims aside, I sliced it the various ways I did above to show that those teams have gotten more HoFers than the Cowboys even in their non-SB years, as have numerous teams that never won the Super Bowl or only won it once. So you're wrong, this isn't just about comparing a few dynasties to each other.

      That you have absolutely no response to this valid and logical point is clear for all to see, and means you were checkmated very early in this debate.

      The rest is just me driving the point home with even more facts.

      • Scott Remington
        March 27, 2018
        Reply

        LOL. Your ignorance and denial is ridiculous.

        “I never claimed the 60s Cowboys beat the Lombardi Packers…” Because you can’t, idiot.

        “…despite the Cowboys utterly dominating the Redskins and the league generally for most of that era.” You can’t say a team dominated an era (i.e., Landry’s Cowboys) or league when there are multiple other teams (Packers;Steelers;49ers;Raiders;Redskins) that took home more world titles than the alleged “dominator.”

        “I haven’t even said they should have as many as the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers do from that era.” Now, Rasputin is backpeddling. LOL.

        Regarding Drew Pearson’s seven–7–measly votes into the All-Decade team (’70s): “I said ‘contemporaries’, not ‘peers'”. They were the HoF voters of the time,” Well say HOF Voters, Non-college graduate. More misleading optional language from Rasputin to create lies that benefit him and his delusional idea of Cowboys “Hall of Famers.” Lynn Swann got three times as many votes than Pearson. That’s fitting because in their Super Bowls, Swann scored three and Pearson scored one. In their head to head matchups (Super Bowls and regular season) Swann scored three and Person scored one.

        Even the so-called “experts” knew Swann was a far better player than Drew Pearson. Swann AND John Stallworth were better than Howley, Pearson, and Cliff Harris. That “Howley was better than Lynn Swann and John Stallworth” is sheer emotionalism and irrational Cowboys fanatism. Swann and Stallworth made Landry’s Cowboys and their fans’ lives and memories of those times pure hell. Cop-out Alert: “Howley wasn’t playing when Swann and Stallworth arrived.” Would not have made one inch of difference. Howley would not have changed their burning of that beleaguered and overwhelmed Cowboys secondary of Cliff Harris and the rest of those toasted crumbs back there.

        More Rasputin lies, deception, and lying by ommission: So, Drew Pearson was better than Fred Biletnikoff? Biletnikoff was a Super Bowl MVP. You say Pearson got to the Super Bowl more times while Biletnikoff only went two times “splitting his trips (one win, one loss).” Did Pearson split his? Biletnikoff didn’t lose more Super Bowls than he won. And he, like Swann, was a Super Bowl MVP–and Pearson was not. In their only head-to-head matchup, Biletnikoff was on the winning side with a TD catch. Pearson lost and had a fluky “fumble recovery” for his TD.

        “Dallas played in 5 conference championship games in the 1960s and 1980s. That’s basically the final four.” This isn’t basketball. You could make that point about various teams coached by Marty Schottenheimer or Chuck Knox. Landry’s Cowboys only went to Super Bowls in the ’70s (coming away with a losing record in the process) and were shut out of Super Bowl competition in the ’60s and ’80s.

        As for this nonsense about the Packers and Steelers “squeakers,” close only matters in a game of horseshoes and to people in Las Vegas. The Landry Cowboys were beaten by Lombardi’s Packers and the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers every time they played them.

        I’ll address one more of your many stupid “points” (you actually believe you’re winning, SMH. Defending a team that went 0-13 against NFL Dynasties of the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s? Go to college–quickly!).

        “The 49ers weren’t a “defensive force” in the Walsh/Montana era…” LMAO!!! Dumbest statement on the Chuck Howley Campaign Trail. Remember when Landry ran up the score on the Steve DeBerg QBed 49ers 59-14. the next season Walsh made virtually every personnel decision a defensive acquisition: Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright, Carlton Williamson, Jack Reynolds and Fred Dean. Of course, the ‘Niners defense went from second from the bottom (1980) to second from the top (1981) and stayed near or at the top for the rest of the decade. Do I need to mention that they beat Landry’s Cowboys four straight times and the Cowboys saw more than 17 just once. And in that 17+-game, Fred Dean’s pass rush created an INT that led to a TD and his pass rush collapsed the Dallas pocket that resulted in the game-clinching fumble? They shut down Dan Marino in his record-breaking year of ’84 in SB XIX, Boomer and the Bengals in their High-scoring Super Bowl season of ’88 and Shackled Elway in SB XXIII

        “The 49ers weren’t a “defensive force” in the Walsh/Montana era…” Sheer ignorance.

        When it comes down to it, championship competition is purely about beating the competition to determine who is the best: Landry’s Cowboys had ample opportunities to play these respective dynasties (Lombardi’s Packers; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers), lost to them all constantly without as much as ONE victory, these teams emerged as champions…End of discussion.

        • Rasputin
          March 28, 2018
          Reply

          It’s hilarious that you’re still calling me “ignorant” when you’re the one who didn’t know what the word “contemporaries” means and I just had to point out your factual errors on Jim Brown’s rushing record and other items. You’re deeply ignorant and slow witted, Scott.

          “You can’t say a team dominated an era (i.e., Landry’s Cowboys) or league when there are multiple other teams (Packers;Steelers;49ers;Raiders;Redskins) that took home more world titles than the alleged “dominator.””

          Actually the Redskins and the Packers each just won two Super Bowls in the Landry era, moron. Or are you simply lying again? Those AFL champions would have taken issue with you calling Green Bay “world champions” in the early to mid 60s. Maybe the Packers would have beaten them if they had played……but they didn’t.

          The Cowboys won more games, made it to more conference championship games, had more winning seasons, had more double digit winning seasons, and had more playoff seasons than any of those teams. Through the end of the 90s the Cowboys also had more Super Bowl wins than the Packers and anyone else other than the 49ers, whom they were even with, and they were ahead of the 49ers in all the other categories, as I’ll show below in a recap post. Math.

          But the gap is even wider between the Cowboys and the rest of the league. Like the sniveling coward you are you’ve totally dodged any commentary on the Cowboys being shortchanged with HoFers compared to those OTHER teams. On some level even enough of your synapses are likely firing to realize you’ve been utterly crushed on the central point.

          Me: “I haven’t even said they should have as many as the Packers, Steelers, or 49ers do from that era.”

          You: “Now, Rasputin is backpeddling. LOL.”

          No I’m not, liar. Quote where I said otherwise. I’ve been calling for 3 new Landry era inductions for a total of 10 from the beginning. I think one could argue for more, but I’m reasonable enough to just want the anti-Cowboys skew to move from the unacceptably ridiculous range it currently occupies to the ballpark of normal fluctuation.

          You: “How about the All-Decade–’70s–team?… Pearson received seven–7–votes. Swann got…21! LOL!!! So, they believe Swann was three-times better than Pearson.”

          Me: “As for him “only” getting 7 votes, how many did all the WRs who DIDN’T get first team All Decade get, you self defeating buffoon?”

          You: “Lynn Swann got three times as many votes than Pearson.”

          LMFAO!! This is like teaching special ed. Let me give you another chance. Since 7 was evidently enough to make Drew Pearson first team All Decade, how many votes did all the WRs who WEREN’T first team All Decade get each? How much better did they judge Pearson to be than those guys by your logic?

          As for who was really better, it’s debatable but Pearson had better stats, so it’s easy make an objective argument he was better.

          “Biletnikoff didn’t lose more Super Bowls than he won.”

          That’s because he only got to 2, genius. Pearson made it to 3. 3 is better than 2. (more math)

          “That “Howley was better than Lynn Swann and John Stallworth” is sheer emotionalism and irrational Cowboys fanatism.”

          Other way around, as the objective facts I listed show.

          “Swann and Stallworth made Landry’s Cowboys and their fans’ lives and memories of those times pure hell.”

          Actually Cowboys fans rightly remember the 70s fondly as an awesome Golden Age of Cowboys glory. While you wear blinders and only want to look Cowboys losses, fans and reasonable people remember the dominant SB wins and the vast majority of games overall that were victories.

          There’s a reason Dallas became “America’s Team” then.

          “Cop-out Alert: “Howley wasn’t playing when Swann and Stallworth arrived.” Would not have made one inch of difference.”

          How is that a “cop out”, moron, LOL? Howley owned the Steelers during his career so you can’t argue against his greatness by citing anything that Swann, Stallworth, or other players who came after he retired did.

          And while DD Lewis was good, I think replacing a guy with 0 career Pro Bowls with a SB MVP with 6 Pro Bowls and 5 first team All Pros who ranks 2nd in NFL history in takeaways by an OLB would have been a huge upgrade and might have made SOME difference.

          And it wouldn’t have taken much in a close 4 point game…..

          “So, Drew Pearson was better than Fred Biletnikoff?”

          Well he did have more yards per catch and yards per game, posted more 1,000 yard seasons, and won a receiving title while Biletnikoff never did. He also made 3 first team All Pros to Biletnikoff’s 2, and without slathering his hands and uniform in stickum to boot.

          But let’s use your logic here. How many All Decade votes did Biletnikoff get, LOL? Don’t wuss out, answer the question.

          “In their only head-to-head matchup, Biletnikoff was on the winning side with a TD catch.”

          You mean in 1974 when the Cowboys had their worst season of the decade, the only one where they missed the playoffs at 8-6, while the Raiders at 12-2 had one of their best seasons, and it was the last regular season game to boot, so it was literally the most meaningless game of the decade for Dallas, and it was still a 4 point squeaker despite being played at Oakland?

          The one where Pearson and Biletnikoff each scored one TD but Pearson out gained Biletnikoff 72 yard to 60 yards? Is that the game you’re trying to talk about and impart great meaning to, LOL?

          Wait…which player were you trying to argue for again?

          Me: “Dallas played in 5 conference championship games in the 1960s and 1980s. That’s basically the final four.”

          You: “This isn’t basketball.”

          The math still holds true, LOL. Wow….

          “You could make that point about various teams coached by Marty Schottenheimer or Chuck Knox.”

          A couple of times they were elite. But Schottenheimer only made it to 3 conference championship games his entire head coaching career. Knox made it to 4. Landry made it to 12, and the Cowboys played in 16 in all in the 20th Century, way more than 49ers, Steelers, Raiders, Redskins, Packers or any other team.

          “The Landry Cowboys were beaten by Lombardi’s Packers and the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers every time they played them.”

          And the Cowboys largely owned both those teams the rest of the Landry era. So why do only those teams’ brief high points count while the Cowboys’ success doesn’t if we’re discussing HoF candidates from the entire 29 year Landry era?

          HInt – They don’t. Your premise is wrong.

          “I’ll address one more of your many stupid “points” (you actually believe you’re winning, SMH.”

          Well I am. I also believe Jim Brown set his single game rushing record against the Rams and Eagles, not against the Cowboys as you claimed, and I know what the word “contemporary” means (hint – it’s not exactly the same as “peer”). In general my beliefs are sound so you’d be wise to heed them.

          “Of course, the ‘Niners defense went from second from the bottom (1980) to second from the top (1981) and stayed near or at the top for the rest of the decade”

          Um, no. The 49ers defense ranked in the double digits from 1982-1985, the full seasons Dean played with them. And while they did manage to rank in the top 5 four other seasons that decade, that was the Great Team Era. Back then a SB champion had to be at least good on both sides of the ball, unlike the Parity Era. That doesn’t necessarily mean those fairly high ranking 49ers defenses were GREAT, especially since their ball control offense skewed the stats. They were definitely an offense carried team.

          In contrast the Cowboys, 70s Steelers, and yes, even the 60s Packers, were legitimately great on both sides of the ball, not just good. Landry’s Doomsday, for example, ranked in the top five 11 years and in the top eight 16(!) years in a row, the streak not ending until the year after Cliff Harris retired. THAT’S defensive dominance.

          “Do I need to mention that they beat Landry’s Cowboys four straight times and the Cowboys saw more than 17 just once.”

          What, when the players I’m discussing for the HoF had retired and the team was in decline? So what? How about when they beat the 49ers 3 times in a row in the playoffs when 2 of the guys I”m talking about were actually still playing?

          “Non-college graduate….Go to college–quickly!”

          I’m obviously a college graduate. Did you go to a college that taught you that “contemporary” means “peer”, LOL?

          The real “end of discussion”, the coup de grace, comes with what I’ll be posting below.

          • Scott Remington
            March 28, 2018

            I “suck at math” only because I constantly remind you that: Five (Lombardi’s Packers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total); Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers World Titles; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total). More ignorance and stupidity of Rasputin to delve into.

            “Those AFL champions would have taken issue with you calling Green Bay “world champions” in the early to mid 60s. Maybe the Packers would have beaten them if they had played……but they didn’t.”

            You have derided the AFL teams as “expansion teams” and now, hypocritically, you come to their defense to try to chip away at the Lombardi Packers? Pretty weak and desperate backpeddling. Hypocritical after you mention that Landry said the Cowboys would have beaten the Chiefs in Super Bowl I to make a point. And don’t even try to get crafty with the “…but they didn’t” statement. You’re too stupid to be crafty.

            I have always responded to the Landry Cowboys Excuse Machine (“If the Cowboys had better traction vs. Kramer to stuff Bart Starr,” “If Jackie Smith had caught that pass,” “if they had ruled differently on Bennie Barnes,” “If they had ruled a Cowboys fumble recovery on the goalline vs. Baltimore,” “If Randy White had held onto that kickoff,” “If Drew Pearson had gotten away from Eric Wright,” all leading to the true hypothetical–“if the Cowboys had won that game…”) with “but they didn’t.” However, when I say the ’61, 62, and ’65 Packers would have beaten the Houston Oilers, the Dallas Texans (they did in Super Bowl I) or the ’65 Buffalo Bills there is an enormous difference. My hypothetical is the lack of opportunity to matchup and beat those teams. The Packers had no control over that. The Cowboy hypothetical is created (by Cowboys fans) because they failed to beat Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or Montana/Walsh 49ers. BIG difference. Lombardi’s Packers had no shot at playing Houston, the Texans or Buffalo. Landry’s Cowboys had ample shots at Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or Montana/Walsh 49ers…and lost EVERY time. As for Landry’s “we would have beaten Kansas City” statement…They should have beaten the Packers.

            “It’s obvious I’m a college graduate.” From where? Tick-Tock Tech? Isn’t it a little too late in this debate to try to lie and hide your mental inferiority (your sheer lack of brain power and ignorance has been out of the closet for a while now) and claim you even went to college, much less graduated from one, Mr. Trailer Park?

            And this from Oxford, stupid:

            “Synonyms of contemporary in English:

            NOUN
            1‘the contemporaries of Chaucer’

            SYNONYMS
            peer, fellow

            rare compeer, coeval”

            A writer who voted on the All-Decade team is not Pearson’s peer or contemporary. Are your grandparents your contemporaries? You are simply trying to manipulate and hide behind the multiple definitions of a word, thus creating unneeded ambiguity. Regardless, Swann got three times as many endorsements from this group than Pearson.

            “Do I need to mention that (the 49ers’ defensive force of Monatan/Walsh machine) beat Landry’s Cowboys four straight times and the Cowboys saw more than 17 just once.” Look at the ignorant response that followed:

            “What, when the players I’m discussing for the HoF had retired and the team was in decline? So what?” Let’s break this Rasputin stupidity down:

            A) Drew Pearson was not retired when this four-game beatdown at the hands of the Dean/Lott/Hicks ‘Niners defense took place. He was a part of the 45-14 shellacking administered by the 49ers in ’81 (Dean had three sacks). Pearson was caught from behind in The Catch game (where he was thoroughly outplayed by Dwight Clark) by Eric Wright to clinch the NFC Title and keep Landry’s Cowboys out of the Super Bowl. That, BTW, was his ONLY catch of the game. Way to come up big in the big game, Drew.

            B) Declining team? The 12-4 Cowboys were shellacked by the ‘Niners in 1983 by a 42-17 score, then lost a home wild-card playoff game to Eric Dickerson and the (9-7) Rams behind Vince Ferragamo’s three TD passes (the same VF who cremated Cliff Harris into retirement). In 1985, the (10-5 coming in) Cowboys, having clinched the NFC East, came to San Francisco with an opportunity to move past the Los Angeles Rams for the second seed in the NFC (thus giving them the Rams at Dallas), dethrone the (9-6 coming in) 49ers AND knock them out of the playoffs in the regular season finale. Move up in the playoff rankings and get revenge TWOFOLD! What happened?

            The ‘Niners defense held Landry’s Cowboy’s to three field goals (Danny White and Doug Cosbie did connect on a 1-yd. TD pass) until they could get it going. Trailing 16-10 late in the third quarter, free safety Dwight Hicks made a game-changing INT (something Cliff Harris never did when Dallas needed a lift while trailing in a big-game situation) and the 49ers proceeded to score 21 unanswered points and win, 31-16. The Cowboys went to the playoffs (in Anaheim, CA) and proceeded to give Eric Dickerson an NFL playoff-record 248 yards rushing (does that make up for the Jim Brown mistake? LOL!!!). The Cowboys weren’t “declining” in 1981 (regular season; The Catch), 1983, nor 1985. They just weren’t a better team than the 49ers.

            More ignorance on the Super Bowl ’80s 49ers’ defense:
            “That doesn’t necessarily mean those fairly high ranking 49ers defenses were GREAT, especially since their ball control offense skewed the stats. They were definitely an offense carried team…
            In contrast the Cowboys, 70s Steelers, and yes, even the 60s Packers, were legitimately great on both sides of the ball, not just good.”

            First you relegate the 49ers to the early 70s Dolphins (“ball-control team”) then you say the 49ers of Dean, Lott, Hicks & Co. were not “legitimately great” on the defensive side of the ball but “just good.”.

            Let’s see…League Ranking Points allowed, 49ers–1981-89:
            ’81–2nd; ’82–23rd; ’83–4th; ’84–1st; ’85–2nd; ’86–3rd; ’87–3rd; ’88–8th; ’89–3rd. Well, Rasputin, 1981-85 represents the Fred Dean Era. Although I know you started ejaculating when you saw the results of ’82, my truth still stands: the Montana/Walsh 49ers were an excellent defensive team, ranking at or near the top during their run throughout the ’80s. Remember the goal line stand vs Anthony Munoz and Pete Johnson in Super Bowl XVI? The shutdown of Dan Marino and the Marks Brothers in Super Bowl XIX, their record-breaking year? The shutdown of Boomer Esaison’s No. 1 ranked offense in Super Bowl XXIII? The clampdown on John Elway in Super Bowl XXIV? Rasputin, you’re making an utter, absolute fool of yourself.

            Another gem:
            “Swann and Stallworth made Landry’s Cowboys and their fans’ lives and memories of those times pure hell.”

            Response: “Actually Cowboys fans rightly remember the 70s fondly as an awesome Golden Age of Cowboys glory.” As long as they block Swann and Stallworth out of their minds…Goodness knows, Cliff Harris can’t…LMAO!!!

            More ignorance:
            “In general my beliefs are sound so you’d be wise to heed them.”

            Ummmmm…I choose not to, Rasputin.

            But maybe there is hope for you:
            “Biletnikoff didn’t lose more Super Bowls than he won (like Drew Pearson).”
            Response? “That’s because he only got to 2, genius. Pearson made it to 3. 3 is better than 2. (more math).” And Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers world titles) is better than Two (Landry’s Cowboys’ meager world title total), baby!!! LOL!!!

            Regardless of their REGULAR season success (W-L records/statistical rankings), the Landry Cowboys’ POSTSEASON failures are far more telling. And what those failures tell me is they were three truly Hall of Fame–caliber players *(Mike Curtis? Jack Tatum/Mike Wagner/Jake Scott? Otis Taylor/Dwight Clark?)* away from winning more than two world titles within Landry’s time as Cowboys’ Head Coach.

            ** Players who are more deserving than Howley, Harris, and Pearson.

          • Rasputin
            March 29, 2018

            Yawn. Just because you’re trying to ignore your evisceration below doesn’t mean it will ignore you.

            “I “suck at math” only because I constantly remind you that: Five (Lombardi’s Packers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total); Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers World Titles; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ World Titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager World Title total). More ignorance and stupidity of Rasputin to delve into.”

            No, you just suck at math. Even the Landry Cowboys best the Steelers, 49ers, Raiders, and Packers (who have 2, not 5, SB wins, and who don’t even come close) across most metrics The most telling are playoff and double digit winning seasons because they demonstrate sustained elite performance across years.

            1960-1988

            Double Digit Winning Seasons
            COWBOYS – 16
            Raiders – 13
            Steelers – 8
            49ers – 8
            Packers – 6

            Playoff Seasons
            COWBOYS – 18
            Raiders – 15
            Steelers – 11
            49ers – 10
            Packers – 8

            The Landry Cowboys have TWICE AS MANY double digit winning seasons as the Steelers and 49ers, and more than twice as many as the Packers. That represents 8 to 10 YEARS more elite team success, entire players’ CAREERS. That’s why those facts matter in a discussion about potential HoF candidates.

            And the Cowboys have more 20th Century Super Bowl wins than all those teams but the 49ers, whom they’re even with, and they best the 49ers in all the other metrics, yet they have fewer HoFers from that era than those other teams.

            1960-1999

            Primary HoF Players
            Packers – 16 (2 with no SB ring)
            Steelers – 15 (5 with no SB ring)
            49ers – 14 (8 with no SB ring)
            Raiders – 14 (3 with no SB ring)
            COWBOYS – 13 (0 with no SB ring)

            Super Bowl Wins
            COWBOYS – 5
            49ers – 5
            Steelers – 4
            Raiders – 3
            Packers – 3

            Conference Championships
            COWBOYS – 8
            49ers – 5
            Steelers – 5
            Raiders – 4
            Packers – 4 (3 pre-1966 NFL titles)

            Conference Championship Game Appearances
            COWBOYS – 16
            49ers – 12
            Raiders – 12
            Steelers – 10
            Packers – 5

            Regular Season Wins
            COWBOYS – 352
            Raiders – 348
            49ers – 334
            Steelers – 315
            Packers – 311

            Playoff Wins
            COWBOYS – 32
            49ers – 24
            Steelers – 21
            Raiders – 21
            Packers – 19

            Division Championships
            COWBOYS – 19
            49ers – 16
            Steelers – 14
            Raiders – 13
            Packers – 11

            Winning Seasons (more wins than losses, excluding ties)
            COWBOYS – 27
            49ers – 25
            Raiders – 25
            Steelers – 23
            Packers – 20

            Double Digit Winning Seasons
            COWBOYS – 23
            49ers – 18
            Raiders – 15
            Steelers – 13
            Packers – 11

            Playoff Seasons
            COWBOYS – 26
            49ers – 19
            Steelers – 18
            Raiders – 18
            Packers -14

            5 Cowboys Super Bowl wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3. Why can’t you do basic math, Scott?

            “You have derided the AFL teams as “expansion teams” and now, hypocritically, you come to their defense to try to chip away at the Lombardi Packers?”

            Nope. I think the Packers almost certainly were better. I’m just pointing out the fact that they didn’t play them so you can’t honestly call them “world champions”. After all, the AFL was a rival major league sports league that was good enough to compete with the NFL and its best team was good enough to beat the NFL’s best team by the end of the 60s.

            I also think the 1970 Cowboys were better than the Colts, and the 1978 Cowboys were probably better than the 78 Steelers (though not as good as the 77 Cowboys), but what matters is what actually happens on the field or in this case what didn’t. So no, a pre-1966 NFL or AFL champion is not completely equivalent to a Super Bowl champion. The league basically doubled in size from 14 teams in 1965 to 26 teams with the full merger by 1970. A pre-1966 title is closer to a conference championship.

            No hypocrisy on my part. You’re the one who keeps cherry-picking and contradicting yourself.

            “Hypocritical after you mention that Landry said the Cowboys would have beaten the Chiefs in Super Bowl I to make a point.”

            Wrong again. I quoted Lombardi’s (not Landry’s, moron) opinion about how good the Cowboys were to debunk your ignorant notion that they weren’t among the “NFL’s elite”. I didn’t proclaim Dallas to be “world champions” or even “runner up world champions”.

            “You’re too stupid to be crafty.”

            It’s hilarious that you’re attacking OTHER people’s intelligence when we’ve established that you’re a drooling moron with a double digit IQ who, among other things, thought “contemporary” could only refer to Pearson’s fellow players rather than media figures or other people who were around contemporaneously during his career.

            Keep it up, halfwit. This is fun.

            “…to the Landry Cowboys Excuse Machine (“If the Cowboys had better traction vs. Kramer to stuff Bart Starr,” “If Jackie Smith had caught that pass,” “if they had ruled differently on Bennie Barnes,” “If they had ruled a Cowboys fumble recovery on the goalline vs. Baltimore,” “If Randy White had held onto that kickoff,” “If Drew Pearson had gotten away from Eric Wright,” all leading to the true hypothetical–“if the Cowboys had won that game…”)”

            Those are just facts, not excuses. I’m not sure what they have to do with this discussion though they do help illustrate how close those games were, further undermining your asinine position.

            I guess such incidents also illustrate the chancy nature of the game and why HoF decisions aren’t solely based on the outcome of one or two games, especially razor close ones. You, however, exhibited big hypocrisy in boosting lots of players for the HoF who never got close to a Super Bowl after all your preaching about how Super Bowls are supposedly the only games that matter.

            “And this from Oxford, stupid:

            “Synonyms of contemporary in English:

            NOUN
            1‘the contemporaries of Chaucer’

            SYNONYMS
            peer, fellow

            rare compeer, coeval”

            Except not in this context, moron. Synonyms can overlap without always having the same meaning and most words have more than one definition (the numbers following the entries).

            “Contemporary” CAN include “peers”, but its usual meaning, the one I employed correctly and perfectly clearly from context, is just people of the same time. In this case that obviously meant HoF voters active during Pearson’s career. A “peer” is usually someone similar or a member of the same group, though loosely defined I guess it could just be a broad set of people living at the same time (contemporaries).

            I never said peers couldn’t be contemporaries. You, however, did incorrectly claim that contemporaries can only be peers, and you defined “peer” narrowly enough to exclude non-players of Pearson’s own time.

            From American Heritage

            con·tem·po·rar·y (kən-tĕm′pə-rĕr′ē)
            adj.
            1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.
            2. Of about the same age.
            3. Current; modern: contemporary trends in design.
            n. pl. con·tem·po·rar·ies
            1. One of the same time or age: Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.
            2. A person of the present age.

            From Collins

            contemporary (kənˈtɛmprərɪ)
            adj
            1. belonging to the same age; living or occurring in the same period of time
            2. existing or occurring at the present time
            3. conforming to modern or current ideas in style, fashion, design, etc
            4. having approximately the same age as one another
            n, pl -raries
            5. a person living at the same time or of approximately the same age as another
            6. something that is contemporary
            7. (Journalism & Publishing) journalism a rival newspaper

            From your own Oxford Dictionaries (US English edition):

            contemporary

            ADJECTIVE
            1Living or occurring at the same time.

            ‘the event was recorded by a contemporary historian’

            1.1 Dating from the same time.
            ‘this series of paintings is contemporary with other works in an early style’

            2 Belonging to or occurring in the present.

            ‘the tension and complexities of our contemporary society’

            2.1 Following modern ideas or fashion in style or design.
            ‘contemporary art’

            NOUN plural contemporaries
            1A person or thing living or existing at the same time as another.

            ‘he was a contemporary of Darwin’

            1.1 A person of roughly the same age as another.
            ‘my contemporaries at school’

            Origin
            Mid 17th century: from medieval Latin contemporarius, from con- ‘together with’ + tempus, tempor- ‘time’ (on the pattern of Latin contemporaneus and late Latin contemporalis).

            It’s all about the same time, not necessarily being the same thing.

            “Are your grandparents your contemporaries?”

            Well yeah, if our lives overlap, unless the context indicates something more specific like school grade.

            “You are simply trying to manipulate and hide behind the multiple definitions of a word, thus creating unneeded ambiguity.”

            No, you tried to be pedantic and faceplanted. There’s nothing ambiguous about what I said, though I admit I do assume that someone posting here knows that HoF selectors choose All Decade teams (that actually comes up a lot), and I don’t usually converse with people as stupid as you are.

            “Regardless, Swann got three times as many endorsements from this group than Pearson.”

            Does this repetition mean you’re too cowardly to answer my question about how many votes Biletnikoff or any of the other HoF 70s WRs got, and how much better contemporary voters thought Pearson was than all of them?

            “A) Drew Pearson was not retired when this four-game beatdown at the hands of the Dean/Lott/Hicks ‘Niners defense took place.”

            He was retired before the 4th one in 1985, you idiot, and he was injured the last few weeks of 1983. I’m not sure he started or even hardly played that regular season finale against SF because the backups Butch Johnson and Doug Donley have a lot of catches and yards in the box score.

            And Cliff Harris and Chuck Howley were long retired, LOL. You picked some of the least relevant games to focus on while ignoring the great performances and crushing victories over the 49ers (3 straight playoffs) and other teams when these guys were actually playing.

            As for Pearson, that he was a defender’s fingertips away from a long TD run that would have erased “the catch” from history just underscores how close that game was.

            Pearson is recognized even by non-Cowboys fans as the most clutch WR of all time, so your pot shots at him are silly and inept.

            I already posted his superior career playoff numbers elsewhere here. As for specific plays, in 1994 NFL Films celebrated the league’s 75th anniversary by choosing the “75 Greatest Plays in NFL History”.

            Drew Pearson was the key player in THREE of them:

            The Hail Mary drive in the playoffs on the road against maybe the greatest Vikings team of all time. With the Cowboys down 14-10 and getting the ball with under 2 minutes left in what had been a defensive slug fest, Drew Pearson gains 91 yards in the drive, including an amazingly clutch 4th and 17 sideline catch to stay alive with a first down, and then of course the 50 yard Hail Mary catch to win the game.

            Pearson caught 2 TDs to beat the Rams in the 73 playoffs, one of them an 83 yard play.

            The third “Greatest Play” was Pearson’s 50 yard TD bomb from the “Mad Bomber” backup QB Clint Longley for the comeback win in the 74 Thanksgiving game where Allen’s bounty had resulted in Staubach being knocked out and the Redskins assuming they had it won. That game proved important during Dallas’ worst season of the decade because it led to what became an 8-6 record, preserving the Cowboys’ record 20 consecutive winning season streak.

            For a glimpse of Pearson’s clutch greatness watch the Danny White “Point” playoff game against the 80 Falcons, where he caught two TD passes on amazing plays for the comeback win. The NFL Network shows a “Greatest Game” version of it sometimes. As in that game, Pearson often made key catches while surrounded by defenders and being hit.

            “Rams behind Vince Ferragamo’s three TD passes (the same VF who cremated Cliff Harris into retirement).”

            LOL! Harris retired because of accumulated injuries due to his extremely physical style, moron, not because of anything “VF” did.

            I also love how you go on to spew paragraphs of idiocy about a 1985 game against SF that, again, NONE of the three players being discussed were involved in.

            “The Cowboys weren’t “declining” in 1981 (regular season; The Catch), 1983, nor 1985. They just weren’t a better team than the 49ers.”

            Not without Cliff Harris, Roger Staubach, Mel Renfro, and even Drew Pearson by 1985 they weren’t, LOL. But they absolutely owned the 49ers when they did have those guys.

            Of course Dallas was in decline by the early 80s. That’s basic NFL history, you ignoramus. Though Staubach retired after 79 (a huge blow itself), the erosion was mostly on defense, and mostly in the secondary (Cliff Harris also retired after 79).

            As I educated you earlier, Dallas ranked in the top 8 in defense 16 years in a row. 1980 broke that streak with their defense falling to 17th. They only cracked the top 10 ONCE in the 80s, in 84, and ranked in the 20s fully half the decade. This was a team that had been built more on defense than offense prior to that.

            The offense was still pretty good in the White era (especially with Pearson hanging around helping early on), but it too declined. After ranking in the top 6 for 14 straight years, and the top 4 for the last 7 of those years, the offense fell from 2nd in 1979 to 9th in 1980 and didn’t hit the top 4 again until the 90s.

            Look at the impact Cliff Harris in particular had:

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            So yeah, they were definitely in decline. The facts speak clearly.

            “More ignorance on the Super Bowl ’80s 49ers’ defense:”

            I love how you keep saying stuff like this right before you post a bunch ignorant statements. It’s like you’re giving fair warning, lol.

            “First you relegate the 49ers to the early 70s Dolphins (“ball-control team”)”

            Walsh’s West Coast system was about methodically moving down the field and controlling the ball with short passing instead of running. You clearly know nothing about football. You’re embarrassing yourself.

            “Let’s see…League Ranking Points allowed,”

            Defensive “rankings” (aka “total defense”), what you claimed to be talking about earlier, are traditionally given in YARDS, not points allowed, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Yards can be more useful for isolating and analyzing defensive performance because they’re less impacted by the offense and special teams. They’re impacted some, but that just goes to show that no single stat is perfect.

            No, like I said, the 49ers finished ranked in double digits every full year Dean played for them. They had a good defense, with a few great players, but not a GREAT overall defense in the 80s. They had a great offense and that’s what they rode. Nobody feared the 49ers defensive unit the way they feared the Steelers or the Cowboys in the 70s Similarly the 60s Packers ranked in the top 4 in both scoring and total defense 8 years in a row. The NFL had fewer teams then but that’s still a level of defensive dominance the 49ers didn’t show statistically or in the eyeball test.

            ” Remember the goal line stand vs Anthony Munoz and Pete Johnson in Super Bowl XVI? The shutdown of Dan Marino and the Marks Brothers in Super Bowl XIX, their record-breaking year? The shutdown of Boomer Esaison’s No. 1 ranked offense in Super Bowl XXIII? The clampdown on John Elway in Super Bowl XXIV?”

            A single play? The “shutdown” of Marino? Marino completed 29 passes for 318 yards that game. The 49ers played well but that’s hardly a “shutdown”.

            An example of truly shutting someone down is what Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense did to Craig Morton and the Broncos in SB 12.
            Morton was a good QB who had torched Pittsburgh and Tatum’s Oakland the past two weeks with passer ratings of 100.6 and 102.9 respectively, extremely high for the era.

            The Cowboys held him to a 0.0 rating and Denver overall to 35 net passing yards. THAT’S a “shutdown”. And he played most of the game, so it’s not like he was knocked out early or something.

            Another shutdown was the 71 Cowboys, featuring Chuck Howley and Cliff Harris on defense, only allowing 1 TD in the entire postseason, and becoming the only team in NFL history to hold their SB opponent without a TD. That was against the great Shula Dolphins to boot, not cream puff 80s AFC opponents (the AFC literally lost every Super Bowl between 1983 and 1997). THAT’S defensive greatness.

            The 49ers had some good games, but I also remember them getting crushed 49-3 by the Giants in the 86 playoffs, and giving up 36 points in a losing effort against the Vikings the following postseason. Even when they won in 1981 they allowed an average of 24 points and 317.3 yards/game. That’s dicey since they were only averaging 30.7 points and 363.7 yards/game. That’s certainly not “defensive force”.

            In the 1983 playoffs they allowed 24 points and 411(!) yards/game while scoring 23 and gaining 363. Was this the “Fred Dean” effect?

            This brings to mind another point, that the 49ers’ regular season stats were usually skewed in the 80s and 90s because they played in a very sorry division.

            That’s why, for example, they had a slightly better record and better stats in certain categories than the Cowboys in 1992 when Dallas was clearly a better team.

            The 1992 49ers ranked “#3” in scoring defense and 15th in yards, while the Cowboys only ranked 5th in scoring defense but 1st in yards. The 49ers were their typical great offensive self (#1 in both scoring and yards), as good as they had been in the 80s, but at San Francisco in the NFC Championship game it was the Cowboys’ clearly superior defense most responsible for grinding out the double digit win.

            The Cowboys would crush the 49ers in the following year’s conference championship game 38-21. They stand 4-2 against SF all time in conference championship games and 5-2 against them in the playoffs.

            So why do the 49ers have more HoFers from the SB era than the Cowboys do?

            That’s a mistake that needs to be rectified.

            “Another gem:
            “Swann and Stallworth made Landry’s Cowboys and their fans’ lives and memories of those times pure hell.”

            “Response: “Actually Cowboys fans rightly remember the 70s fondly as an awesome Golden Age of Cowboys glory. While you wear blinders and only want to look at Cowboys losses, fans and reasonable people remember the dominant SB wins and the vast majority of games overall that were victories. There’s a reason Dallas became “America’s Team” then.” As long as they block Swann and Stallworth out of their minds…Goodness knows, Cliff Harris can’t…LMAO!!!”

            Actually even the bad thoughts are more about the officiating robberies in SB V and XIII. Most Cowboys fans spend about as much time thinking about SB losses as you do thinking and talking about the Cowboys’ SB wins, LOL. Memories of the Steelers in the Super Bowl are of SB XXX and another double digit Dallas victory. Once again you prove you don’t know Cowboys fans and have no idea what you’re talking about.

            And Cliff Harris seems pretty happy to me, LOL. He’s got 2 Super Bowl rings and was voted first team All Decade.

            Me: “In general my beliefs are sound so you’d be wise to heed them.”

            You: “Ummmmm…I choose not to, Rasputin.”

            Like I said….

            “Regardless of their REGULAR season success (W-L records/statistical rankings), the Landry Cowboys’ POSTSEASON failures are far more telling.”

            The Landry Cowboys won 20 playoff games, more than the Steelers, 49ers, Packers, Redskins, etc., LMFAO!

            The only “failure” here is your failure at counting.

            “And what those failures tell me is they were three truly Hall of Fame–caliber players *(Mike Curtis? Jack Tatum/Mike Wagner/Jake Scott? Otis Taylor/Dwight Clark?)* away from winning more than two world titles within Landry’s time as Cowboys’ Head Coach.

            ** Players who are more deserving than Howley, Harris, and Pearson.”

            Super Bowl Rings

            Cliff Harris – 2
            Jack Tatum – 1
            Mike Curtis – 1
            Otis Taylor – 1
            Jake Scott – 2
            Dwight Clark – 2

            Doh! Poor little Scott faceplanted again, tripping over his mindless hypocrisy. And Scott was crushed by Harris* and Howley* head to head 24-3 in SB 6.

            Plus this:

            Drew Pearson* – 3 first team All Pros, 3 Pro Bowls, two 1,000 yard seasons, 1 receiving title, 7,822 yards, first team All Decade

            Dwight Clark – 1 first team All Pro, 2 Pro Bowls, one 1,000 yard season, 0 receiving titles, 6,750 yards, no All Decade

            Otis Taylor – 2 first team All Pros, 3 Pro Bowls, two 1,000 yard seasons, 1 receiving title, 7,306 yards, no All Decade

            * Players with far more accolades who are more deserving of the HoF than any of those guys you listed. Howley was the best RLB in the NFL in the 1965-75 period, Harris was rightly judged as the best FS of the 1970s, and Pearson was the greatest clutch WR in NFL history.

          • Scott Remington
            March 29, 2018

            As usual, several problems here from the troll known as ‘Rasputin” who didn’t even graduate from college or even get accepted into Tic-Tock Tech.

            “The Landry Cowboys have TWICE AS MANY double digit winning seasons as the Steelers and 49ers,”

            And, of course, the Steelers and 49ers have twice as many world titles. Too easy.

            “Even the Landry Cowboys best the Steelers, 49ers, Raiders, and Packers (who have 2, not 5, SB wins…).” I said World Titles. Lombardi’s Packers have more. Thanks in large part by beating the Cowboys in the postseason. And as for, “And the Cowboys have more 20th Century Super Bowl wins than all those teams but the 49ers…” Hold on. I thought we were talking about the LANDRY Cowboys. Don’t try to sneak Jimmy Johnson’s dynasty in there. Stay focused and stop lying. We are talking about this so-called “dynasty” of Landry’s era. Meaning Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, the Montana/Walsh 49ers, and even the Raiders were superior world title collectors than this so-called Landry “dynasty.”

            Gibbs Redskins won just as many world titles as Landry’s Cowboys. Although Shula’s Dolphins actually had the same record as the Landry crew (two world titles in five Super bowl appearances), did repeat, and beat Landry’s Cowboys twice more that they lost to them (4-2), I give the edge to those Cowboys because they beat the Dolphins in the head-to-head matchup that matters most, Super Bowl VI.

            “5 Cowboys Super Bowl wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3. Why can’t you do basic math, Scott?”
            I am doing basic math with the LANDRY Cowboys. You’re sneaking the Jimmy Jonson era in. The lying and misleading never stops with you, does it, Rasputin? BTW, Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is still greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys world titles) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is still greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys world tiles).

            “Nope (on diminishing the AFL). I think the Packers almost certainly were better (than the ’61 Houston Oilers, ’62 Dallas Texans, ’65 Buffalo Bills). I’m just pointing out the fact that they didn’t play them so you can’t honestly call them “world champions”. After all, the AFL was a rival major league sports league that was good enough to compete with the NFL…” Oh, brother… The lies and hypocrisy that comes belching out of Rasputin! Too much documentation to bring out showing his disdain for old AFL players but let’s feast on the end of his statement: “…and its best team was good enough to beat the NFL’s best team by the end of the 60s.” Love the murky ambiguity here. First off, we are talking about the Lombardi era in Green Bay, When they were the best team in ALL of football. No other team was going to beat them in playoff competition from their first world title on. Are you then suggesting that the ’68 Jets would have beaten the ’68 Cowboys? Because as we know, Joe Namath and his crew destroyed the NFL’s best, the Baltimore Colts. Are you also suggesting that the Kansas City Chiefs would have beaten the ’69 Cowboys? Because as we know, they destroyed the NFL’s best, the Minnesota Vikings.

            “After all, the AFL was a rival major league sports league that was good enough to compete with the NFL…” Not with its top team of that decade, Lombardi’s Packers.

            More Rasputin ignorance: “I also think the 1970 Cowboys were better than the Colts, and the 1978 Cowboys were probably better than the 78 Steelers (though not as good as the 77 Cowboys), but what matters is what actually happens on the field or in this case what didn’t. So no, a pre-1966 NFL or AFL champion is not completely equivalent to a Super Bowl (World Title) champion.” SMH. So you’re saying, Mr. “No hypocrisy on my part (LOL),” that the Miami Dolphins or Pittsburgh Steelers would have been given a run for their money or even beaten by the WFL’s Birmingham Americans? How about The Gibbs’ Redskins or the Raiders matching up with the USFL Michigan Panthers? Please breakdown the Raiders or 49ers matching up with the USFL’s Philadelphia/Balitmore Stars for us. And the the ’85 Bears vs. the Stars? You have this seemingly inevitable ability to make a complete jackass of yourself, Rasputin.

            This gem from above: ” “I also think the 1970 Cowboys were better than the Colts, and the 1978 Cowboys were probably better than the 78 Steelers (though not as good as the 77 Cowboys),…”
            The Colts were an aging, slow team in 1970 and yet…
            A) They set a Super Bowl record with a 75-Yd TD pass to a tight end with a noticeable midsection, Hall of Fame credential be that as it may (John Mackey–and Mike Ditka got in BEFORE him?!).

            B) Shut down the Dallas offense (13 points–An effort led by the REAL MVP linebacker of Super Bowl V, Mike Curtis)

            C) BEAT the Cowboys (with an aging, ailing Johnny Unitas and a journeyman not even worth naming combining at QB)

            D) the Steelers beat the Cowboys three straight times in ’77, ’78, and ’79. Um, stupid? Do you detect a trend here at point D? After all, as you said, “what matters is what actually happens on the field,” right? LMAO!!!

            “And Cliff Harris and Chuck Howley were long retired, LOL. You picked some of the least relevant games (the 1981 NFC Title Game was “least relevant?” Real rocket engineer, that Rasputin) to focus on while ignoring the great performances and crushing victories over the 49ers (3 straight playoffs) and other teams when these guys were actually playing.”

            So what is your point? The crushing victories over the 49ers were long before Montana, Walsh and the excellent ‘Niners defense was in place. Given Cliff Harris’ deficiencies vs. Swann and Stallworth (or even Charley Taylor, for that matter), I don’t see him causing any problems for Joe Montana, Dwight Clark or Freddie Solomon. And Jerry Rice…LMAO!!! Harris was too dumb and too slow.

            “As for Pearson, that he was a defender’s fingertips away from a long TD run that would have erased “the catch” from history just underscores how close that game was.” Sounds like more Landry Cowboys’ Excuses to me to cover for the fact that Drew Pearson was…TOO SLOW.

            “…in 1994 NFL Films celebrated the league’s 75th anniversary by choosing the ’75 Greatest Plays in NFL History’.

            Drew Pearson was the key player in THREE of them”

            Though I never saw this (I’m guessing Franco Harris and Terry Bradshaw’s immaculate reception was No. 1, just a guess), where did Dwight Clark’s The Catch rank? Or ANY of Lynn Swann’s ridiculous grabs vs. Dallas in SBs X or XIII?

            “…Rams behind Vince Ferragamo’s three TD passes (the same VF who cremated Cliff Harris into retirement).”

            Response: “LOL! Harris retired because of accumulated injuries due to his extremely physical style, moron, not because of anything “VF” did.” Glad to see you can LOL after VF burned Harris into oblivion.

            Let’s see…Victimized by Ferragamo’s crossing patterns to Ron Smith and Billy Waddy (game winner; WHO???; crossing patterns are over the middle where the free safety–Cliff Harris–is supposed to be), Staubach retires and then Cliff Harris “decides to retire.” Isn’t THAT a coincidence? I don’t think so.

            “Not without Cliff Harris, Roger Staubach, Mel Renfro, and even Drew Pearson by 1985 they weren’t (better than Montana/Walsh 49ers), LOL. But they absolutely owned the 49ers when they did have those guys.

            Yeah, they owned the Brodie/Nolan 49ers. SMH. The Cowboys could be great bullies when the playing field was UNeven and its opponents were short-handed (add the ’72 win over the Steelers BEFORE Swann, Stallworth, and Lambert arrived to that list). The Cowboys never beat Joe Montana and Harris and Howley would have not have made a difference. Harris vs. the 49ers has already been broken down. Howley vs. Earl Cooper in pass coverage? Please. And Roger Craig?NOT HAPPENING.

            “Of course Dallas was in decline by the early 80s. That’s basic NFL history…” Yet you keep clinging to and promoting those NFC Title Game appearances of ’80-’82–THAT THEY LOST. All the while saying they were “an elite team.” Which was it: Were Landry’s Cowboys declining or were they still an elite team?

            “Defensive “rankings” (aka “total defense”), what you claimed to be talking about earlier, are traditionally given in YARDS, not points allowed, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Yards can be more useful for isolating and analyzing defensive performance because they’re less impacted by the offense and special teams. They’re impacted some, but that just goes to show that no single stat is perfect.”

            “Yards (allowed) can be more useful” because it allow subjective idiots like yourself to fiddle with and rate teams however you want. Points allowed is the definitive, factual bottom line: Did the defense stop people or did they not. Period. The 49ers were an excellent defensive team within the Montana/Walsh machine.

            More Rasputin ignorance: “No, like I said, the 49ers finished ranked in double digits every full year Dean played for them. They had a good defense, with a few great players, but not a GREAT overall defense in the 80s. They had a great offense and that’s what they rode. Nobody feared the 49ers defensive unit…”

            Yards are a misleading stat. Who’s worse? The defense that gives up two 50-yd TDs and their team loses, 14-13? Or the defense that allows four 98-yard drives that culminates in four successful goalline stands and their team wins, 3-0? It’s all about the points allowed, not yards allowed, dummy. Maybe nobody feared the 49ers defense of 1981-89 but they rarely posted huge numbers on them, either. From 1981-1990, the ‘Niners ranked in the top FOUR in points allowed eight times. Do the Cowboys (you can even sneak Jimmy Johnson’s crew in there–FOR THIS SUBJECT) have a decade stretch as great or better than that in points allowed? That’s a good one, Rasputin. Maybe you’ll prove me wrong or “debunk” me.

            The Rasputin run of ignorance continued…: “A single play (The goalline stand vs. the Bengals lasted four downs, Einstein)? The “shutdown” of Marino? Marino completed 29 passes for 318 yards that game. The 49ers played well but that’s hardly a “shutdown” This is a beautiful example as to why you’re an idiot and I’m not. Marino was averaging 3 TD passes a game in 1984 and the Dolphins were averaging 32 points a game. Against the 49ers in SB XIX, he passed for 318 yards and one TD (two-yarder to Dan Johnson). And Miami scored…16 points. Half their average. 49ers win. 1978, Terry Bradshaw led the league in TD Passes with 28. In SB XIII, he passed for a record 318 yards and four TDs (three courtesy of Cliff Harris, but that’s nothing new) and the Steelers scored 35–THIRTEEN points ABOVE their season average..on Landry’s Cowboys. Steelers win (or is that Dallas loses?). So, Rasputin…Who’s defense performed better? The 49ers in Super Bowl XIX or the Landry Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII? HAHAHAHAHAHA!! LMAO!!!

            Amazingly (but not so amazingly–stupid, considering the source), Rasputin continued: “An example of truly shutting someone down is what Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense did to Craig Morton and the Broncos in SB 12.
            Morton was a good QB…” Yes, Rasputin ACTUALLY DID compare Craig Morton to Dan Marino. SMH.

            More stumbles lied ahead: “This brings to mind another point, that the 49ers’ regular season stats were usually skewed in the 80s and 90s because they played in a very sorry division.” Can’t speak on the ’90s (where Montana only gave the ‘Niners one full season–1990–by the way, stupid). But as for the ’80s the NFC West featured Eric Dickerson’s Rams (with Jim Everett acquired in 1986 and taking over the focus with Henry Ellard after Dickerson was traded) and Steve Bartkowski, William Andrews, Gerald Riggs, and a revived “White Shoes” Johnson. Those teams all averaged 20+ points per game all but one season (’81 for the Rams and ’84 for the Falcons) from 1981-’84 and the Rams were usually a playoff constant.

            In the 49ers run as Super Bowl champs (1981-1989) one thing was constant. The “sorry” Rams and 49ers didn’t lose to the Cowboys in the playoffs. LOL!!! These were good, talented offensive teams. There was no skewing regarding the 49ers defense shutting teams down throughout out those seasons. The ‘Niners DID play 10 other teams throughout those 16-game seasons, dummy.

            “…in 1992 when Dallas was clearly a better team.” Still trying to lie and mislead by sneaking in Jimmy’s Cowboys, huh, Rasputin? You’re a liar. you can’t help yourself.

            “The Landry Cowboys won 20 playoff games, more than the Steelers, 49ers, Packers, Redskins, etc., LMFAO!”

            Including the Landry era Raiders to that list (Rasputin tries to be crafty with his “etc.,” too), but who won more world titles? LMFAO!!! Uh-oh, now there he goes running to grab Jimmy’s Cowboys, LOL!!!

            Dwight Clark vs. Drew Pearson; Three Straight Conference receiving titles (’80-’82; Kellen Winslow beat him out in ’80 and ’81), One League receiving title (’82), head-to-head record–3-2–including NFC Title Game (The Catch). World titles–2-1. Touchdown catches even.

            Like Swann and Stallworth, he was superior to Pearson. As for Otis Taylor (who was ALSO better), let’s me say this: The Cowboys wanted to draft him desperately but the Chiefs outfoxed them…they simply signed Drew Pearson as a rookie free agent. And Taylor speeds past Eric Wright on that play in the game that Dwight Clark outplayed Pearson–The Catch– instead of getting caught from behind like Pearson.

            And I will reiterate:
            Five (Lombardi’s Packers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys’ meager world title total) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers–with their excellent defense–world titles) is greater than two (Landry Cowboys’ meager world title total).

          • Rasputin
            March 30, 2018

            Me: “The Landry Cowboys have TWICE AS MANY double digit winning seasons as the Steelers and 49ers,”

            You: “And, of course, the Steelers and 49ers have twice as many world titles. Too easy.”

            And 8-10 YEARS of additional sustained elite team success is more relevant to the legitimate number of potential HoF candidates than the results of a couple of 3 or 4 point games. Too easy indeed. And no, the 49ers won 3 in the Landry era so you still can’t even get your basic facts right.

            Plus overall in the 20th Century the Cowboys have more SB wins than the Steelers, Raiders, Packers, and as many as the 49ers, while Dallas bests SF and the rest in conference championships, wins, and most other metrics. Too easy indeed.

            “I said World Titles. Lombardi’s Packers have more.”

            Tell that to the AFL champions from 1960-1965. No, they don’t.

            “Thanks in large part by beating the Cowboys in the postseason.”

            And the Cowboys beat the Packers in the postseason 4 games in a row from the early 80s through the mid 90s, every game in double digits (dominance).

            “Hold on. I thought we were talking about the LANDRY Cowboys. Don’t try to sneak Jimmy Johnson’s dynasty in there.”

            I’m talking about both because both are underrepresented in Canton. The anti-Cowboys bias didn’t stop with the Landry era. Ask Darren Woodson and Jimmy Johnson.

            The Cowboys have fewer HoFers overall from the 20th Century than those listed teams too, despite having more Super Bowls wins, conference championships, playoff seasons, etc..

            And you’re the craven hypocrite here who keeps dodging pertinent points and contradicting yourself, not me.

            “As usual, several problems here from the troll known as ‘Rasputin” who didn’t even graduate from college or even get accepted into Tic-Tock Tech.”

            You’re lying about me supposedly not graduating college (of course I did; college is easy, though it’s telling that you view that as some huge accomplishment) and you’re calling ME troll, lol? You’re projecting. That’s ok, though. You’re not my primary audience, moron.

            “Gibbs Redskins won just as many world titles as Landry’s Cowboys. Although Shula’s Dolphins actually had the same record as the Landry crew (two world titles in five Super bowl appearances), did repeat, and beat Landry’s Cowboys twice more that they lost to them (4-2), I give the edge to those Cowboys because they beat the Dolphins in the head-to-head matchup that matters most, Super Bowl VI.”

            Plus the Landry Cowboys stomped both those teams across the board in metrics like playoff seasons, total wins, conference championships, double digit winning seasons, division titles, etc.. And yet those teams have more HoFers than the Landry Cowboys, as do the Bears, Colts, Oilers, Browns, Rams, Giants, Vikings, and Chiefs. Even the Lions, Bills, Chargers, and Eagles are almost tied with them, within 2, while the Cardinals are only 3 behind Dallas in HoFers.

            Can’t we at least agree that there’s something wrong with that?

            “that the Miami Dolphins or Pittsburgh Steelers would have been given a run for their money or even beaten by the WFL’s Birmingham Americans? How about The Gibbs’ Redskins or the Raiders matching up with the USFL Michigan Panthers?”

            Neither of those leagues merged with the NFL and have their stats officially counted by the NFL.

            Easy one over the plate, knocked out of the park.

            “The Colts were an aging, slow team in 1970 and yet…”

            And most experts even today acknowledge the Cowboys were better. The game was terribly sloppy by both sides, included some of the worst officiating in Super Bowl history, and is often called the “Blunder Bowl”.

            And I said the Colts won the championship. What happened on the field is what mattered. But the outcome of that single 3 point, controversial game isn’t extremely relevant for HoF consideration, especially since all the Cowboys I’m advocating for the HoF DID win one or more Super Bowls, so they can check that box off.

            “the Steelers beat the Cowboys three straight times in ’77, ’78, and ’79.”

            Two 4 point games that went down to the wire, one involving a Cinderella Dallas team that was supposed to be rebuilding where the Cowboys actually led most of the day and the other almost as controversial as SB 5 (if Jackie Smith had caught that easy TD pass when he had gotten wide open against the Steel Curtain even that controversy wouldn’t have mattered). It’s scattershot and spread out over years. The truth is the Cowboys and Steelers didn’t play that much. It’s not like they were division rivals who met twice every year so you get a strong sample size. In SB 30 alone the Cowboys beat the Steelers with a bigger point spread than both those SBs combined.

            As for 77, teams (including Pittsburgh and Oakland) lose all the time in the regular season only to avenge that loss in the playoffs. If the Steelers had managed to edge out the Broncos they would have been annihilated as Denver was by Doomsday and a Cowboys team that had peaked mightily in the playoffs at just the right time. Instead of wearing a cast that year Randy White was SB MVP. His co-MVP Harvey Martin was Defensive Player of the Year. Dallas ranked #1 in both offense and defense.

            Nor do I see a Steelers team that only squeaked by the 78 Cowboys by 4 points handling the 71 Cowboys. That team still featured great 60s players like Lilly, Howley, Renfro, Jordan, Green, Hayes, Garrison, Andrie, etc. in their primes, and young stars like Cliff Harris, Calvin Hill, and Duane Thomas, all led by a young Roger Staubach who tore up the league with an NFL best 104.8 passer rating (the league average that year was 59.3). By the time THAT team got its act together and peaked in the playoffs they had one of the most dominant runs ever, as I’ve shown with facts.

            “So what is your point? The crushing victories over the 49ers were long before Montana, Walsh and the excellent ‘Niners defense was in place.”

            But when the defenders I’m advocating were still actually playing, LOL. You can’t blame them for things that happened years after they retired.

            “Given Cliff Harris’ deficiencies vs. Swann and Stallworth (or even Charley Taylor, for that matter), I don’t see him causing any problems for Joe Montana, Dwight Clark or Freddie Solomon. And Jerry Rice…LMAO!!! Harris was too dumb and too slow.”

            Any deficiencies shown in those 70s games, apart from those of the officials, were by the CBs, not Harris, as anyone who actually watches the games can see. Those safeties were the strength of the secondary through the second half of the 70s. That’s why Harris and Waters collected a combined 9 Pro Bowls from 1974-1979, the time when the Dallas pass defense improved in ranking and stayed around the top for several years, despite the Dallas CBs, who changed multiple times, combining for NO Pro Bowls during that span.

            And Harris was plenty smart and fast. That’s why he was rightly named the best FS of the 1970s. Jerry Rice didn’t enter the league until 1985, LOL, but I’d rather have Harris covering him than Tatum, Scott, Wagner, or any of those other guys you mentioned.

            Me: “As for Pearson, that he was a defender’s fingertips away from a long TD run that would have erased “the catch” from history just underscores how close that game was.”

            You: “Sounds like more Landry Cowboys’ Excuses to me”

            That’s because you’re a moron who doesn’t know what the word “excuse” (or “contemporary”) means. An excuse is a reason offered for something happening, typically a flimsy or invalid one. YOU’RE the one who brought up the long Pearson catch at the end of that game. I just pointed out that it shows how close the game was (1 point, btw, at home to boot). That’s not an “excuse” for anything.

            I only highlight this to underscore what a deeply ignorant, uneducated person you are. You struggle with basic English.

            As for your idiotic lies about Harris, I’ll note that you were too cowardly to address this sledgehammer of facts absolutely crushing you:

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Case closed. Those hard facts speak vastly more than all your BS rhetoric.

            “Yet you keep clinging to and promoting those NFC Title Game appearances of ’80-’82–THAT THEY LOST. All the while saying they were “an elite team.” Which was it: Were Landry’s Cowboys declining or were they still an elite team?”

            They were still pretty good, elite enough to keep making the conference title game, but they weren’t as great as they had been through most of the 70s when they won 5 conference titles and 2 Super Bowls. It’s not hard to grasp.

            “Yards (allowed) can be more useful” because it allow subjective idiots like yourself to fiddle with and rate teams however you want. Points allowed is the definitive, factual bottom line:”

            No, yards are hard numbers and the media and NFL itself calls those rankings “total defense”. I didn’t make it up, moron. You’re just faceplanting again, tripping over your own gross ignorance and obnoxious stupidity.

            “Yards are a misleading stat.”

            Not as misleading for measuring defense per se as scoring alone given offensive turnovers (including opponents’ defensive scores), field position, and special teams scores, none of which are the defense’s fault.

            “Maybe you’ll prove me wrong or “debunk” me.”

            I already have repeatedly.

            “From 1981-1990, the ‘Niners ranked in the top FOUR in points allowed eight times. Do the Cowboys (you can even sneak Jimmy Johnson’s crew in there–FOR THIS SUBJECT) have a decade stretch as great or better than that in points allowed?”

            Actually the Landry Cowboys did rank in the top 4 in points allowed 8 times, and in the top ten 19 years, including one streak of 16 consecutive top 10 seasons. Unlike the Walsh/Seifert 49ers (or anyone else for that matter), and more important for evaluating the defensive unit per se, Landry also ranked in the top 4 in total defense 9 years, the top 10 for 19 years, and the top 8 for 16(!) consecutive years. That’s not a case of offense or special teams skewing the stats, or a “bend but don’t break” defense. That’s full spectrum defensive dominance.

            The 60s and 70s were also a period when there were several of the greatest defenses of all time operating at once (Doomsday, Steel Curtain, Purple People Eaters, No Name, Fearsome Foursome, Chiefs, Colts, Packers, etc.), so ranking high meant more because more teams were putting serious effort into defense. Most of the effort in the 80s and 90s was put into offenses. Defense almost fell by the wayside except when the occasional exception came along like the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, or late 90s Dungy Bucs, whose coaches were all widely commented on by their contemporaries as going against the grain.

            “(The goalline stand vs. the Bengals lasted four downs”

            Four WHOLE plays, LOL? Ok, but a goal line stand has one decisive play at the end. Otherwise it’s just the offense taking 2 or 3 plays to score, which is normal. Not that it matters.

            “Marino was averaging 3 TD passes a game in 1984 and the Dolphins were averaging 32 points a game. Against the 49ers in SB XIX, he passed for 318 yards and one TD (two-yarder to Dan Johnson). And Miami scored…16 points. Half their average.”

            Which isn’t a “shutdown”, moron. In fact Marino averaged 317.8 yards a game that year, so he slightly exceeded his average. The 49ers sort of CONTAINED him, but that was mostly due to SF’s offense dominating the game 37:11 to 22:49 in Time of Possession and running 76 plays to Miami’s 63. That was probably SF’s best defense in the 80s to boot, and yet they didn’t show the same level of defensive dominance that the Landry Cowboys did in the 71 or 77 postseasons.

            “In SB XIII, he passed for a record 318 yards and four TDs (three courtesy of Cliff Harris, but that’s nothing new) and the Steelers scored 35–THIRTEEN points ABOVE their season average..on Landry’s Cowboys.”

            And the Cowboys scored 31, 7 points higher than what they had been averaging and NINETEEN points above what Pittsburgh had been giving up per game. Your lie crediting those TDs to Harris aside (actually CBs and officials), evenly matched, back and forth games often turn into track meets with skewed stats because both defenses get tired (I have to impart basic football knowledge to you because you clearly haven’t played the sport and know nothing about the game). Steelers defenders have talked about how gassed they were near the end in interviews, and how relieved they were that the Cowboys didn’t recover that onside kick at the end. Staubach was shredding them by that point, with Drew Pearson alone accounting for 73 yards in the final 4:55.

            In the 1986 playoffs the 49ers got crushed 49-3 by the Giants (no 4 point squeaker there!). Only one of those TDs was a defensive score, a pick 6 by LT. SF’s defense surrendered the other 42. Phil Simms (no HoFer) threw 4 TDs and posted a 111 passer rating. The Cowboys have NEVER given up 40 points in a playoff game, let alone during the Landry era. Landry shut out his playoff opponents or held them to single digits 8 times. The 49ers have only done that 5 times in their entire NFL history.

            So once again you have no point.

            “Rasputin continued: “An example of truly shutting someone down is what Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense did to Craig Morton and the Broncos in SB 12.
            Morton was a good QB…” Yes, Rasputin ACTUALLY DID compare Craig Morton to Dan Marino. SMH.”

            No I didn’t, you lying moron. I said Morton was good. He was. He’s in Broncos ring of honor and is one of only 3 QBs to lead two different teams to the Super Bowl.

            I compared his performance against the Cowboys, who TRULY SHUT HIM DOWN (0.0 passer rating, as shut down as a QB can get), to his great performances in beating the Steelers and Raiders the previous two games.

            That said, the Orange Crush Broncos were probably a better overall team than the 84 Dolphins. They had a great defense and more (multi-dimensional) punch on offense than Marino did on defense. While the Dolphins ranked #1 on offense they were largely one dimensional (ranked 16th in rushing) and those stats were skewed by Marino’s record passing performance. Denver’s offense had just put up 34 points against Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain two games earlier, and their defense had held HoFers Terry Bradshaw and Ken Stabler to passer ratings of 40 and 75.3 respectively.

            Either way, partially containing Marino CERTAINLY doesn’t compare to what the 71 version of Doomsday with Harris and Howley did in only allowing a single TD the entire postseason, and a great Shula team that was MUCH better than Marino’s 80s Dolphins to only 3 points, the only time in NFL history a SB team has been held without a TD. THAT’S a “shutdown”.

            “More stumbles lied ahead:”

            Again, it’s like you’re warning everyone about your own clumsiness, lol.

            Me: “This brings to mind another point, that the 49ers’ regular season stats were usually skewed in the 80s and 90s because they played in a very sorry division.”

            You: “Can’t speak on the ’90s (where Montana only gave the ‘Niners one full season–1990–by the way, stupid).”

            I wasn’t just talking about Montana, moron, though since you mentioned it I will point out that Montana was in uniform on the sidelines in the 1992 “Changing of the Guard” game just in case the team thought he’d make a difference and wanted to put him in. They didn’t.

            “But as for the ’80s the NFC West featured Eric Dickerson’s Rams (with Jim Everett acquired in 1986 and taking over the focus with Henry Ellard after Dickerson was traded) and Steve Bartkowski, William Andrews, Gerald Riggs, and a revived “White Shoes” Johnson. Those teams all averaged 20+ points per game all but one season (’81 for the Rams and ’84 for the Falcons) from 1981-’84 and the Rams were usually a playoff constant.”

            Alright, moron. From 1981-1995 NFC East teams won 8 Super Bowls, an outright majority. The non-49er teams in the NFC West won 0. If the 49ers’ regular season stats are skewed from playing in a sorry division then so are the OTHER teams’ in that same division. Playoff results are a better indicator of strength.

            In that same span the NFC East won 43 playoff games. The NFC West only won 24, and 19 of those were 49er victories. The rest of the NFC West only won 5 combined.

            The Falcons only won 1 playoff game that entire span, and that was against the Saints, a fellow NFC West team. The Saints didn’t win a single playoff game.

            The Rams were the only NFC West team apart from the 49ers to win any playoff games against non-divisional teams, and even they only totaled 4 wins!

            By contrast the Redskins won 16, the Giants won 10, the Cowboys won 15, and the Eagles won 2.

            The NFC West sucked even in their regular season records. The Falcons and Saints had non-winning seasons a majority of years from both 81-89 and in the 90s. The Rams only had 3 non-winning seasons from 81-89, but they had 9(!) non-winning seasons in the 90s, all the way until Warner’s great year in 99.

            1981-1999

            Winning Seasons
            Redskins – 14
            Giants – 10
            Eagles – 8
            Rams – 7
            Saints – 5
            Cardinals – 4
            Falcons – 4

            Playoff Wins
            Redskins – 16
            Cowboys – 15
            Giants – 10
            Rams – 4
            Eagles – 2
            Falcons – 1 (against a fellow NFC West team)

            Like I said, a sorry division during that time.

            “The ‘Niners DID play 10 other teams throughout those 16-game seasons, dummy.”

            But 6 out of 16 games (38%) guaranteed to be against usually bad teams year in and year out gave them a heck of a boost, halfwit.

            ““…in 1992 when Dallas was clearly a better team.” Still trying to lie and mislead by sneaking in Jimmy’s Cowboys, huh, Rasputin? You’re a liar. you can’t help yourself.”

            I always clearly mark what I’m talking about as I did in the very portion you quoted, you lying buffoon. I’m not “sneaking in” anything. I’ve been talking about all of Cowboys history and mopping the floor with you from every angle on multiple fronts, though you’re too cowardly to address most of what I raise. In that particular comment I was using an example to illustrate the general point about how a defense with a high scoring ranking but much lower yardage ranking isn’t necessarily dominant, and underscoring that the 49ers had a good but not great defense (in contrast to the Cowboys in both the Landry era and the early 90s), contrary to your insipid claims.

            “Dwight Clark vs. Drew Pearson; Three Straight Conference receiving titles (’80-’82; Kellen Winslow beat him out in ’80 and ’81), One League receiving title (’82), head-to-head record–3-2–including NFC Title Game (The Catch). World titles–2-1. Touchdown catches even.”

            Clark didn’t win the receiving title in 82, Wes Chandler did. Clark never won a receiving title, unlike Drew Pearson. You’re thinking of receptions. A receiving title is yards, you idiot. You also left out Pro Bowls, first team All Pro selections, and All Decade status, LMFAO. You’re defeating yourself with insipid cherry-picking and you can’t even get that right.

            “Like Swann and Stallworth, he was superior to Pearson. As for Otis Taylor (who was ALSO better), let’s me say this”

            Wrong. Drew Pearson was better than all those guys.

            “And Taylor speeds past Eric Wright on that play in the game that Dwight Clark outplayed Pearson–The Catch– instead of getting caught from behind like Pearson.”

            Probably not, but Pearson was a possession receiver more than just a speed burner anyway. He was a great all around WR whose SKILLS were second to none, and whose courage was off the charts. He routinely caught passes in traffic back when defenses were allowed to make that traffic hot.

            Like Howley and Harris, and it’s long past time for Pearson to be in the HoF.

          • Scott Remington
            March 30, 2018

            “And no, the 49ers won 3 in the Landry era so you still can’t even get your basic facts right.”

            We are talking about DYNASTIES (i.e., Lombardi’s Packers; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) which the Landry Cowboys WERE NOT. Stick with the conversation dumb, NON-college graduate. I emphasized the “Landry Era” because you lied and said that the “Landry Era” Cowboys were better than Gibbs’ Redskins and the “Landry Era” Raiders. Just for my own entertainment, answer this question: Had Jerry Jones not fired Landry then drafted Troy Aikman (giving Landry another Hall of Fame QB to go with Herschel Walker and Michael Irvin), would the 1989 Cowboys have stopped San Francisco from reaching the Super Bowl that year? LOL!!! Say “yes,” “maybe,” or “I don’t know” to further confirm your ignorance and irrationality. I’m waiting to pounce on THAT.

            “Plus overall in the 20th Century the Cowboys…” Stop. There you go again, trying to distract, lie, and weasel in Jimmy Johnson’s Cowboys AGAIN. We are talking about the LANDRY Cowboys. Stay focused, empty-headed, NON-college graduate.

            “And the Cowboys beat the Packers in the postseason 4 games in a row from the early 80s through the mid 90s, every game in double digits (dominance).” Can’t stay focused, dummy? We’re talking about LOMBARDI’S Packers.

            “…(A)nd (Super Bowl V) is often called the “Blunder Bowl.” The only blunder was giving the Game MVP to Chuck Howley instead of Mike Curtis.

            Then there was the Landry Cowboys Excuse Machine Inevitable: “…if Jackie Smith had caught that easy TD pass…” But he didn’t. However, what are you griping about? JACKIE’S in the Hall of Fame…LOL!!! And “…It’s scattershot and spread out over years. The truth is the Cowboys and Steelers didn’t play that much.” They played four times in five years, including three years straight and Landry’s Crew walked away with the team tail between its legs every damn time. Ample opportunities for redemption, revenge, adding another World Title, chance to repeat or dethrone and the Steelers beat the Cowboys every time. The Landry Cowboys had ample, consecutive opportunities to beat the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers (as well as Lombardi’s Packers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers) and failed every…single…time. Where was Dallas’ pride? Where was Dallas’ motivation? Where was Dallas’ courage? Where was Dallas’ heart?

            More Rasputin fantasizing: “Nor do I see a (1978) Steelers team that only squeaked by the 78 Cowboys by 4 points handling the 71 Cowboys…” Madness.

            “Those safeties were the strength of the secondary through the second half of the 70s. That’s why Harris and Waters collected a combined 9 Pro Bowls from 1974-1979, the time when the Dallas pass defense improved in ranking…” If Cliff Harris and Charlie Waters are the “strength” of a secondary that secondary is in bad shape. Swann and Stallworth feasted on those guys.

            Five (Lombardi’s Packers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys’ meager world title total) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers–with their excellent defense–world titles) is greater than two (Landry Cowboys’ meager world title total).

          • Rasputin
            March 30, 2018

            Meant to add about the 79 regular season game you mentioned that Staubach was injured and replaced by Danny White, though neither offense did much. Bradshaw completed 44% of his passes for 126 yards, 0 TDs, and a 59.7 rating (since you were presumably trying to use the result to bash Harris). The 79 Cowboys weren’t as good as they had been even in 78 anyway, let alone the 77 postseason. They also had a mostly different roster from the early 70s/late 60s Cowboys who beat the Steelers 7 times in a row.

            I mention that to underscore that a short 6 period, 74-79, doesn’t say anything about the rest of the 29 year Landry era.

        • Rasputin
          March 30, 2018
          Reply

          You’re waving a white flag at this point by just repeating debunked lies and insipid arguments, Scott. You failed to answer the question comparing the Landry Cowboys to all those other teams that won fewer or zero Super Bowls (in addition to being crushed by the Landry dynasty in all those other salient metrics like even the few “dynasties” you want to cherry-pick and focus on were) but have more HoFers. You failed to answer whether quantity of seasons (and players) is a factor to consider when estimating number of potential HoFers (obviously it is), which is especially pertinent considering how brief and how few players were involved in Lombardi or Noll’s SB runs.

          I’ll just close by reposting these salient facts addressing even your cherry-picked teams:

          1960-1988

          Playoff Seasons
          COWBOYS – 18
          Steelers – 11
          49ers – 10
          Packers – 8

          Double Digit Winning Seasons
          COWBOYS – 16
          Steelers – 8
          49ers – 8
          Packers – 6

          Landry had 10 more years of double digit winning seasons, and the great players who accomplished that, than the Packers did. Think about that.

          And this on Cliff Harris:

          Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

          With Harris
          1975 – 8th
          1976 – 7th
          1977 – 2nd
          1978 – 5th
          1979 – 3rd

          Without Harris
          1980 – 16th
          1981 – 21st
          1982 – 11th
          1983 – 27th
          1984 – 5th
          1985 – 26th

          The facts speak for themselves.

          • Scott Remington
            April 2, 2018

            I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall. A lot of these guys were great players on bad or short-handed teams. So if you’re going to continue to whine about people like Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers, Y.A. Tittle, Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson, Dave Wilcox, Kenny Easley, Charley Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, Paul Krause, Lem Barney, Lee Roy Selmon, Merlin Olsen or James Lofton, then go right ahead. Howley was not equal to or better than Butkus. Harris was not equal to or better than Easley or Krause. Pearson was not equal to or better than Taylor, Mitchell, or Lofton. Deal with it.

            All the math and logic I need as far as exposing Landry’s Cowboys as a non-dynasty (or is dynasty fraud more like it?) is this: Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry Cowboys’ meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is also greater than two (Landry Cowboys’ meager world title total–with no repeat). A college education would help you understand and deal with that truth better.

            In repeated matchups against these respective dynasties, the Landry Cowboy went a combined 0-13, all the while lying to the public saying, “We’re the better team.” The only member of the Dallas organization with a grip on reality from the Landry era was assistant coach Mike Ditka: “We (Landry’s Cowboys) thought we were the best. They (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers) KNEW they were the best.”

          • Rasputin
            April 2, 2018

            “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            Thank you for conceding that you’re just a hypocrite and that none of your whining about my posts had any sincerity beyond you being a mindless Cowboys hater. Your other comments have already been debunked.

            As for individual merit, Howley was certainly better than Packers OLB Dave Robinson (only 3 Pro Bowls, 1 first team All Pro) and lots of other people in the HoF, as we’ve established.

          • Scott Remington
            April 3, 2018

            Love the way you copy my terms as your own to accuse me of committing YOUR flaws (i.e., “whining”). Hey, when you have never graduated from college and now live in a trailer park, suck the greatness from intellects and any other college graduates who don’t claim college was “easy” or overrated.

            Just because a person points out the flaws of the Landry Cowboys (which are abundant) or points out that some fairly decent to mediocre Dallas players from that era (Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson) aren’t Hall of Famers is not being “a mindless Cowboys hater.” No need to shame someone rightly providing the word of truth. I’ve never knocked Head Coach Landry, Bob Lilly, Mel Renfro, Roger Staubach, Duane Thomas, Randy White, or Tony Dorsett.

            Your fixation with Dave Robinson is comical. Robinson was the forerunner to the hybrid defensive end/linebacker role that Ted Hendricks and Charles Haley made HOF careers with. He was 6-1(the one loss was post-Lombardi, of course) in the matchups against the Cowboys and Howley and was much more impactual in the playoff games vs. Landry’s Cowboys. In the first of the playoff matchups for the right to go to Super Bowl I, Robinson came in on a blitz that forced the game/league-clinching INT in the last minute to preserve Green Bay’s trip to Super Bowl I. And this game was in the Cotton Bowl! In the Ice Bowl the next season, Robinson made several tackles against the run (he also caused a fumble; recovered by Herb Adderley), keying on Bob Hayes tipping off all the Cowboys running plays by having his hands stuffed deep and tightly into the crotch of his pants. Guess it was warm in there. Now THAT’S the move of a HOFer. Way to go, Bob! The Packers went on to an NFL three-peat and Super Bowl II. Howley was a nonfactor in either game.

            Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two. Unless you have made some ground-breaking discovery, you are fighting a lost cause, Rasputin.

    • Rasputin
      April 4, 2018
      Reply

      Hey, it’s not my fault you keep projecting your own faults onto others, Scott Remington. Unlike you I can back up my claims.

      You take umbrage with the notion that the Landry Cowboys should close to even within a few Hofers of the 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, or 80s 49ers, supposedly because those teams won more Super Bowls (the Packers didn’t but I’ll set that aside for now), and yet you admit that you, “don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

      That marks you as a mindless Cowboys hater and a hypocrite.

      Dave Robinson is a useful example because he played the same position as Howley and rightly received significantly fewer accolades. Big games, LOL? Robinson was never Super Bowl MVP. Howley accounted for multiple turnovers and lots of tackles in two Super Bowls, including the game sealing interception of Bob Griese in SB VI with a 41 yard return. Since Tom Landry invented the concept of “strong side” and “weak side” LBs who would shift each play to match the offense, Chuck Howley was also revolutionary in becoming the first great weak side LB. He established the template for the position as it’s used in 4-3 schemes throughout the league now.

      Respected football historian John Turney was right to name Howley first team 1965-75 All Decade ahead of Robinson and the others.

      18 playoff YEARS for the Landry Cowboys is way more than the Steelers’ 8, 49ers’ 10, and Packers’ meager 8 in that era. 16 double digit winning YEARS is way more than the Steelers’ 8, 49ers’ 8, Packers’ meager 6. An extra 10 YEARS of elite, double digit win success in the NFL includes the careers of more great players than the relatively short Lombardi or Noll runs.

      You’ve already lost this debate, Scott, because you’ve been incoherent, self-contradicting, and stupid. The Cowboys are underrepresented in Canton based on team success.

      • Scott Remington
        April 5, 2018
        Reply

        “Unlike you I can back up my claims.”

        What claims?
        Did the Landry Cowboys dominate the 1960s? NO.
        Did the Landry Cowboys dominate the 1970s? NO.
        Did the Landry Cowboys Dominate the 1980s? NO.

        “You take umbrage with the notion that the Landry Cowboys should close to even within a few Hofers of the 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, or 80s 49ers, supposedly because those teams won more Super Bowls (the Packers didn’t but I’ll set that aside for now)…” Lack of a college education or degree can (actually “has” in your case) lead to deficiencies in reading comprehension. I have used the term “world titles.” Obviously, it stifles and frustrates your penchant for dodging and manipulating the facts that Landry’s Cowboys didn’t measure up to Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or the Montana/Walsh 49ers. For all of their winning in the REGULAR season and for all of their playoff wins, Landry’s Cowboys can only claim to have closed theirs seasons with a playoff win twice. Lombardi’s Packers did that five times, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers did that four times, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers did it four times.

        Within each of these dynasties world title runs, Landry’s Cowboys had opportunities to dethrone or eliminate these opponents and were turned away every time. Equally, damaging to your excuse-making (typical of a Landry Cowboys fan–or player) is that players you claimed Chuck Howley was “better than” played large roles in those losses. Because of these players’ (Dave Robinson, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Fred Dean) efforts, Landry’s Cowboys were 0-5 in their playoff matchups with Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers.

        In the postseason matchups between the Cowboys and Packers in the ’60s Robinson made signature plays that influenced history while Howley was a virtual nonfactor. Dallas was 0-2. Lombardi and the Pack went to the first two Super Bowls. Robinson was All-Decade (’60s), Howley was not. Howley played the whole decade and could not get a sniff. Robinson became a stater for Lombardi in 1965. As for John Turney: WHO?

        Swann and Stallworth had record-setting performances in Super Bowls X and XIII and were the finishing touches that took Pittsburgh from being a playoff team to being a world title team. Super Bowl V was the worst played SB ever with all its turnovers and lost opportunities on both sides. It is only fitting that the voters “dropped the ball” one more time and gave the MVP award to the wrong player–and on the losing team!? Mike Curtis was the true MVP of SB V, forcing a goalline fumble to keep his team close and then making the late-game INT to set up the game-winning field goal.

        Fred Dean’s made the 49ers’ defense complete and transformed them into a world title team. In the 1981 NFC Title Game, his pass rush forced a key third-quarter INT (Bobby Leopold) that led to a TD and his pressure enabled the ‘Niners to sack Danny White and force the fumble that preserved the NFC title in The Catch Game. San Francisco went on the win the first of their world titles in the ’80s. Landry’s Cowboys never made it to another Super Bowl.

        The playoff appearances means zip if you don’t bring home the world title. Lombardi’s Pack, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, and the Montana/Walsh 49ers made their playoff appearances count more than the Landry Cowboys did.

        What is “incoherent, self-contradicting, and stupid” about these facts that you ignorantly continue to reject due to your own idiotic self-denial: Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

        • Rasputin
          April 5, 2018
          Reply

          18 playoff YEARS for the Landry Cowboys is way more than the Steelers’ 8, 49ers’ 10, and Packers’ meager 8 in that era. 16 double digit winning YEARS is way more than the Steelers’ 8, 49ers’ 8, and Packers’ meager 6. And 5 Cowboys 20th Century Super Bowl wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 2, and yet all those teams have more HoFers than Dallas. Oh wait though…

          Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

          ….you already admitted that you’re a hypocrite and mindless Cowboys hater in a spectacular faceplant that proved everything you’re posting is garbage.

          “Did the Landry Cowboys dominate the 1970s? NO.”

          Actually they won more games than any other team in the 70s and made it to literally half the decade’s Super Bowls, so they certainly dominated the NFC, LOL.

          They were also the most dominant team in the NFL in 1971 and 1977, and by the playoffs those years became teams that are in the argument for greatest in NFL history.

          “I have used the term “world titles.””

          And I explained that the proper term for those Packers’ wins would be pre-1966 NFL titles, as they didn’t play the AFL champion. If you hadn’t dropped out of high school you might be able to grasp that.

          “For all of their winning in the REGULAR season and for all of their playoff wins, Landry’s Cowboys can only claim to have closed theirs seasons with a playoff win twice.”

          Which is more than teams like the Vikings, Rams, Chiefs, Colts, and others can claim, and those teams also have more HoFers than the Cowboys from that era. But you’ve admitted you don’t care. Your hypocrisy has been exposed and your vapid, narrow minded argument has been shredded on its own inconsistencies. You should have finished high school, Scott. Then maybe you wouldn’t be so ignorant and stupid.

          “Robinson was All-Decade (’60s), Howley was not.”

          Howley should have been. It’s hilarious that you completely dismiss Drew Pearson and Cliff Harris being first team All Decade when I’ve posted facts backing up what a solid claim they had to that status, while hinging your argument against Howley on him missing out in what was obviously a huge mistake by voters. Not only was Howley more deserving than Robinson, who just rode the Packers’ team to inflated hype and All Decade status, but they made Bear Larry Morris (0 Pro Bowls) All Decade. Sometimes they screw up. Not as often as you do, but sometimes.

          “As for John Turney: WHO?”

          He’s someone a lot more knowledgeable than you, LOL.

          “It is only fitting that the voters “dropped the ball” one more time and gave the MVP award to the wrong player–and on the losing team!? Mike Curtis was the true MVP of SB V, forcing a goalline fumble to keep his team close and then making the late-game INT to set up the game-winning field goal.”

          You do realize that Chuck Howley refused to accept the MVP award despite his huge game, because he was a classy team first guy who was all about team results, don’t you? Howley probably deserved it when the Cowboys won the following year though. His interception of HoF QB Bob Griese and big return sealed the win.

          “San Francisco went on the win the first of their world titles in the ’80s. Landry’s Cowboys never made it to another Super Bowl.”

          And yet Landry’s Cowboys went 3-1 against San Francisco in the playoffs, and 2-1 against them in NFC Championship games. One of those did lead to a Cowboys SB win, btw.

          “The playoff appearances means zip if you don’t bring home the world title. ”

          Landry’s Cowboys won it all twice, unlike lots of other teams with more HoFers, but we’ve established that you’re a liar who doesn’t really care about “world titles”.

          The bottom line is that Dallas is severely underrepresented in Canton given its amazing success on the field.

          • Rasputin
            April 5, 2018

            Excuse me, meant the Packers won 3 20th Century SBs, still fewer than the Cowboys’ 5.

          • Scott Remington
            April 5, 2018

            Facts that you ignorantly continue to reject due to your own idiotic self-denial: Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 6, 2018

            And 5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is greater than 4 Steelers wins, 3 Raiders wins, and 3 Packers wins, and 18 is greater than 8, 10, and 8, but you don’t really care about any of that. We’ve already established that you’re a liar:

            Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            See? You’re a lying moron and your entire argument here has been debunked.

          • Scott Remington
            April 6, 2018

            Focus on the FACT that the Landry Cowboys were NEVER a dynasty. The Landry Cowboys are WELL-REPRESENTED in the Hall of Fame. Not too many, not too few. The dynasties during Landry’s era as Dallas Cowboys coach were the Lombardi Packers (five world titles; 5-0 vs. Landry Cowboys, including two playoff wins tacked on Dallas), Super Bowl ’70s Steelers (four world titles; 4-0 vs Landry Cowboys, including two Super Bowl wins tacked on Dallas), Montana/Walsh 49ers (four world titles; 4-0 vs. Landry Cowboys including The Catch tacked on Dallas). Landry’s Cowboys couldn’t beat any of these dynasties even ONCE. What was the problem? Was Lombardi their Krytonite vs. Green Bay (look for a Lombardi/Redskins reference)? Were Swann and Stallworth their Achilles heels (look for the ’72 game reference or mention of the Neil O’Donnell giveaway. Neil did make Larry Brown look like Chuck Howley, though. LOL.)? Why couldn’t they ever stop Montana or Dwight Clark (No. We’re not talking about Jimmy Johnson’s Cowboys or John Brodie and Dick Nolan’s 49ers)?

            These dynasties owned Landry’s Cowboys. Because of this, Dallas was limited to two world titles during the Landry era and have seven Hall of Famers. Had Chuck Howley had made some big plays to defeat Lombardi’s Packers in those postseason matchups he would be in the HOF and Dave Robinson would be on the outside. Instead, Robinson made the big plays while Howley tried to ride the coattails of Bob Lilly and Mel Renfro. Robinson took the initiative and Howley did not.

            Had Cliff Harris done a much better job at free safety in Super Bowls X and XIII, he would be in the HOF and Swann and Stallworth would be on the outside. Instead, he let them have record-breaking games and they are in and Harris is not.

            Had Drew Pearson stepped up and made the big plays on a rookie tandem of cornerbacks ( Ronnie Lott–a converted safety–and Eric Wright) in the NFC Title Game in 1981 and not been outplayed by Dwight Clark–who made The Catch–Pearson would be in the HOF. Lott is in, Clark is a better choice than Pearson, and Eric Wright chased him down from behind. Wright’s chasedown of Pearson (Translation: Drew was too slow) set up the next play, where Fred Dean’s pressure resulted in the sack of Danny White that yielded the game-clinching fumble recovery. Like Dave Robinson, Swann, and Stallworth–players allegedly not as good as Howley (LMAO!)–Fred Dean is in the Hall of Fame.

            Did the Cowboys Dominate the NFL in the 1970s? NO.

            “Dallas won the most games in the ’70s.” OK, Rasputin. What would you rather have at the end of a decade? More regular season wins (’70s Cowboys) than all other teams or more world titles ( ’70s Steelers had four) than all other teams?

            What part of this is a lie?: Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 6, 2018

            “What part of this is a lie?”

            The part where you pretended to tie SB wins to HoFer totals but then also said this when you got flustered….

            Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            …contradicting yourself and proving that you’re just a mindless Cowboys hater. Your entire position has been debunked. If you had finished high school, Scott Remington, then maybe you wouldn’t have destroyed yourself like that, but you didn’t so you did.

            That fact won’t change. Neither will the fact that 5 20th Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0 (though I guess the Oilers can claim 2 “world championships” from the early 60s AFL, LOL), and the Browns’ 0.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 6, 2018

            “The part where you pretended to tie SB wins to HoFer totals but then also said this when you got flustered….”

            Lack of interpretation skills on your part. Once again, many players in the Hall of Fame played on bad or short-handed teams (Gale Sayers, Dick Butkus, Dan Marino, Dave Wilcox, Y.A. Tittle, Kenny Easley, Lee Roy Selmon, etc.) They should not be snubbed because their teams, QB, Offensive lines, or defense was poor. Put Sayers and Butkus on the ’85 Bears and they have rings. Give Marino and Wilcox the excellent 49ers defensive personnel of the ’80s and they have world championship jewelry. Put Y.A. Tittle on Lombardi’s Packers and he has rings. Put Easley and Selmon in the Steel Curtain defense…you get the point, Rasputin?

            True there are unqualified people in the Hall (The Miami QB of the ’70s; Cris Doleman; Cris Carter; Roger Werli, etc.,etc.) Putting equally unqualified Landry Cowboys (Howley, Harris, and Pearson) in doesn’t make the situation better. Two wrongs don’t make it right.

            However, when you start to criticize enshrinees who played a significant role in limiting Landry’s Cowboys to only two world titles, you are fighting a losing cause. Because those games did and should have long-term ramifications on the loser of those contests because this determines the narrative and history of the league.

            If Howley makes game-changing plays against Green Bay that result in a Dallas win, he’s in and Dave Robinson is out. But Howley didn’t. If Cliff Harris disrupts the Steelers’ passing game and neutralizes Swann and Stallworth resulting in at least one victory of the two SBs the Cowboys played against Pittsburgh, he’s in and either Swann or Stallworth is out. But Harris didn’t. If Pearson makes big plays against Pittsburgh to enable the Cowboys to win either SB X or XIII, or the 1981 NFC Title Game, he’s in. But Pearson didn’t. If any of these guys were truly great players who performed at a phenomenal level consistently, they would be in. But they were not, so they are not. Jackie Smith dropped a sure TD pass against the Steelers that played a part in their Super Bowl XIII victory. But he was a truly great player. So he is in.

            None of that is a lie. Neither is this: Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

            That was confirmed to me at the Master’s Program of the University of Pittsburgh. Too bad Tony Dorsett had to be drafted by the Doormat (Landry’s Cowboys) of the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers. Would have been hard for me to get in at the age of 18 if I had not graduated high school. And your college credentials, Rasputin? Tick-Tock Tech?

            Being the non-collegian that you are, I loved your massive denial (silence, non-response) regarding the ducked question: What would you rather have at the end of a decade? More regular season wins (’70s Cowboys) than all other teams or more world titles ( ’70s Steelers had four) than all other teams? Personally, I would go with the world titles. Are New England fans bragging about their perfect season of ’08 or are Giant fans bragging about beating the Pats in the Super Bowl that season? Which one carries more weight for ’08?

          • Rasputin
            April 6, 2018

            Don’t lie about having a masters degree, Scott. It’s embarrassing. You didn’t even know the root origin of the word “contemporary”, which would have helped you avoid at least that faceplant. You’ve already been exposed as a troll and moron. Every time you contradict yourself by applying different standards to the Cowboys than you do for other teams you only further reinforce that fact. If you had finished high school you’d probably know not to argue against Landry Cowboys being in the HoF because they “only” won 2 SBs, disregarding the impressive individual resumes of the players involved, only to turn around and argue in favor of players on teams that didn’t win any SBs based on individual resumes. You even lauded Jackie Smith as a “great player” and deserving HoFer despite his infamous wide open SB TD dropped pass in the same post where you lamely tried to knock Cliff Harris for supposedly not showing up in big games (he actually did, including by knocking Rick Upchurch, the Broncos’ biggest playmaker that game, unconscious in SB 12 with a perfectly clean hit). Chuck Howley was literally SB MVP, LOL, and in the argument for MVP again the following SB because he had such a huge impact on the game. The truth is the opposite of your claims. You lose on every front, Scott Remington.

            But I appreciate you unwittingly serving as a prop for me to post all these facts showing readers how underrepresented the Cowboys are in Canton, both the Landry era and overall. So thanks for that! 🙂

          • Scott Remington
            April 7, 2018

            “You even lauded Jackie Smith as a “great player” and deserving HoFer…”

            Because? He was. And Howley, Harris, and Pearson…were not.

            The Master’s Degree from Pitt is something that I am very proud of as well as my Bachelor’s Degree from Pitt and my diploma from Freedom Area High School. Very proud to say that I am a cat (Pitt Panthers) AND a dog (Freedom Area Bulldogs).

            Who made more big plays in the Cowboy matchups in the Cowboy-Packer postseason games of the 1960s to help his team win, Howley or Dave Robinson? The answer is in the Hall of Fame.

            Who made more big plays in the Cowboy-Steeler matchups in Super Bowls X and XIII to help their team win? Cliff Harris or the Swann-Stallworth tandem? The answers went into the Hall of Fame in 2001 and 2002.

            Who made more big plays to help his team win when the Landry Cowboys faced the Montana/Walsh 49ers, regular season or postseason, Drew Pearson or Dwight Clark? The answer led all NFC wide receivers in receptions three straight seasons, the last of which he led the entire league.

            Leave it to a noncollege graduate (were you EVEN an attendee?) to hypocritically, and incorrectly, accuse another poster of being a “troll” while going by the stupid pseudonym, “Rasputin.” As for the moron accusation, only a moron would dispute (or hopelessly try to “debunk”) this fact:

            Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 7, 2018

            Desperately lying about yourself in an online debate is very sad, “Scott” (or whatever your real name is). If you had stayed and finished high school you might be smart enough to know that appeal to personal authority is a logical fallacy that’s even more worthless in anonymous online discussions than it usually is. What matters is the quality of one’s argument, not the one making it. That you don’t know that marks you as a deeply ignorant man.

            “Who made more big plays in the Cowboy matchups in the Cowboy-Packer postseason games of the 1960s to help his team win, Howley or Dave Robinson?”

            Good thing those weren’t the only games Howley played, moron. Whoops! There goes your entire insipid argument, LOL! Chuck Howley was literally a SB MVP who was particularly famous for repeatedly making big plays in big playoff games, including Super Bowls.

            So was Drew Pearson (3 of the 75 Greatest Plays in NFL history as ranked by NFL Films; greatest clutch WR in history) and Cliff Harris (4 NFC championships and 2 Super Bowl wins as a starter). So again, the truth is the opposite of your claim. You’re seriously fighting a losing cause here, “Scott”.

            “Because? He was. And Howley, Harris, and Pearson…were not.”

            Sure Jackie Smith was great and I’m fine with him being in Canton, though with only 5 Pro Bowls and 0 first team All Pros he’s less decorated than Howley, Harris, and Pearson, who were also great and deserve to be in the HoF. My point was that you contradicted yourself again in laughable fashion by dismissing Smith’s Super Bowl failure while using such alleged failures to argue against those Cowboys being enshrined. The truth is all three of those Cowboys had great postseason performances and Super Bowl success, unlike Jackie Smith.

            “Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is”

            But we’ve proved that you don’t care, remember?

            Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            So you don’t care that “five and four have always been greater than two.” You’re just a dim-witted anti-Cowboys troll and a clownish hypocrite.

            You don’t care that the Landry Cowboys won more Super Bowls than the Vikings, Chiefs, Oilers, Browns, Colts, etc, despite those teams and others having more HoFers from the Landry era than they do. You don’t care that Dallas overall in the 20th Century has fewer HoFers but more SB wins than the Steelers, Raiders, and Packers, or that the Cowboys are demonstrably one of the most underrepresented teams in Canton. Fortunately others do.

          • Scott Remington
            April 7, 2018

            So, you didn’t graduate from college, huh, Rasputin? Don’t be mad at me because I DID. No need for you to despise Dave Robinson, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth because they played huge roles in winning world titles that the Cowboys failed to win (NFL Title games in ’66 and ’67; Super Bowls X and XIII).

            So you’re mad that truly great players that won less or no world titles are in the Hall of Fame in comparison to pretty good to mediocre former Landry Cowboys (Howley, Harris, Pearson) who are on the outside looking in? So what do you do?

            Because Willie Lanier, Bobby Bell and Dick Butkus are HOFers, Howley and Lee Roy Jordan should get in? Because Kenny Easley and Emlen Tunnell have been inducted, let Cliff Harris (burn marks and all–courtesy of Charley Taylor, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth) in the Hall? Because Charley Taylor, Steve Largent, and James Lofton are in the Hall, give Drew Pearson a spot?

            If you are arguing for Harvey Martin, that makes sense. But these other guys (Howley, Harris, and Pearson) are a waste of time. Mediocrity of players who happened to be on a world title team (translation: along for the ride, e.g., Howley, Harris, Pearson, the Dolphin QB of the ’70s) should never be rewarded. Truly great players who played great in spite of being on a dismal team usually stand out. No way Howley, Harris, or Pearson would have stood out on losing teams. Like Butkus, Sayers, O.J. Simpson, Largent, Lee Roy Selmon, Ken Houston, or Lem Barney did do.

            The key reason none of these guys were able to help the Landry Cowboys beat Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, or the Montana/Walsh 49ers in the combined 13 games that Dallas played them (therefore going 0-13) was because none of them was a game-changing player that these dynasties had in bunches on THEIR teams. Had Landry’s Cowboys had Robinson instead of Howley, an Easley instead of Harris (a time machine would have been required but still) to terrorize Swann and Stallworth, or Charley Taylor, Steve Largent, or James Loften instead of Drew Pearson they would have been a dynasty. However, because none of these personnel adjustments were in place, Landry’s Cowboys weren’t.

            Again:

            Five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers/Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four have always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 7, 2018

            “(blah blah blah)”

            If Scott Remington had finished high school he might realize how badly he’s already been trashed on every substantive point and stop digging his own hole. How else can I humiliate the poor guy? Let’s see….

            “Mediocrity of players who happened to be on a world title team (translation: along for the ride, e.g., Howley, Harris, Pearson, the Dolphin QB of the ’70s)….Had Landry’s Cowboys had Robinson instead of Howley, an Easley instead of Harris….James Loften instead of Drew Pearson they would have been a dynasty.”

            Oh really? Let’s compare individual resumes.

            Chuck Howley – 6 Pro Bowls, 5 first team All Pro selections, Super Bowl MVP, 20/20 sack/interception club, 43 career takeaways ranks 2nd among OLBs in NFL history

            Dave Robinson – 3 Pro Bowls, 1 first team All Pro

            LOL! That’s not even close! If one guy was tagging along with a great team for the ride it wasn’t Howley.

            Cliff Harris – 6 Pro Bowls, 3 first team All Pro selections, first team All Decade 1970s, 2 Super Bowl wins

            Kenny Easley – 5 Pro Bowls, 3 first team All Pro selections, first team All Decade 1980s

            Actually similar, except Harris has one more Pro Bowl and 2 SB wins while Easley never won a SB. As those individual accolades show, however, Harris was more than pulling his own weight. And don’t forget these facts you’ve been too cowardly too address:

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Dallas certainly missed Harris after he retired.

            And no, Charley Taylor played longer but he wasn’t as clutch or as dominant as Drew Pearson. Pearson won an NFL receiving title and had 2 other years of over 1,000 yards. Charley Taylor never won a receiving title and only had one 1,000 yard season. Taylor also wasn’t involved in 3 of the Greatest Plays in NFL history like the great all around WR Drew Pearson was. The other guys you listed weren’t even really from the same era. You’re just further showing your own ignorance. Pearson was named 1st team 1970s All Decade by contemporary voters for good reason.

            The Landry dynasty did just fine with their own guys. 5 20th Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0 (though I guess the Oilers can claim 2 “world championships” from the early 60s AFL, LOL), and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 9, 2018

            Here is one of many reasons you really need to get a college education:

            “The Landry dynasty did just fine with their own guys. 5 20th Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3,…” The problem with this misleading lie by omission is that “Landry’s Cowboys” didn’t win five Super Bowls. You’re again (unsuccessfully) trying to sneak Jimmy Johnson’s Cowboys into the argument. LANDRY’S Cowboys won only two Super Bowls. They never repeated. They were regularly beaten by the TRUE Dynasties of Landry’s era (Matchups vs. Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers, and Montana/Walsh 49ers left those Cowboys with a combined record of 0-13). Therefore, they never were a “dynasty.” For a non-Dynasty, they are well-represented in the Hall of Fame. So quit whining about not-worthy-of-Hall-of-Fame-credential players like Howley, Harris, and Pearson.

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers from 1974-79, Rasputin? What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat Joe Montana, Rasputin? What happened?

            In each of the three cases, it was not because of lack of opportunities.

            As for all this idiotic frothing-at-the-mouth Dave Robinson bashing (in spite of the fact that he was a far better linebacker than Howley) why no classic Rasputin whining over Ray Nitschke? Robinson had better credentials than him and got in after him. Yet you leave him unscaved. Doesn’t Howley have better credentials than Nitschke? Get this down: Nitschke and Robinson were BOTH better than Howley, despite the media’s (are you listening, AP?) poor judgement of linebacker talent and performances.

            James Lofton and Drew Pearson’s careers overlap. They are not of different eras. So I maintain, James Lofton doesn’t get caught from behind by Eric Wright, on the drive after Dwight Clark (who thoroughly outplayed Pearson in that game, and others) made The Catch.

            Kenny Easley and Cliff Harris’ world title differential? Simple. Harris had Roger Staubach (vs. the infamous game manager of Miami and the QB that Dallas dumped); Easley had Dave Kreig. Added Bonus for Easley: Anchored Seattle’s shutout of Lynn Swann in Seahawks 24-21 victory in ’81–as a rookie! Then anchored the Seahawks’ shutout of Steelers a year later, 16-0, with an INT. So, Easley was 2-0 vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth while Harris was 0-4. Interesting. Do we need to go through Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth’s multiple, record-breaking cremations of Cliff Harris through the years? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Finally, all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 9, 2018

            No, those were separate sentences. I said 5 20th (“century” was left off as a typo but it was obvious what I meant from context and “20th” being there) Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, etc.. If you had finished high school, Scott Remington, or at least had gotten your GED at some point, you wouldn’t have been so confused by that. When I’m talking about the Landry dynasty I clearly label it “Landry Cowboys”. For example, the very next sentence I said “Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0 (though I guess the Oilers can claim 2 “world championships” from the early 60s AFL, LOL), and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers.”

            You’re the liar here, not me, remember?

            Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            See?

            As for the less repetitive parts of your moronic post, Howley was much better than and had a far more impressive resume than Dave Robinson as I’ve already proved. It’s true that Howley also stomps Ray Nitschke in accolades (only 1 Pro Bowl and 2 first team All Pros for Nitschke), but Nitschke played a different position (MLB) and I was going for a more apples to apples comparison.

            “James Lofton and Drew Pearson’s careers overlap. They are not of different eras. So I maintain, James Lofton doesn’t get caught from behind by Eric Wright, on the drive after Dwight Clark….made The Catch.”

            They only barely overlap. As for your BS speculation, it’d be easy for me to say that Lofton doesn’t make the Hail Mary catch, the amazingly clutch 4th and 17 sideline grab that preceded it, or those catches against the Falcons in the playoffs with DBs all around him or all the times he hung on to the ball while getting body slammed and cheap shotted by defenders.

            Lofton didn’t do much in the 3 Super Bowls he played in with the Bills, especially the one where he got destroyed by the Dallas Cowboys (was that the “same era” as Pearson too, moron?). Lofton had 0 catches that game. So Lofton wasn’t enough to make the Bills a dynasty. Pearson did keep the Landry Cowboys in the mix at the top though and he won a Super Bowl.

            “Kenny Easley and Cliff Harris’ world title differential? Simple. Harris had Roger Staubach (vs. the infamous game manager of Miami and the QB that Dallas dumped); Easley had Dave Kreig.”

            Except Danny White was good too so there was less drop off on offense after Staubach retired than when Cliff Harris did. You never did address this, coward:

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Every argument you’ve made has been debunked. BTW, I love how you dismiss HoFer Bob Griese and Craig Morton, Broncos ring of honor member and one of only 3 QBs to lead two different franchises to the Super Bowl, as nobodies. Griese would win the Super Bowl the next two years and Morton had just torched the Raiders and Steelers in back to back games with passer ratings of over 100 each time, only to be COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN and held to a 0.0 rating by Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense at its best.

            “Anchored Seattle’s shutout of Lynn Swann in Seahawks 24-21 victory in ’81–as a rookie! Then anchored the Seahawks’ shutout of Steelers a year later, 16-0, with an INT. So, Easley was 2-0 vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth”

            Pittsburgh was only 8-8 in 1981, moron, so they weren’t the only ones beating the Steelers by then, LOL! The Steelers’ dynasty had long since ended. They weren’t the same team anymore, even with Bradshaw and the overrated Stallworth and Swann.

            Here are some questions more pertinent than yours:

            Why did the Packers only make the playoffs 8 years in the entire Landry era compared to the Cowboys’ 18 years, Scott?

            Why did the Packers only post 6 double digit winning seasons in the entire Landry era compared to the Cowboys’ 16, Scott?

            Why did the 49ers and Steelers only post half as many double digit winning seasons in the Landry era as the Cowboys, Scott?

            Why did the 49ers lose to Dallas in the playoffs 3 years in a row in the early 1970s, Scott?

            Why did the Landry Cowboys beat the Steelers 7 games in a row in one stretch, Scott?

            Why couldn’t the Vikings, Rams, Oilers, or Browns ever win the Super Bowl in the Landry era, Scott?

            Why do all those teams have more HoFers from the Landry era than Dallas does, Scott?

            Why did the Cowboys beat the Packers in the 1982 playoffs by a margin of victory equal to that of the down to the wire 66 and 67 title games combined, Scott?

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 9, 2018

            Your ignorance is profound and has no boundaries. Yet another sample:
            “Pittsburgh was only 8-8 in 1981, moron, so they weren’t the only ones beating the Steelers by then, LOL! The Steelers’ dynasty had long since ended. They weren’t the same team anymore, even with Bradshaw and the overrated Stallworth and Swann.”

            The problem with this stupid response is that a year later the Steelers were in the playoffs again. The season opener was an impressive win on Monday Night Football, for all the nation to see. The victory was over the Landry Cowboys–IN DALLAS! So maybe the Seahawks weren’t the only ones beating the Steelers but we know the Landry Cowboys sure WEREN”T LMAO!! Way to trip yourself up, dummy!! Love the Rasputin meltdown that culminated with your stupid assessment of the “overrated Stallworth and Swann.” Yep. I knew it. Swann and Stallworth (who outplayed Pearson on in that ’82 season opener) are STILL in the minds and nightmares of Landry Cowboy excuse-makers. If Swann and Stallworth were overrated, then Cliff Harris must have been worse than “overrated.” Thanks for proving my point that his Pro Bowls, All-Pro nods, and place on the All-Decade Team were unwarrented. I LOVE it. That is, if you STILL maintain Swann and Stallworth (each of whom burned Harris’ ass repeatedly) were “overrated.”

            Lofton and Pearson’s careers overlapped six years. That’s more than “barely.” There’s that Rasputin lack of a college education again (NO WAY you could have got into Pitt). So I maintain, Lofton would not have been caught from behind by Eric Wright in the 1981 NFC Title game as slow Drew Pearson was.

            As for the last two of your “more pertinent” questions I suggest you go on any Vikings, Rams, Oilers, or Browns (all teams the Steelers beat in the ’70s, definitely in all the key/big games) post within this website and whine and gripe to those fanbases. I only deal with dynasties.

            The first five questions are easy. Try to keep up, stupid:

            1) Vince Lombardi opted not to stay as head coach and GM in Green Bay.
            2) See answer above.
            3) Chuck Noll started coaching and drafting in Pittsburgh in 1969. Bill Walsh started coaching, drafting, and trading in San Francisco in 1979.
            4) The QB/Head Coach combination was Brodie/Nolan, not Montana/Walsh. The Landry Cowboys were great bullies. But when matched up with a true dynasty, they always got their asses kicked. In their Super Bowl wins they took advantage of a game manager who was a fish (or dolphin, I guess) out of water when asked to bring his team from behind and a Cowboy reject who landed in QB-desperate, pre-Elway Denver. And as for that “COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN and held to a 0.0 rating by Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense at its best,” nonsense, don’t try to lie to the readers. It was NEVER Cliff Harris and the Doomsday Defense. Last I checked, Harvey Martin and Randy White were Co-MVPs of Super Bowl XII. Harris got nothing, deservedly so.
            5) Maybe because… the Steelers were a bad team? They were the laughing stock of the league, dummy. I would guess the Landry Cowboys beat the Saints seven or more straight times, too. I can see you and even Cliff Harris now: “We kicked their ass!” Ummmm…nitwits? They were 1-9 coming into the game on a seven-game losing streak. Calm down.

            Now let’s examine the Landry Cowboys losses to true Dynasties (Lombardi’s Packers; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) as Dallas (who was a very good team) was lying to everybody saying THEY were a dynasty. And they weren’t. The Landry Cowboys are well-represented in the Hall of Fame. Rasputin, will you answer these pertinent questions like a man instead of ducking them like a coward?:

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? They had multiple (five) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 10, 2018

            You’ve been too cowardly to address the impact Cliff Harris had on pass defense rankings, but let’s examine your hero Kenny Easley’s impact and compare the two.

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Seahawks Pass Defense Ranking

            Without Easley
            1980 – 11

            With Easley
            1981 – 11
            1982 – 3
            1983 – 26
            1984 – 10
            1985 – 17
            1986 – 23
            1987 – 17

            Without Easley
            1988 – 20
            1989 – 6
            1990 – 11
            1991 – 10
            1992 -4

            While Harris had a clear, hugely positive impact, the Seahawks’ pass defense didn’t change when Easley showed up and they had a higher average ranking the 5 years immediately after he retired (8.5) than they did when he played (15.3) !

            No wonder the Seahawks didn’t win any championships. Is it possible that Easley was an overrated product of the emerging highlight clip culture of the 1980s? He had some occasional fearsome hits, but the facts don’t show he was necessarily getting the job done in coverage. Cliff Harris had lots of ferocious hits too, albeit before highlight reels were a big thing, but he also had substance and demonstrably made his team much better.

            “The problem with this stupid response is that a year later the Steelers were in the playoffs again.”

            So? They lost 8 games in 1981 and only went 6-3 in strike shortened 82, so quit acting like it was some great accomplishment for the Seahawks to beat them.

            “So maybe the Seahawks weren’t the only ones beating the Steelers but we know the Landry Cowboys sure WEREN”T LMAO!!”

            You know whom the Cowboys were beating? Kenny Easley. Dallas trounced his Seahawks 35-10 in 1983 in the only game against the Cowboys in his career. They were also beating James Lofton. Your guy went 0-2 against Dallas in the playoffs in his career, losing with both Green Bay and the Bills. In SB XXVII he was targeted 6 times and ended up with 0 catches in the 52-17 beatdown. He couldn’t even get garbage time stats. By your own insipid logic Lofton must suck compared to Drew Pearson, LMFAO!

            If you had finished high school, Scott Remington, maybe you wouldn’t faceplant as often as you do. At least your buffoonery will bring joy to whoever reads this page (including me). That’s a silver lining for you. 🙂

            “As for the last two of your “more pertinent” questions I suggest you go on any Vikings, Rams, Oilers, or Browns (all teams the Steelers beat in the ’70s, definitely in all the key/big games) post within this website and whine and gripe to those fanbases. I only deal with dynasties.”

            Because those other examples destroy your entire position, moron. Your synapses fire just enough for you to realize that, albeit too late to prevent you from embracing a lost cause. Too bad your spine is too soft for you to cop to your mistake like a man. Now you’re stuck in a trap.

            BTW, you mean you only deal with “dynasties” like the Landry Cowboys you’ve been obsessively whining about, LMFAO?!?

            “The Landry Cowboys were great bullies. But when matched up with a true dynasty, they always got their asses kicked.”

            Or they kicked so much ass when they were at their best they prevented teams that otherwise might have become dynasties from achieving that goal (e.g. early 70s 49ers, the best Vikings teams, no Dolphin 3-peat).

            Me: “Why did the 49ers lose to Dallas in the playoffs 3 years in a row in the early 1970s, Scott?”

            You: “The QB/Head Coach combination was Brodie/Nolan, not Montana/Walsh.”

            If Cliff Harris had played later then maybe Brodie/Nolan would be more famous than Montana/Walsh today. The pass defense rankings I posted above speak volumes, and The Catch game was decided by 1 point.

            “In their Super Bowl wins they took advantage of a game manager who was a fish (or dolphin, I guess) out of water when asked to bring his team from behind and a Cowboy reject who landed in QB-desperate, pre-Elway Denver.”

            You mean a HoF QB on a team of HoFers that would be the only NFL team in history to go undefeated the following season before repeating as champion the year after that, and that is also the only team to fail to score a TD in SB history thanks to dominant Doomsday defenders like Chuck Howley and Cliff Harris (who wasn’t on those 60s teams that played the Packers, btw, luckily for Lombardi)? And the Broncos Ring of Honor QB who is one of only 3 QBs in NFL history to lead 2 different teams to the Super Bowl, and who had just shredded Pittsburgh and Oakland in back to back games with passer ratings of over 100 each time?

            My description is more honest and telling than your ignorant claptrap.

            “And as for that “COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN and held to a 0.0 rating by Cliff Harris and the Doomsday defense at its best,” nonsense, don’t try to lie to the readers. It was NEVER Cliff Harris and the Doomsday Defense. Last I checked, Harvey Martin and Randy White were Co-MVPs of Super Bowl XII.”

            It took both a great secondary effort and a great pass rush to hold a good AFC champion QB to a 0.0 passer rating. If you knew anything about football you’d know that. Harris was all over the place. He even personally knocked out the Broncos’ best playmaker that day, Rick Upchurch, unconscious at one point.

            Me: “Why did the Packers only make the playoffs 8 years in the entire Landry era compared to the Cowboys’ 18 years, Scott?
            Why did the Packers only post 6 double digit winning seasons in the entire Landry era compared to the Cowboys’ 16, Scott?”

            You: “1) Vince Lombardi opted not to stay as head coach and GM in Green Bay.”

            Meaning the Packers weren’t good for anywhere near as long as the Cowboys were. Fewer good teams = fewer good players. Many more talented rosters and much more room for HoF candidates on the Cowboys both during the 29 year Landry span and overall. That’s how math works.

            Me: “Why did the 49ers and Steelers only post half as many double digit winning seasons in the Landry era as the Cowboys, Scott?”

            You: ” Chuck Noll started coaching and drafting in Pittsburgh in 1969. Bill Walsh started coaching, drafting, and trading in San Francisco in 1979.”

            See above.

            Me: “Why did the Landry Cowboys beat the Steelers 7 games in a row in one stretch, Scott?”

            You: “Maybe because… the Steelers were a bad team? They were the laughing stock of the league, dummy.”

            Then they shouldn’t have more HoFers than the Cowboys do, moron, several of which weren’t even a part of their 70s dynasty.

            “The Landry Cowboys are well-represented in the Hall of Fame.”

            Clearly not.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            I’ve proved Dallas is seriously underrepresented in Canton given its success on the field.

          • Scott Remington
            April 10, 2018

            I KNEW something was suspicious (not unexpected from a noncollege graduate liar) when you started Harris’ tenure as Cowboys starting safety at 1975. His career started in 1970 (he wasn’t good enough to start as a rookie–unlike Jack Tatum, Mike Wagner, Ronnie Lott…and Kenny Easley) and he moved into the Cowboys secondary in ’71. The Dallas 1970 pass defense ranking with Harris ON THE BENCH? Third in the league. Dallas’ pass defense rankings in the next for years with Harris in the starting lineup? 1971: 19th; 1972: 19th; 1973: 16th; 1974: 14th. Pretty cowardly omission. Why did you omit Dallas pass defense stats from 1971-74? What were you trying to hide that I was going to expose (like and “overrated” receiving tandem from Pittsburgh) anyway?

            So, essentially, until Harvey Martin, Randy White, and Too Tall Jones emerged, Cliff Harris was really quite useless. Easley’s pass defenses were higher-ranked in his first four years than Harris’ (Three out of four years to be exact but the four-year tenure obviously was better. Basic math, dummy). Harris started nine years, Easley seven. Yet Easley picked off more passes in 43 fewer starts. And Easley was a STRONG safety! Easley led the NFL in ’84 with 10 INTs. The most Harris ever had was five. Easley was NFL defensive Player of the Year in ’84 (Hey! AP got it right for once!). Harris NEVER won the Award, and deservedly so (Hey! AP is heating up! That TWO in a row!). Sorry attempt to pull a fast one on the readers, dummy.

            “No wonder the Seahawks didn’t win any championships (with Easley).” Let’s see Cliff Harris get carried to two world titles with Dave Kreig and Jim Zorn (speaking of Jim Zorn…Didn’t Landry cut his ass? Exactly!).

            More ignorance from Rasputin:
            “Is it possible that Easley was an overrated product of the emerging highlight clip culture of the 1980s? He had some occasional fearsome hits, but the facts don’t show he was necessarily getting the job done in coverage.” Better pass defense ranking than Cliff Harris over the first four years as a starter. FACT. More INTs than Harris in a career with 41 less starts. FACT. Led league in INTs for a season, something Harris never did. FACT. Defensive Player of the Year, an award that Harris was NEVER deserving of and ,thus, never got. FACT. Easley the product of highlight clips? Absolutely not. NFL Films was around during Cliff Harris’ time. Dallas has gotten WAAAAAYYYYY more highlight airtime than the Ground Chuck Seahawks could ever dream of. Weak cop-out and, typical of a Landry Cowboy excuse-maker, totally expected. If Cliff Harris made as many highlight film plays (instead of being the butt of them–Swann, Stallworth, Charley Taylor, Jack Lambert, etc., etc., etc.) as Easley, he would be in the Hall of Fame…but he didn’t, so he isn’t.

            So glad you brought up the James Lofton playoff performance subject again in an effort to enhance Drew Pearson. In Super Bowl XXVII, you do know Lofton was 35 and his tenure (1981-85) as the NFL’s best wide receiver was seven or eight years behind him? At that point, even a stiff like Larry Brown could shut him out. Did Lofton brag about burning a 35-year-old Mel Blount for three TD catches in 1983? Get a grip on some perspective, Rasputin. SMH.

            However, in the ’82 Cowboy-Packers playoff match, Lofton outplayed Pearson just as badly as Dwight Clark did the year before. Lofton was the best wide receiver on the field that day. Unfortunately, his defense (unlike Clark’s) gave up 37 points. As the game was winding down, Pat Summerall commented as a shot of a glum Lofton was shown. The legendary broadcaster said, “Well…you can’t say it was HIS fault.”

            I suppose your ignorance has dropped one trillionth of a point. You weren’t going to say Swann and Stallworth were “overrated” again. Hope they STAY in your nightmares. Swann and Stallworth “overrated?” Kind of like a Lakers fan saying Bill Russell was “overrated” or a Cleveland sports fan saying John Elway or Michael Jordan was “overrated.” An intelligent fan simply says, “that/those guy(s) killed us/made our lives hell,” and move on.

            More Rasputin ignorance:
            “If Cliff Harris had played later then maybe Brodie/Nolan would be more famous than Montana/Walsh today. The pass defense rankings I posted above speak volumes, and The Catch game was decided by 1 point.”

            Harris had nothing to do with the postseason victories over the Brodie/Nolan ‘Niners in ’70 (where he got no plays at all–Credit Duane Thomas and the Defense WITHOUT Harris in the lineup) ’71 (Credit running game and poor play of Brodie), or ’72 ( ALL credit to Roger Staubach). If he had “come later,” Montana and Walsh would have exposed him even worse than Bradshaw and his “overrated” wideouts Swann, and Stallworth did.

            Some ridiculous misguided notions of Rasputin:

            “…when they (Landry’s Cowboys) were at their best they prevented teams that otherwise might have become dynasties from achieving that goal (e.g. early 70s 49ers, the best Vikings teams, no Dolphin 3-peat).” The early ’70s ‘Niners were never going to become a dynasty because Brodie was not a world title-caliber QB and Nolan was not a world title-caliber head coach. Therefore, they were a Landry Cowboys patsy. Vikes were always losing to stronger AFL/AFC teams in SBs. Classic Super Bowl Doormat. They were never going to be a dynasty. “No Dolphin three-peat?” The three-peat possibility is only in effect AFTER two straight titles have been won, stupid. Ken Stabler dethroned the Dolphins and their Game Manger. He also destroyed another three-peat by taking out the Steelers. Gained so much respect in western PA that even we Steeler fans campaigned for him to get into HOF. We’ve never campaigned for Howley, Harris, or Pearson. We didn’t see anything impressive.

          • Rasputin
            April 11, 2018

            Wrong on every point. I originally posted the Harris era pass defense rankings to cover his career PEAK and copy pasted it for the last post because it was faster, but his pass defense ranked higher on average than Easley’s for their whole careers. Harris was always good but he didn’t start making Pro Bowls until 1974. I said earlier that the strength of the Dallas secondary in the early 70s was its CBs. It had HoFer Mel Renfro still in his prime on one side and HoFer Herb Adderley on the other side for a while, with Cornell Green no slouch at safety. That throws off rankings comparisons of Harris’ early years versus the years immediately preceding. But by the mid to late 70s only Cowboys safeties were making Pro Bowls. As good as Charlie Waters was Cliff Harris was clearly the best DB on the team. The contrast between Dallas with him those last several years and without him from 1980 on is clear, especially since Waters was still there.

            Ok though. Let’s look at their whole careers as starters.

            Average Pass Defense Ranking as Starter
            Cliff Harris (1971-1979) – 10.3
            Kenny Easley (1981-1987)- 15.3

            Harris beats him by a wide margin, moron. That’s an even more significant gap when one considers all the years going into those averages. Normal fluctuations are typically wiped out as a wash once a few years are counted (that’s the kind of statistics thing you might have learned if you had stayed to finish high school) but this gap persists over a decade and grows to a mile if you just compare Harris’ career peak to….well….Easley didn’t really have a peak. The Seahawks’ pass defense didn’t become consistently good UNTIL AFTER HE LEFT! The opposite happened with Dallas once Harris left. You’re still too cowardly to address that fact.

            “So, essentially, until Harvey Martin, Randy White, and Too Tall Jones emerged, Cliff Harris was really quite useless.”

            You mean when back when they “only” had Bob Lilly (most decorated Cowboy of all time), George Andrie (5 Pro Bowls, more than Jones and Martin), Jethro Pugh (also played in the late 70s), and Larry Cole (also a fixture into the early 80s) on the line, LMFAO?

            They still had White, Martin, and Too Tall in the early 80s when the pass defense rankings collapsed. In fact Jones took 79 off to box (Dallas ranked 3rd), returned for 80 (Dallas ranked 16th) and made his FIRST Pro Bowl in 81 (Dallas ranked 21st). The change was Cliff Harris retiring. If you had stayed in high school you’d probably still be a moron, Scott Remington, but maybe you’d drool less.

            “His career started in 1970 (he wasn’t good enough to start as a rookie–unlike Jack Tatum, Mike Wagner, Ronnie Lott…and Kenny Easley)”

            Actually despite coming from a small school Harris earned the starting job early on but had his rookie season disrupted by military service. He quickly retook it the next season. It’s almost impressive how many new ways you keep finding to spew your ignorance all over this page. And while Harris was at least somewhat better than Easley he was light years better than Tatum and Wagner, lol.

            “Yet Easley picked off more passes in 43 fewer starts.”

            Actually it’s more noteworthy that Easley only ended up with 3 more career interceptions than Harris despite playing in the extremely pass happy 80s when there was a lot more opportunity for interceptions. By contrast the 1970s was the only decade in NFL history that saw passing stat deflation over the previous decade. Of course Harris had more interceptions overall counting the playoffs, but only an armchair ignoramus who’s never played football and doesn’t know much about the sport would primarily judge safeties by interceptions. Neither Harris or Easley were big interception machines, but Harris was great in coverage as the pass defense rankings and eyeball test show. He was also great in run support.

            “And Easley was a STRONG safety!’

            So? Cowboys strong safety Roy Williams led the team in interceptions over his tenure and he was terrible in coverage, a fact exposed once the truly great Darren Woodson retired. Interceptions matter but they happen on such a small percentage of plays that only the ignorant primarily judge safety play based on those totals.

            “Easley was NFL defensive Player of the Year in ’84 (Hey! AP got it right for once!)”

            The one time they agree with you, hypocrite? LMFAO! What’s more likely, that the AP usually gets it wrong and got it right that one time, or that they usually get it right, like when they properly judged Chuck Howley to be the very best at his position in the NFL for fully half a decade, and occasionally make a dubious decision?

            ““No wonder the Seahawks didn’t win any championships (with Easley).” Let’s see Cliff Harris get carried to two world titles with Dave Kreig and Jim Zorn (speaking of Jim Zorn…Didn’t Landry cut his ass? Exactly!).”

            You’re the one who’s been claiming that ONLY SUPER BOWLS MATTER, you faceplanting buffoon. You argue against extremely deserving individual Cowboys for Canton based on the asinine notion that they supposedly didn’t win ENOUGH Super Bowls, but you push non-Cowboys for the HoF who didn’t win ANY. So now you’re conceding that factors OTHER than number of SB wins matter in HoF consideration?

            You’re a joke.

            “Easley the product of highlight clips? Absolutely not. NFL Films was around during Cliff Harris’ time.”

            But ESPN wasn’t. The dumbed down highlight media culture didn’t really get going until the 1980s.

            “In Super Bowl XXVII, you do know Lofton was 35 and his tenure (1981-85) as the NFL’s best wide receiver was seven or eight years behind him?”

            Excuses, excuses. You made everything about SB performance, idiot. Lofton was targeted 6 times in that game and came away with 0 catches. I can’t imagine Mr. Clutch Pearson being targeted 6 times and coming away with nothing.

            And Pearson’s best years were back in the 70s, which only overlapped with Lofton’s career by 2 years. He struggled with injuries and had a huge drop off in volume stats in the 80s, though he occasionally rose up with great plays when called upon (like catching those 2 heavily contested TD passes against the Falcons in the playoffs in the Danny White “Point” game). Once again your hypocrisy debunks your previous arguments.

            “However, in the ’82 Cowboy-Packers playoff match, Lofton outplayed Pearson just as badly as Dwight Clark did the year before. Lofton was the best wide receiver on the field that day.”

            Hogwash. The Cowboys handled the Packers easily enough that they didn’t need to use Pearson much, though he did throw and complete a long pass on a trick play, lol. But, again, you leave no room for guys like Howley or others to have played well against…say…the 60s Packers. If the team loses, even by one score (and Dallas beat Green Bay by double digits that game) then it means their best players didn’t do enough to become a “dynasty” and they don’t deserve to be in the HoF according to you. You certainly don’t give Pearson any credit for still ranking 8th in career playoff receiving yards in NFL history despite mostly playing during the stat deflated 70s (he retired ranked 3rd).

            Hey, it’s your insipid position. Don’t blame me for throwing it back into your face.

            “More INTs than Harris in a career with 41 less starts. FACT. Led league in INTs for a season, something Harris never did. FACT. Defensive Player of the Year, an award that Harris was NEVER deserving of and ,thus, never got. FACT.”

            Pearson won a receiving title, something Lofton never did. FACT. Pearson won a Super Bowl, something Lofton never did. FACT. Pearson was voted first team AP All Pro 3 times while Lofton was only first team All Pro once. FACT. Pearson was first team All Decade, an award Lofton wasn’t deserving of and, thus, never got. FACT. Well that last part had a little opinion thrown in, but then, not being a high school dropout like you, I actually know the difference between fact and opinion.

            Gee it’s fun using using your own logic to destroy your position.

            “You weren’t going to say Swann and Stallworth were “overrated” again. Hope they STAY in your nightmares.”

            LOL! I’ve never had a single “nightmare” about either. My only personal live memories of the Cowboys versus the Steelers in the SB are of Dallas beating Pittsburgh down by double digits in SB 30. Swann and Stallworth are just minor historical footnotes, far less important to the outcome of SB 13 than the atrocious officiating. I like Swann as a broadcaster and because he’s a Republican. I don’t care much about Stallworth one way or the other.

            You clearly have crippling nightmares about the Dallas Cowboys overall though to have so much bias and hatred for them to post all this garbage. What’s wrong, Scott? Them beating your favorite team YEAR after YEAR for most of your life was too much for you to take and it drove you bonkers?

            “Harris had nothing to do with the postseason victories over the Brodie/Nolan ‘Niners in…71 (Credit running game and poor play of Brodie), or ’72 ( ALL credit to Roger Staubach).”

            He was the starting FS on the defense that held Brodie to passer ratings of 26.9 and 38.1 in 71 and 72 respectively, and that was after Brodie had torched opponents with ratings of well over 100 the previous weeks both years.

            Cliff Harris even intercepted Brodie in the 71 NFC Championship game, LOL! Nothing to do with it?!? He had SOMETHING to do with it, LMFAO.

            “If he had “come later,” Montana and Walsh would have exposed him even worse than Bradshaw and his “overrated” wideouts Swann, and Stallworth did.”

            That’s not what the pass defense rankings suggest. But then you don’t base your claims on facts, math, or logic.

            “The early ’70s ‘Niners were never going to become a dynasty because Brodie was not a world title-caliber QB and Nolan was not a world title-caliber head coach.”

            Because the Cowboys were in their way, doofus. Championship status is relative.

            ” Vikes were always losing to stronger AFL/AFC teams in SBs.”

            Except that the 75 Vikings are widely viewed as their greatest team ever, and they were prevented from making it to the Super Bowl by Drew Pearson and an upstart, rebuilding Cowboys on a Cinderella run that, BTW, almost saw them knock off the Steelers (and their 9 HoFers, LOL!) in the SB too.

            ““No Dolphin three-peat?” The three-peat possibility is only in effect AFTER two straight titles have been won, stupid.”

            Winning in 71, combined with their wins in 72 and 73, would have been 3 in a row, moron. Math foils you again.

            “Ken Stabler dethroned the Dolphins and their Game Manger. He also destroyed another three-peat by taking out the Steelers. Gained so much respect in western PA that even we Steeler fans campaigned for him to get into HOF. We’ve never campaigned for Howley, Harris, or Pearson. We didn’t see anything impressive.”

            Stabler got destroyed by Miami 27-10 in one playoff meeting with Miami and only nipped them by 2 points in the other game. He also threw more interceptions than TDs in his career. You’re blind.

            You smell like a Raiders fan. What’s wrong, “Scott”? Did you finally abandon your team like the pansy you are and try to run and hide behind Pittsburgh? Won’t help. You still lose the debate as I’ve shown all over this page. If you really are a Steelers fan it must seem like Super Bowl 30 all over again, LOL.

          • Scott Remington
            April 11, 2018

            So you cowardly don’t admit to your trying to lie about the Cowboys success with Harris at safety vs. Ken Easley’s by dropping Harris’s first four years of dragging a third-ranked pass defense (1970) DOWN to 19th (1971; and 19th-1972; and 16th-1973; and 14th-1974).

            Then, you cowardly backpedal from the stupid comment that came from your meltdown that led you to actually say Lynn Swann and John Stallworth were “overrated.” Then lie again and say, “LOL! I’ve never had a single ‘nightmare’ about either…Swann and Stallworth are just minor (They’re in the HALL of Fame and he says ‘minor.’ SMH) historical footnotes, far less important to the outcome of SB 13 than the atrocious officiating. I like Swann as a broadcaster and because he’s a Republican. I don’t care much about Stallworth one way or the other.” Then why did you call them “overrated,” dummy? Still have problems with their undressing of Cliff Harris and toppling the Landry Cowboy Legacy. They kept Landry’s Cowboys from being a dynasty and kept them from being the Team of the ’70s. It’s OK. Wipe your tears. It’ll be alright. Swann and Stallworth did that to EVERYBODY. Not as easily as they did it to Harris, though. LMAO!!!

            If Harris had great players–HOFers– like Renfro and Adderley manning the corners why did the pass defense drop so dramatically from third to 19th when Harris moved in at safety? Obviously with the outside so well taken care of, opposition looked down the middle for relief. And, man, did they find it from 71-74 with Cliff Harris defending! Even though Dallas “appeared” to clear up the problem (translation: Landry found a way to cover for Harris’ deficiencies. He was a Hall of Fame coach, after all) for higher pass defense rankings later on, it is pretty obvious Chuck Noll (A greater HOF Coach) wasn’t buying it (see Cliff Harris butt-of-the-joke performances in SBs X–Swann’s MVP performance, Lambert’s trashing him–and XIII–Stallworth leaving Harris in the dust, Swann skying over him for, effectively, the game-winning TD).

            Are you STILL a coward? Can you grow and be a MAN and answer these pertinent questions, which are:

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? They had multiple (five) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 12, 2018

            That’s it? I eviscerated everything you said, including a thorough debunking of your BS about pass defense rankings by pointing out that Harris’ secondary ranked much higher on average for his entire career than Easley’s did, and you just reply by repeating a couple of the refuted claims while overcompensating by calling me a “coward” every other line? Me pointing out your ACTUAL cowardice must have really stung, LOL. I already thoroughly answered all the idiotic questions you asked as anyone can read for himself, most recently in yesterday’s post that appears below this one, so stop crying like a sniveling child.

            By contrast you HAVEN’T answered pertinent questions like how you justify all those other teams I cited with fewer Super Bowl (and overall) wins than the Landry Cowboys having more HoFers from that era when your entire opposition to Dallas having any more HoFers stems from your asinine notion that they don’t deserve more because they “only” have 2 SB wins. Or why all those teams have more HoFers than the Cowboys overall when Dallas has more Super Bowl wins than even the other “dynastic” franchises being discussed. You run from those questions and other key ones because you’re a coward and when I raised them you realized they destroyed your entire position. You aren’t man enough to admit you’ve been wrong this whole discussion.

            “Then, you cowardly backpedal from the stupid comment that came from your meltdown that led you to actually say Lynn Swann and John Stallworth were “overrated.” Then lie again and say, “LOL! I’ve never had a single ‘nightmare’ about either…Swann and Stallworth are just minor (They’re in the HALL of Fame and he says ‘minor.’ SMH) historical footnotes, far less important to the outcome of SB 13 than the atrocious officiating. I like Swann as a broadcaster and because he’s a Republican. I don’t care much about Stallworth one way or the other.” Then why did you call them “overrated,” dummy?””

            They are overrated, moron. I never backpedaled (where do these delusions of yours even come from, LOL?). That’s not just my opinion but a widespread view based on the facts. They’re borderline HoF quality and they shouldn’t have been inducted as fast as they were if at all. They’re roughly equal to Drew Pearson and Tony Hill as a pair though Pearson was the best of the four.

            My objective opinion on that matter (which you raised and keep harping on, not me) doesn’t mean I have some dislike of them (unlike you I don’t base my assessments of players’ quality on whether I personally like them and their team or not) and I certainly wasn’t lying about not having any nightmares about them. The Landry dynasty is rightly remembered just fine as a glory age by Cowboys fans, whom you clearly know nothing about. There’s a reason they became “America’s Team” then, which does seem to have given YOU nightmares.

            Again, the only Cowboys/Steelers Super bowl I’m old enough to have watched live and become intensely emotionally invested in enough to have dreams about anyway was Dallas’ double digit beat down of Pittsburgh in SB 30. Maybe that’s where some of YOUR nightmares and bitter resentment of Dallas came from.

            That said, I have watched the 70s games and studied them enough to know that it was the CBs who got worked on by those few big Bradshaw passes, not Cliff Harris. So either you’re lying again or maybe in your old age your memories have become hazy and unreliable.

            Either way you’re clearly the one having a meltdown as the above, logically incoherent screed I quoted illustrates.

            “If Harris had great players–HOFers– like Renfro and Adderley manning the corners why did the pass defense drop so dramatically from third to 19th when Harris moved in at safety?”

            Isn’t the more relevant question why the Cowboys pass defense ranking improved so much once Harris became the unquestioned leader of the secondary over the last several years of his career when he was making the Pro Bowl every year, and remained around the top of the NFL until he retired, at which point it immediately collapsed and stayed mid pack or worse for years?

            Or how about the more relevant question of why Harris’ pass defense ranking was significantly higher than Easley’s poor ranking for their overall careers? Why are you dodging that, coward, LOL?

            Face it, you thought maybe you had finally stumbled into a legitimate point but you just faceplanted again. Cut your losses.

            The Dallas secondary had a lot of moving parts early in Harris’ career (they even had Charlie Waters playing CB for a while, with disastrous results), so it’s hard to pin down exactly which variables were responsible for rankings fluctuations. But it’s clear what happened when he retired, when the Cowboys suddenly dropped to mid pack and worse after being ranked among the league’s best every year, with Harris’ retirement being the only meaningful change.

            Easley never had that kind of impact on the Seahawks’ rankings. Why did their secondary significantly improve AFTER he retired?

            I’ll keep highlighting your ignorance, math deficiencies, and hypocrisy.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 12, 2018

            “…(C)alling me a “coward” every other line… I already thoroughly answered all the idiotic questions you asked…”

            Part I: Because it’s true
            Part II: You pitiful liar.

            Random example of your lying: I pointed out that HOF tandem Lynn Swann and John Stallworth are in your thoughts and nightmares, you denied it, then came back with another whining meltdown–“They are overrated, moron. I never backpedaled. Where do these delusions of yours even come from, LOL?. That’s not just my opinion but a widespread view (in Dallas?) based on the facts (the facts that show they burnt Harris to a crisp on the way to Super Bowl victories over the Landry Cowboys?). They’re borderline HoF quality (if you hadn’t noticed, Rasputin is in mid-meltdown now) and they shouldn’t have been inducted as fast (“Fast?” Swann ONLY waited 14 years; Stallworth waited 15. Totally ridiculous on the Hall’s part, bad choice of words or math on your part) as they were if at all. They’re roughly equal to Drew Pearson (All-Decade ’70s vote? Swann 21, Pearson 7) and Tony Hill (who ever talks about THAT coward anymore?) as a pair though Pearson was the best of the four (All-Decade ’70s vote–Swann 21, Pearson 7; Stallworth SB career:11 catches, 268 yds, 3 TDs; Pearson SB career: 7 catches, 145 yds, 1 TD–do I have to state Swann’s SB credentials–at the expense of Harris’ feeble coverage skills?).” They STILL kill you inside. I LOVE it!

            Until you answer these following questions with explanations (do NOT answer any question with a question) about the Landry Cowboys futility and failures in their unsuccessful quest to become a dynasty, Rasputin, this conversation will not go forward.

            Cowardly attempts to cop out on your part (the Landry Cowboys custom, I guess) will give me the luxury of simply cutting and pasting this as a constant response for your future childish, cowardly excuse-making and Landry Cowboy ramblings.

            The pertinent questions are:

            Why did a secondary that featured HOF corners (Herb Adderley and Mel Renfro) plummet from third in the league vs. the pass with Cliff Harris riding the pine in 1970 to 19th with Cliff Harris starting with them in 1971?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? They had multiple (five) opportunities. The last of those matchups, the Ice Bowl, matched against a QB whose season TD-INT ratio was 9-17 going into that game. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin? Featuring the “overrated” receiving tandem of Lynn Swann and John Stallworth? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin? Featuring that “defense that didn’t scare anyone?” They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            The Los Angeles Rams, Chicago Bears, Houston Oilers, and Raiders were able to beat at least one these dynasties multiple times during their respective times of dominance (O.J. Simpson’s Bills were even able to post ONE win. IN PITTSBURGH!). In the meantime, Landry’s Cowboys went 0-13. Couldn’t even beat ANY of them ONCE.

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 13, 2018

            Yawn. You just repeated some thoroughly debunked garbage while ignoring almost everything I said like the coward you are. You still haven’t even bothered to respond to my post below directly answering your idiotic questions in detail while (separately) posing challenging, more pertinent ones of my own. Your degeneration into logically incoherent…even panicked screed shows you really are having a meltdown, Scott. About the only new thing you said was this:

            “The Los Angeles Rams, Chicago Bears, Houston Oilers, and Raiders were able to beat at least one these dynasties multiple times during their respective times of dominance (O.J. Simpson’s Bills were even able to post ONE win. IN PITTSBURGH!). In the meantime, Landry’s Cowboys went 0-13. Couldn’t even beat ANY of them ONCE.”

            Is that your pitiful justification for all those teams having more HoFers from the Landry era than the Cowboys do, despite them winning fewer or ZERO Super Bowls (except for the Raiders)? That’s pathetic, Scott. Dallas beat all THOSE teams head to head and posted more winning seasons, playoff seasons, and had more overall success. I’m not sure whether you realize how tortured, cherry-picked, and self defeating your argument is and you’re just lying or if you’re truly this stupid. Maybe you’ve been driven insane. Your position is insane.

            You’re also still too cowardly to address why the Cowboys overall have fewer HoFers than all those teams I listed despite Dallas winning more 20th Century Super Bowls and everything else.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 13, 2018

            Until you answer these questions with explanations (do NOT answer a question with a question) about the Landry Cowboys futility and failures in their unsuccessful quest to become a dynasty, Rasputin, this conversation will not go forward.

            Cowardly attempts to cop out will give me the luxury of simply cutting and pasting this for your future childish, cowardly excuse-making and Landry Cowboy ramblings.

            The pertinent questions are:

            Why did a secondary that featured HOF corners (Herb Adderley and Mel Renfro) plummet from third in the league vs. the pass with Cliff Harris riding the pine in 1970 to 19th with Cliff Harris starting with them in 1971? And explain another attempt at deception (Rasputin lying again) by you (in reference to the 1981-90 49ers ranking in top 4 in points allowed eight of 10 years): “…Actually the Landry Cowboys did rank in the top 4 in points allowed 8 times.” But why did they only rank that high or better only ONCE during Harris time (1971-79) as the starting free safety? Top four SEVEN times WITHOUT Harris, ONCE with him in the starting lineup. Why the drop-off in both cases?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? They had multiple (five) opportunities.What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            The Los Angeles Rams, Chicago Bears, Houston Oilers, and Raiders (O.J. Simpson’s Bills were even able to post a win. IN PITTSBURGH!) were able to beat these dynasties multiple times during their respective times of dominance. In the meantime, Landry’s Cowboys went 0-13.

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

            “You’re also still too cowardly to address why the Cowboys overall have fewer HoFers than all those teams I listed despite Dallas winning more 20th Century Super Bowls and everything else.” Because these teams had better individual players than the Cowboys but their respective teams were flawed (lack of world title-caliber QB, defense, head coach, offensive line) enough to prevent them from winning a world title. I addressed this earlier but, of course, being a non-college graduate (he has yet to even name an alma mater–because Rasputin doesn’t have one) your reading comprehension sucks. The Cowboys, especially the Landry era, are well-represented in the Hall of Fame.

          • Rasputin
            April 13, 2018

            I didn’t “answer a question with a question”, you lying coward. I answered all of your idiotic questions with plenty of statements, paragraphs in some cases, and then added my more pertinent questions to you (most of which you have NOT answered) afterwards. Anyone reading this page can look below and see that. If you had finished high school maybe you’d avoid repeatedly embarrassing yourself like that. In the rest of your post you spouted the same already debunked garbage I just mocked you for reposting, except you did finally try to answer one question:

            Me: “You’re also still too cowardly to address why the Cowboys overall have fewer HoFers than all those teams I listed despite Dallas winning more 20th Century Super Bowls and everything else.”

            You: “Because these teams had better individual players than the Cowboys but their respective teams were flawed (lack of world title-caliber QB, defense, head coach, offensive line) enough to prevent them from winning a world title.”

            So you concede that there are factors other than Super Bowl wins in HoF consideration. In fact you now claim that a team with ZERO championship success can have more HoFers than a team with multiple SB wins in the same era, and you’re just fine with that. You (incorrectly) defend all those other teams with ZERO Super Bowl wins having more HoFers than the Cowboys because they allegedly had more great individual players.

            But your argument against the Landry Cowboys having more HoFers has been based on them “only” winning 2 Super Bowls. Your entire anti-Cowboys argument throughout this page has focused on the Super Bowl win count. You even attacked Chuck Howley for his team losing SB V by 3 points, a game in which Howley was literally named MVP (so it clearly wasn’t his fault as an individual player). By your own admission here the Landry Cowboys could legitimately have as many or even more HoFers than the Packers or Steelers of the same era even if they hadn’t won ANY Super Bowls.

            LMFAO! Your hypocrisy has been decisively exposed. Here’s a reminder of when part of this truth leaked out earlier:

            Scott Remington: “I don’t care about losing teams and teams that lacked world title success having more Hall of Famers than the Landry Cowboys or even the Dallas Cowboys overall.”

            Why DON’T you care about the Vikings, Oilers, or Rams having more HoFers than the Cowboys since you DO care so much about the Cowboys not having more than the Packers, Steelers, Raiders, etc.? You don’t even want Dallas to partly close the gap with those teams in HoFers. You’re so emotionally invested in arguing against the Cowboys that you’ve spammed the crap you have all over at least two pages on this site, following me to another article at one point.

            The only explanation for your hypocrisy is that you’re a rabid Cowboys hater. What’s wrong, Scott? Still having nightmares about that double digit beat down in Super Bowl 30?

            Of course the Cowboys have several players not yet in Canton who are more than qualified to be there purely on individual merits, so you’re completely wrong on every level. Your few swipes at Cowboys based on purely on individual resume have been clumsy, moronic, and easily refuted.

            The HoF is ultimately an individual award, but the Cowboys’ unsurpassed team success means at the very least that one certainly can’t ague that Dallas has too many players in already as an excuse for keeping guys like Howley, Harris, or Pearson out. To the extent team affiliation and success matter, the Cowboys are one of the most underrepresented franchises in Canton.

            Oh, and you made one more sort of new point here, though it’s so asinine that I almost feel too sorry for you to quote it:

            “Actually the Landry Cowboys did rank in the top 4 in points allowed 8 times.” But why did they only rank that high or better only ONCE during Harris time (1971-79) as the starting free safety? Top four SEVEN times WITHOUT Harris, ONCE with him in the starting lineup. Why the drop-off in both cases?”

            I don’t know. Points allowed are impacted by far more variables than pass defense is, and pass defense rankings obviously speak more to a free safety’s performance. The Dallas pass defense rankings were at their best and most consistent when Harris was running the secondary, around the NFL’s best every year, and they immediately collapsed to around mid -pack and worse after he retired. For you to try to distract from that by diverting discussion to overall team points allowed is beyond desperate, especially since those rankings were good during Harris’ era too. The Cowboys had a great defense before Harris showed up. But while he was there they ranked in the top 10 every year but one in both points allowed and yards allowed (which is actually the better measure of defensive performance because it isolates the unit more, which is why it’s called “total defense”, as I educated you on earlier), and of course both defensive rankings got considerably worse after he retired, as pass defense (also based on yards) did.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 14, 2018

            I personally love it when you try to be “brave” by answering my questions. It only exposes the enormous range of your ignorance, whining, and excuse-making.

            “The Lombardi Packers were SLIGHTLY better than Dallas during Lombardi’s brief run, as the two one score title games indicate (Ice Bowl scores by Cowboys: Field goal, Returned fumble for TD, gadget play; Ice Bowl Scores by Green Bay: All offensive TDs; One needed tricks and bloopers, the other relied on championship offensive execution). After all, the Cowboys had only been around 7 years (66 was their first ever winning season) while the Packers are older than the NFL itself. Two of the three guys I’m pushing for the HoF weren’t even on the team yet.” Brief run? The man coached in Green Bay nine years (a year more than two presidential terms) and he won five world titles in seven years, one repeat and one three-peat. That’s like saying, “Reagan’s/Clinton’s/Obama’s brief time as President.” You’re so ignorant. Lombardi’s Packers won five world titles, and dominated the 1960s. Landry’s Cowboys got nothing. We move on.

            “An excuse is a reason offered for something happening, typically a flimsy or invalid one.” The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers are a major source of Rasputin’s torture. As is the case with many Cowboys fans who look back on the Landry era. After that shocking “brief run”of logic and sanity, this comes along, yet another example of Rasputin’s butt-hurt meltdowns and Landry Cowboy excuse-making:

            “SB XIII was about atrocious officiating (both the BS passing interference call and an official literally blocking for Franco Harris on his only good run of the day), Randy White’s cast causing a key fumble on a botched Steelers kickoff they undeniably got lucky on (Tony Dungy botched an on-side kick that led to a Cowboy TD, get over it), and Jackie Smith dropping a wide open TD pass (and…that’s PITTSBURGH’S fault?) when the vaunted Steel Curtain had been hopelessly beaten on the play (Bradshaw was stripped for a fumble that Mike Hegman scored on, get over it). Landry has also been criticized for not running Dorsett enough, since the Steelers couldn’t stop him ( they sure stopped him in the rematch the next season: 19 carries 73 yards; Franco Harris, meanwhile, got 102 on 18 carries in that same game; Do I need to saw who won? LOL!) while Dallas did shut Pittsburgh’s running game down (except for the one official-aided TD). It’s not that none of those things could happen for Dallas to win. Pittsburgh needed them all to happen. If only (“If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were cherries and nuts…”–Dandy Don Meredith) one of those things didn’t happen then Dallas likely wins (why couldn’t the Cowboys hold the Steelers to a field goal on the PI call or Randy White’s fumble?), despite the Cowboys not being as good in 78 (Bull. The whole crew was back in tact, you big liar) as they were by the time they peaked in the playoffs in 1977 and 1971….Wah! Wah! Wah! Sob! Sob! Sob!” What’s the matter? Wipe your tears. It’ll be all right. The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers were just superior to the Cowboys and, as a franchise, have more Super Bowl trophies, ALL-TIME. That’s all…LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!

            “If they had played more Dallas would have won, as they did in 1972 and against the Steelers 7 games in a row in that mid 60s-early 70s stretch.”

            You mean that stretch BEFORE they drafted that “overrated” wide receiving tandem (Swann and Stallworth) that STILL torments you to this day and that other Cliff Harris-trashing terror, Jack Lambert (BTW, in the 1982 Steelers-Cowboys season opener, Dorsett was talking trash on the field about “I’m hot, I’m hot.” Lambert, wired for sound by NFL Films, stuffs him on the next play and says, “That’ll cool your ass off!” Classic!)? LMAO!!! LOL!!! You can have the “O’Donnell Gift” SB. Doesn’t torment Western PA. Big Ben put the Steelers back on top of Dallas in Super Bowls–as it should be. If Jim Harbaugh connects on the Hail Mary, the ’95 Colts would have beaten the Cowboys, anyway. I do concede Harbaugh was a better QB than O’Donnell.

            In discussing the Montana/Walsh machine (who Landry’s Cowboys NEVER beat), Rasputin is STILL too dumb to understand that the 49ers featured a great defense. I brought up the Super Bowl XVI goalline stand vs. the Bengals. His ignorant response:

            “Four WHOLE plays, LOL? (First and goal culminating in a goalline stand, barring penalties or a turnover, IS four whole plays, stupid) Ok, but a goal line stand has one decisive play at the end (No sh**, Sherlock). Otherwise it’s just the offense taking 2 or 3 plays to score, which is normal. Not that it matters.” The ‘Niners took over on downs. The game was won by five. It DID matter, stupid. YOU suck at math.

            I pointed out that Marino and Miami had been averaging three TD passes and 32 points a game and the 49ers defense held them to one TD pass and 16 points..HALF the season point average. Guess what the numbskull said:

            “Which isn’t a ‘shutdown’ (Rasputin REALLY sucks at math, people). In fact Marino averaged 317.8 yards a game that year, so he slightly exceeded his average (by a WHOLE .2 of a yard!) The 49ers sort of CONTAINED him, but that was mostly due to SF’s offense dominating the game 37:11 to 22:49 in Time of Possession (who kept getting Montana the ball back? Work it out, Rasputin) and running 76 plays to Miami’s 63 (Marino scored 28 points, threw for 340 yds and four TDs on Dallas in the ’84 regular season finale in 66 plays. THREE PLAYS really make a difference? You’re stupid). That was probably SF’s best defense in the 80s to boot, and yet they didn’t show the same level of defensive dominance that the Landry Cowboys did in the ’71 or ’77 postseasons.” In ’71 the Cowboys gave up 18 points in three postseason games. Take out two points (Alan Page safety) so that was 16 against the defense. The QBs Dallas faced in that Super Bowl run were two nobodies for the Vikings, John Brodie, and an undeserved HOF game manager. The ’84 ‘Niners gave up 26 points in their Super Bowl run. Take out seven points (Harry Carson pick six) so that was 19 against the defense. In three postseason games the 49ers faced a 4,000-yd passer and future Super Bowl MVP (Phil Simms), a backup QB, and an NFL Record-setting QB (Marino). The ’71 Cowboys got three games off. The ’84 ‘Niners did not. The ’77 Cowboys were guilty of a worse cakewalk. They gave up 23 points for that Super Bowl run (no pick sixes, fumble returns, KO or PR TDs), posted no shutouts. They faced QBs Bob Avellini, one half of the Minnesota no-name tag-team from ’71, and a Cowboy reject and his backup in SB XII. The ’84 ‘Niners had a more formidable task and they met it like a champ.

            “From 1970-1980 Landry went 7-1 against the 49ers, including 3-1 in the playoffs.” You mean…BEFORE Montana, Walsh and that excellent defense combined forces.

            As for Cliff Harris’ negative impact on defenses and lack of skill and football smarts, I reeled Rasputin into further exposing himself with this beautiful jewel.

            Rasputin: “Actually the Landry Cowboys did rank in the top 4 in points allowed 8 times.”

            Me: “But why did they only rank that high or better only ONCE during Harris time (1971-79) as the starting free safety? Top four SEVEN times WITHOUT Harris, ONCE with him in the starting lineup. Why the drop-off in both cases?”

            Rasputin: “I don’t know.”

            LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!! LMAO!!!

            Ignorant AND oblivious to Cliff Harris’ OBVIOUS deficiencies on pass coverage.

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 15, 2018

            “I personally love it when you try to be “brave” by answering my questions.”

            At least you’re finally conceding that you were lying when you cried about me allegedly not answering your questions. Too bad you’re too much of a coward to answer most of my biggest questions.

            “It only exposes the enormous range of your….excuse-making.”

            LOL! I called that BS too.

            Me (from several posts ago): “And I’ve already answered your idiotic questions, though sometimes you label the sensible, easily supportable answers “excuses” (don’t ask if you don’t want answers, moron). But to showcase how cowardly you are in NOT answering my questions I’ll answer your questions again.”

            “The man coached in Green Bay nine years”

            That’s 20 less than 29 (math biting you again), or relatively “brief”.

            Me: “The Lombardi Packers were SLIGHTLY better than Dallas during Lombardi’s brief run, as the two one score title games indicate”

            You: “Ice Bowl scores by Cowboys: Field goal, Returned fumble for TD, gadget play; Ice Bowl Scores by Green Bay: All offensive TDs; One needed tricks and bloopers, the other relied on championship offensive execution”

            And yet the result was a one score game two years in a row (you were whining something about “excuses”, LOL?). The second one was only a 4 point game. It’s also noteworthy that Dallas MADE IT to the NFL title game 2 years in a row, firmly marking them as the league’s second best team at the time even without 2 of the 3 guys I’m pushing for Canton playing yet.

            “The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers are a major source of Rasputin’s torture.”

            Hardly, LMFAO. We’ve established that you know nothing about Cowboys fans in general or me in particular. Again, my live action SB memories are of Dallas beating the Steelers by double digits. That’s clearly a source of YOUR torture.

            Me: “…and Jackie Smith dropping a wide open TD pass when the vaunted Steel Curtain had been hopelessly beaten on the play”

            You: “(and…that’s PITTSBURGH’S fault?)

            Pittsburgh had nothing to do with it, which was my point, halfwit.

            “(Bradshaw was stripped for a fumble that Mike Hegman scored on, get over it).”

            That was a great defensive play, moron, not a lucky fluke. Bradshaw wasn’t wearing a cast and the Cowboys didn’t screw up on that play the way the Steelers did on the botched kick off that accidentally went to a cast-wearing Randy White.

            Me: “Landry has also been criticized for not running Dorsett enough, since the Steelers couldn’t stop him while Dallas did shut Pittsburgh’s running game down (except for the one official-aided TD).”

            You: “they sure stopped him in the rematch the next season: 19 carries 73 yards;”

            Not in that Super Bowl. Dorsett rushed for 96 yards on 16 carries for a 6 y/c average. The Cowboys overall rushed for 154 yards on 32 carries for a 4.8 yard average.

            Dallas held Franco Harris to 68 yards on 20 carries for a 3.4 yard average, but 22 of that came on that one BS official-aided play. On his other 19 carries he only gained 46 yards for a 2.4(!) yard average. The Cowboys held the Steelers overall to 66 rushing yards on 24 carries for a 2.75 yard average.

            Even Dorsett’s 19 for 73 the next year was better and wasn’t him being “stopped”, LOL.

            Me: “It’s not that none of those things could happen for Dallas to win. Pittsburgh needed them all to happen. If only one of those things didn’t happen then Dallas likely wins, despite the Cowboys not being as good in 78 as they were by the time they peaked in the playoffs in 1977 and 1971.”

            You: “If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were cherries and nuts…”

            Hey you asked, moron. Don’t ask the question if you’re going to whine stupidly at the clear, rational answer.

            “You can have the “O’Donnell Gift” SB. Doesn’t torment Western PA.”

            It certainly tortures YOU, which is why you’re obsessed enough to humiliate yourself posting all this anti-Cowboys garbage here, LMFAO.

            “Big Ben put the Steelers back on top of Dallas in Super Bowls–as it should be.”

            Talk about “gifts”, LOL, those two SB “wins” from the officials. Unlike the idiotic assertions in your meltdown, that’s not just me talking but at least one of the officials from the Seattle Super Bowl himself who personally apologized to the Seahawks a few years later and admitted he had “kicked” (blown) multiple huge calls that game. That type of admission rarely happens.

            And no. Dallas should be on top in SB wins given the fact that the Cowboys have the highest overall winning percentage in the entire league, and are tied for first (ahead of Pittsburgh) in number of playoff seasons. Not bad for a team that’s only been around since 1960.

            Just think though….all Dallas has to do is win a single Super Bowl before the Steelers do and Dallas is back on top….tied with Pittsburgh in SB wins but ahead due to the tiebreakers. 🙂

            Next you have a lengthy, hilarious meltdown where you cry about my detailed dismantling of your ignorant attempt to compare the 80s 49er defense to Doomsday of the 70s. Most of your retorts are too irrational, petty, and pointless to merit a response, but you address Dallas’ more impressive dominance by going through desperate contortions to pretend that the 84 49ers faced better opposition in the postseason than the 71 or 77 Cowboys.

            Wrong. First, you have no response to me skewering your claim that Marino was supposedly “shut down” by SF by pointing out that he actually exceeded his 317.8 yards/per game average that season in the Super Bowl (your idiotic reply, though not a substantive response, was “by a WHOLE .2 of a yard!”, LMFAO; pathetic). You can’t call it “shutting down” if he passed for more yardage than his season average. Even if he had been held to less than his average (like 1 TD instead of 3) that’s not necessarily being “shut down”. My description that the 49ers “sort of contained him” is more apt. And I’ve always said SF had a good defense. Not great but good, and one of the better defenses in the league that year, so one would expect them to hold Marino to lower than his averages. It’s not even shocking that a good (but not great) defense can come up with an occasional goal line stand. Even bad defenses do it sometimes. But I also showed in detail how SF’s great offense helped its defense and skewed the stats (such as they were), by racking up a huge time of possession advantage and running a lot more plays than their opponents. Since we’ve established that you know very little about football, I educated you on the ball control nature of the short range, high percentage passing of the West Coast offensive system.

            Holding Broncos QB Craig Morton to a 0.0 passer rating or Miami’s entire team to only 3 points for the only time in SB history as Doomsday did are examples of truly shutting people down.

            However, your statement here is the height of idiocy:

            “The ’71 Cowboys got three games off. The ’84 ‘Niners did not.”

            You go on to claim that the 84 49ers faced 3 better QBs than the 71 Cowboys did. Let’s scrutinize that assertion. SF faced Phil Simms, a journeyman back up Bears QB named Steve Fuller, and Marino. Dallas faced HoFer Bob Griese, the 49ers’ John Brodie, and a Vikings backup named Gary Cuozzo. Let’s stipulate that Marino is the best passer of that bunch (his Dolphins did rack up 16 points, as many as the 71 Dallas defense allowed in its 3 playoff games combined), but Bob Griese is also a HoFer and was a great QB who was first team All Pro in 71. His HoF WR Paul Warfield was also first team All Pro that year.

            And John Brodie was a 2 time Pro Bowler and 1 time first team All Pro who was NFL MVP the previous season! (Dallas beat him that year too). Brodie led the NFL in passing yards 3 years, passing TDs twice, completion percentage twice, and passer rating once. Phil Simms never led the league in any of those things, was never league MVP, and was never first team All Pro. Simms did win a Super Bowl while Brodie didn’t (because Dallas kept beating him in the playoffs), but then Marino never won a Super Bowl while Bob Griese won 2.

            John Brodie was better than Phil Simms. And while the 84 Bears backup Steve Fuller only started 4 games in the regular season, going 2-2, the 71 Vikings backup to Norm Snead, Gary Cuozzo, started 8 games during the season, going 6-2. McMahon started most of the 84 Bears’ games and missed the 49ers playoff game but Cuozzo started most of the Vikings’s games that year and got them to the playoffs.

            So you’re wrong. On balance the 71 Cowboys faced better QBs than the 84 49ers if anything.

            And you just focused on QBs. You completely ignored the RUNNING GAME. The 84 Dolphins only ranked 16th in rushing, which is why I earlier called them “one dimensional”. The 71 Dolphins ranked #1 in rushing and had 2 Pro Bowl RBs that year, Mercury Morris and HoFer Larry Csonka who was also first team All Pro that season.

            There’s no question that because of their great defense (ranked 5th in 1971 while Marino’s ranked 19th) the early 70s Dolphins were a much greater overall team than their 80s counterparts, but they also had a better overall offense than the 80s Dolphins did because of that superior balance. If you could contain Marino then the 80s Dolphins were done. But if you managed to shut down the 70s Dolphins’ mighty rushing attack they could still beat you with a HoF passing game.

            Griese, an 8 time Pro Bowler (that’s twice as many as Ken Stabler), didn’t always throw the ball much early on because he didn’t need to in their system, but he showed he COULD pass up and down the field when circumstances changed.

            But not against Doomsday, who held him to 134 yards, under 50% completion, and a 51.7 passer rating in the Super Bowl (he posted a 90.9 season rating, 2nd only to Staubach). Chuck Howley intercepted him to seal the win.

            Doomsday also held the great Miami running game, that had averaged an NFL best 176.4 yards/game that season, to only 80 yards, its lowest output of the year.

            The 71 49ers were also balanced offensively. They ranked 3rd in overall offense, 4th in passing, and 9th in rushing. Doomsday held John Brodie to a 26.9 rating after he had torched the Redskins and Lions with ratings of 119.6 and 117.9 respectively in his previous two games.

            Cliff Harris intercepted him in that NFC Championship game. Dallas held the 49ers to only 61 rushing yards after they had averaged 152.1 that season.

            By contrast the 84 Giants weren’t that balanced on offense. They ranked 5th in passing but only 22nd in rushing. Overall they only ranked 19th in scoring and 13th in yards, so they weren’t that good offensively in general.

            The 84 Bears did rank #1 in rushing but they only ranked 26th in passing and that was WITH their starter McMahon playing most of the season. He was out for the playoff game against San Francisco so against a backup QB with little experience the 49ers were able to focus on just stopping the run. A shut out in that gimme game isn’t surprising. Even then the Bears still rushed for 149 yards. It was Fuller’s inability to pass that was the problem.

            The 71 Vikings mostly just had a great defense, which ranked 1st in scoring and 2nd overall that year. But even they ranked slightly higher than the 84 Giants in offensive scoring.

            In fact all 3 Cowboys opponents ranked in the top 6 defensively in BOTH scoring and yards. Only the Bears did that among the 84 49ers’ opponents (3rd in scoring and 1st in yards). So Dallas’ opponents also had better defenses helping out their offenses.

            The Cowboys’ opponents were better offensively and overall.

            The 1971 49ers and Dolphins, who both ranked top 10 in scoring (the 84 Dolphins’ two non-Miami opponents only ranked 19th and 16th in scoring, btw) were both held to 3 points.

            It’s not just that Dallas was more dominant against better opponents than the 84 49ers were, it’s that the Cowboys did things NO ONE else has done no matter how good their opposition was. Even you can’t claim their opponents were in the ballpark of the worst ever. So why has no one in the SB era but the 85 Bears (who really did play some easier competition) allow fewer postseason points than the 71 Cowboys? Why has no one else been able to hold their SB opponent without a TD the way Dallas did against the great Dolphins?

            THAT’S a shut down. I’ve talked about the 77 Cowboys before and might more in the future but I’ve spent enough time for now schooling you on this.

            Me: “From 1970-1980 Landry went 7-1 against the 49ers, including 3-1 in the playoffs.”

            You: “You mean…BEFORE Montana, Walsh and that excellent defense combined forces.”

            I mean when Cliff Harris (and Chuck Howley early on) were playing (except for 1980 when Drew Pearson was still there), when Doomsday ranked around the top of the league every year, unlike the 80s when the defense had fallen to mid pack, especially the secondary.

            “As for Cliff Harris’ negative impact on defenses and lack of skill and football smarts,”

            LMFAO! I’ll keep bludgeoning you with this sledge hammer:

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            You lose again, Scott. Badly.

            “I reeled Rasputin into further exposing himself with this beautiful jewel.”

            You’re deluding yourself again. I love how you quote me saying “I don’t know” and then completely ignore EVERYTHING I SAID IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, you buffoon, LOL!

            That and everything else you said has already been debunked. Your cowardly attempts at lying and cherry-picking get crushed every time.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 16, 2018

            “First, you have no response to me skewering your claim that Marino was supposedly “shut down” by SF by pointing out that he actually exceeded his 317.8 yards/per game average that season in the Super Bowl (your idiotic reply, though not a substantive response, was “by a WHOLE .2 of a yard!”, LMFAO; pathetic). You can’t call it “shutting down” if he passed for more yardage than his season average. Even if he had been held to less than his average (like 1 TD instead of 3) that’s not necessarily being “shut down”. My description that the 49ers “sort of contained him” is more apt.”

            You never skewered my claim because it is a lost cause. Your attempt at debunking the SB XIX shutdown of Marino is not “more apt.” It is simply more of your ignorance. To say that the 49ers didn’t shut down Dan Marino in SB XIX is a person who is thinking like a fool or hiding from reality, which you have done everywhere on this sight. More Rasputin ignorance followed, as usual: “…and (the 49ers had) one of the better defenses in the league that year.” in, 1984 the 49ers “only” gave up the fewest points in the NFL that season. They weren’t one of the better defenses that year. They were THE BEST defense that season, dummy. The fact that you are ejaculating over the fact that Marino passed for .2 (yes, people, POINT TWO–and he is stupid enough to call me “pathetic”) of a yard above his season average is another display of your ignorance and stupidity (when has anyone ever passed for 317.8 yards in one game. Show us and prove me wrong, Rasputin). A player is averaging three a game and is held to one, a player is scoring 32 a game and he is held to 16 (sliced in half), he loses the game and that’s not a shutdown? Additionally, further exposing Rasputin’s idiocy, the ’49ers sacked Marino four times in that game to culminate a season when Marino was sacked 14 times in 16 games. Marino was a much greater challenge than Miami’s Game Manager from 13 years earlier. Doomsday had to cover Warfield? The ‘Niners had to deal with Mark Duper AND Mark Clayton. And they successfully shut them down in a Super Bowl in a pass-happy era. Ummm…how did the Doomsday defense do vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth in Super Bowl XIII? LMAO!!! Bradshaw and Marino BOTH passed for 318 yards. Who had the better game? Which DEFENSE had the better game? LOL!!!

            This is why you are so stupid, Rasputin. You look at yards, the ranking of those teams based on yards, and the ranking of those players based on yards (yards are only relevant when discussing running backs or whether determining if a receiver is a true game-breaker) instead of looking at the most important things: The scoreboard (points scored/points allowed) and the won/lost column. When a player/team scores half of what they are regularly scoring and their team loses, they have been shut down. Being a noncollege graduate, I can see how that fact would elude you.

            The rag-tag QB combo of the ’71 Vikings don’t add up to Phil Simms, Brodie was better than the ’84 Bears’ back-up (just like Tony Romo was better than Quincy Carter. Eyes roll) , and that Miami game manager (who was CARRIED to two world titles by Larry Csonka) was far inferior to Dan Marino. Love the way you desperately tried to twist it into the ’71 Cowboys favor and love the way you ducked the sorry ’77 crop of playoff QBs that the ’77 Cowboys faced altogether, coward.

            The Cowboys were not the definitive “second-best team in the NFL” in ’66 and ’67. The Colts were better but played in the same division/conference as the Packers and would prove they were better than Dallas in Super Bowl V. The ’67 Rams were also a better team than Dallas, crushing them with the Fearsome Foursome–in Dallas, 35-13. Like the Colts they played in the same division/conference as Green Bay. Dallas was simply benefiting from the retirement of Jim Brown.

            As for the collective Landry Cowboy excuses about what went wrong in SB XIII, let’s get a few things straight. Actually, they are simply facts that Landry Cowboys fans have yet to come to terms with to this day:

            A) Jackie Smith’s drop is the Cowboy’s fault. As Lynn Swann said, “This game (The Super Bowl) provides you with two opportunities: To be a hero (Rocky Bleier’s leaping TD catch) or be a goat (Jackie Smith’s drop). We took that opportunity, and now we are recognized as heroes.”

            B) Landry put SMITH in on that play, not Billy Joe DuPree.

            C) The Cowboys signed Smith out of retirement. No one FORCED him on them.

            D) The PI against Lynn Swann could have been overcome if the Cowboys had held the Steelers to a field goal. Instead, in the ensuing action: 1. Hollywood Henderson gets Franco steamed, prompting him to tell Bradshaw in the huddle “Give me the ball” 2. In yet another act of stupidity and lack of football savvy, Cliff Harris convinces Charlie Waters to flip flop safety positions on the next play to “confuse Bradshaw.” Waters, like an idiot, agrees. Franco Harris runs up the middle, as Waters runs into a game official, and scores easily. No doubt Cliff Harris would have had a better feel for where that official would have been and been in place to make the tackle. But, of course, Franco would have run over Cliff anyway. Way to go, Cliff!

            E) The ensuing Kickoff fumble was all Randy White’s fault because: 1. If the ball comes to you as a defensive lineman, you either a) fall on it or b) if you do pick it up, simply turn and pitch it to the teammate assigned to return it, understand your limitations 2. A please don’t handle the ball with a cast.

            F) Didn’t run Dorsett enough? Did it help matters any more that Dorsett botched a reverse handoff to Drew Pearson? How about a Staubach fumble after being sacked by Mean Joe Greene? And be clear, it wasn’t a blind side sack.

            The Cowboys sowed the seeds of their own destruction.

            Yet another attempt to promote and defend the pathetic, sorry, overrated Cliff Harris: “…unlike the 80s when the defense had fallen to mid pack, especially the secondary.” And what happened to the third-ranked 1970 Cowboys pass defense of Bob Lilly, Mel Renfro, and Herb Adderley when Cliff Harris moved in with them in the starting lineup in ’71? Harris and his deficiencies were like an anvil, dropping them all the way down to 19th (they stayed there the next season, and creeped up to 16th in ’73 and finished 14th in ’74). Obviously, after four years of constant burnings and brushfires in the secondary, Landry found ways to cover up for Harris’ flaws and shortcomings. The only problem for the Cowboys of the ’70s was Chuck Noll, Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth were not fooled by the camouflaging of Landry to save Harris.

            More Landry Cowboy wallowing in self-pity and hypotheticals:
            “And no. Dallas should be on top in SB wins given the fact that the Cowboys have the highest overall winning percentage in the entire league, and are tied for first (ahead of Pittsburgh) in number of playoff seasons. Not bad for a team that’s only been around since 1960.

            Just think though….all Dallas has to do is win a single Super Bowl before the Steelers do and Dallas is back on top….tied with Pittsburgh in SB wins..” But they aren’t. Because of those two huge losses to Pittsburgh in the ’70s. I LOVE IT!!!

            “(P)osting all this anti-Cowboys garbage here…” Yes, because it is a part of this site glorifying the Lombardi Packers and other DYNASTIES. Landry’s Cowboys need not apply or visit. Take your excuse-making, pseudo-“dynasty” to somewhere more appropriate, like an article on Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, or Drew Pearson. Quit contaminating these dynasties’ sites with your butt-hurt crying for losing key title games to Lombardi’s Packers, the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers , or the Montana/Walsh 49ers, all of whom destroyed the Dallas legacy, hopes, dreams, and Hall of Fame aspirations.

            Let me remind you yet again. The Landry Cowboys are well-represented, perhaps even over-represented, in the Hall of Fame (Bob Hayes?). And all the logic and math I need:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 17, 2018

            You implicitly concede I’m right by not even bothering to challenge the facts I posted about the 71 Cowboys’ playoff opponents having better rushing games, total defenses, and overall teams than the 84 49ers’ opponents. Your half-hearted post simply repeats some already debunked assertions and retreats into lamely trying to focus on QBs, and really only one QB at that. I crushed you again and you know it.

            Marino passed for more yards in the Super Bowl than his season per game average, so he wasn’t “shut down”, you drooling moron. Admit you erred in that claim like a man and salvage some semblance of dignity. Holding his team to “only” 16 points, as many as the 71 Cowboys defense allowed in the entire postseason combined, isn’t shutting him down either. It’s simply less than his average (“contained”), which is typical for a loss.

            Again, a true shut down is Cliff Harris and Doomsday holding Broncos QB Craig Morton to a 0.0(!) passer rating, or Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, and Doomsday holding the great early 70s Dolphins, who were much better than the 80s’ version of Miami, to an all time SB record low of 3 points.

            And even if SF had shut down Marino (which they didn’t), so what? We established that the 71 Cowboys even faced better QBs on average, and certainly better overall teams. You’ve lost. Again.

            “Doomsday had to cover Warfield? The ‘Niners had to deal with Mark Duper AND Mark Clayton.”

            LMFAO!! Not only did Doomsday have to shut down HoFers Warfield and Griese (none of Marino’s WRs were HoFers), but they also had to shut down HoF RB Larry Csonka, multiple career Pro Bowl RB Jim Kiick, and that great offensive line, not to mention Pro Bowl kick returner Mercury Morris setting them up. That’s why the early 70s Dolphins had a better offense overall than the 80s Dolphins did. Marino’s regular season passing skewed the rankings a little but they were one dimensional, while the great 70s Dolphins teams were versatile and therefore harder to shut down (no coincidence they went undefeated the following season). And those Dolphins had a truly great defense helping their offense have more opportunities, unlike Marino’s very mediocre defense.

            And yet Doomsday TRULY shut them down, running and passing. No other team has done that in the Super Bowl before or since. An awesome display of dominance.

            “The rag-tag QB combo of the ’71 Vikings don’t add up to Phil Simms, Brodie was better than the ’84 Bears’ back-up (just like Tony Romo was better than Quincy Carter. Eyes roll) , and that Miami game manager (who was CARRIED to two world titles by Larry Csonka) was far inferior to Dan Marino.”

            Wrong. You got the comparisons mixed up, moron. Brodie was significantly better than Simms (the 71 49ers QB was NFL MVP the previous season). Griese plus Warfield were both HoFers and first team All Pros that year, meaning they’re at least in the ballpark of Marino. And the 71 Vikings backup was better than the 84 Bears backup. So the 71 Cowboys faced better QBs than the 84 49ers in 2 out of 3 games, with the remaining one both featuring HoFers and almost being a wash.

            Plus when you FACTOR IN that running game you mentioned as an aside in your myopic attack on Griese but keep ignoring the relevance of, it’s not even close. Doomsday faced much better opposition than the 84 49ers and was more dominant.

            “Ummm…how did the Doomsday defense do vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth in Super Bowl XIII?”

            LOL! Different era, teams, rules, and circumstances, loser. Still they did almost as well as the Steel Curtain that year and a lot better than the 49ers did when they got blasted 49-3 in the 86 playoffs by the Giants (losing decisively to them a second year in a row) or surrendered over 400 yards in back to back playoff games in 83. Scott Remington, the coward: “Ummm”…..”Ummm” waving a white flag on the actual discussion by desperately trying to change the subject.

            “More Rasputin ignorance followed, as usual: “…and (the 49ers had) one of the better defenses in the league that year.” in, 1984 the 49ers “only” gave up the fewest points in the NFL that season. They weren’t one of the better defenses that year. They were THE BEST defense that season, dummy.”

            But their defense only ranked 10th overall in 1984, oh truly ignorant one. And those rankings were not just inflated by their ball control, great West Coast system offense (I educated you on football basics earlier), but by their sorry NFC West schedule. Even the Rams, the only other winning team in the division, ranked 21st in offense. The Falcons ranked 19th and the Saints ranked 20th. In fact Ten….TEN of their games that year were against offenses that ranked 19th or worse. The 49ers had a good, but not historically great, defense.

            “You look at yards, the ranking of those teams based on yards, and the ranking of those players based on yards (yards are only relevant when discussing running backs or whether determining if a receiver is a true game-breaker) instead of looking at the most important things: The scoreboard (points scored/points allowed) and the won/lost column.”

            Wrong again. I look at and have posted about all those things, moron. But yards are more relevant than just evaluating RBs and “game-breaker” WRs (like you have any idea what makes a great receiver, LOL). They’re the basis of “total defense” and “total offense”. I didn’t name them that. I’ve just been educating you on why they’re called that. If you had finished high school maybe your reading comprehension wouldn’t be too atrocious for you to have grasped that by now.

            “Harris and his deficiencies were like an anvil, dropping them all the way down to 19th (they stayed there the next season, and creeped up to 16th in ’73 and finished 14th in ’74). Obviously, after four years of constant burnings and brushfires in the secondary, Landry found ways to cover up for Harris’ flaws and shortcomings.”

            You mean once Cliff Harris started going to his 6 consecutive Pro Bowls and 3 first team All Pros from the mid to late 70s, LMFAO?

            Wrong, moron. As I educated you earlier, the “brushfires” in the early 70s were about the CB position, which even saw Charlie Waters playing that position for a while and getting famously burned by various WRs. Plus Herb Adderley was a shell of his former self and Mel Renfro was in the waning years of his career. I’d love to embarrass you by asking you to articulate precisely how Landry “shored up” this supposed liability who was first team All Decade and by far the most decorated Dallas DB of that era, given that we’ve established you know very little about football, but I’ll just crush you again with this awesome sledgehammer that doesn’t get old.

            Dallas Pass Defense Rankings

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Cliff Harris was the one who SHORED UP the secondary, and it collapsed considerably right after he retired.

            As for 1971, Harris wasn’t even the starter for the full season. Charlie Waters was the starting FS through the first 3 games until he was replaced by Harris who started the final 11 and all 3 playoff games.

            Let’s examine Harris’ ACTUAL impact:

            1971 Dallas Defense Regular Season

            Without Harris Starting
            186 passing yards/game allowed, 285.3 total yards/game allowed, 21.3 points/game allowed

            With Harris Starting
            160.5 passing yards/game allowed, 237.45 total yards/game allowed, 14.36 points/game allowed

            That’s without getting into his excellent contribution as a kickoff returner, where the speedy, athletic, fearless Harris averaged 28.4 yards/kick that year.

            What’s funny is that even the irrelevant diversionary tangents you obsess over where you feel you have the illusion of some good point collapse completely under scrutiny, LOL.

            “The Cowboys were not the definitive “second-best team in the NFL” in ’66 and ’67. The Colts were better but played in the same division/conference as the Packers and would prove they were better than Dallas in Super Bowl V.”

            Oh please. Even you don’t believe that, liar. Aside from 1970 being 3 and 4 years removed from 66/67 (with Don Meredith and
            Don Perkins being gone for one thing), experts (not just Cowboys fans) almost universally agree in hindsight that the 1970 Cowboys were better than the Colts, and that the weaker team “won” that Super Bowl (which saw even worse officiating than SB 13). Heck, in 1969 the Cowboys blew out the Colts 27-10 (and swept Vince Lombardi’s Redskins by double digits twice for the record).

            The Packers swept both the Colts and Rams in 66, blowing the Colts out 24-3 in one game and handling the Rams 24-13 in another. Dallas played Green Bay closely in the NFL title game and Lombardi indicated after the Super Bowl that the Cowboys were the 2nd best team out of the combined NFL/AFL.

            The Cowboys gave the Packers by far their closest playoff game in 67 too, a 4 pointer this time at Green Bay to boot. After Green Bay lost to both the Colts and the Rams in the regular season (neither of whom were in Green Bay’s division by then), the Packers blew out the Rams 28-7 in the postseason while Dallas crushed the Browns 52-14. Green Bay beat the Raiders in the Super Bowl 33-14.

            The 12-2 1968 Cowboys were actually probably the best Dallas team of the decade. That year the Colts peaked (ultimately losing to the underdog Jets in the Super Bowl), but with Green Bay falling off the map (posting a losing record of 6-7-1 that year) the Cowboys were considered to be at least the 2nd best NFL team that year too. They just underachieved by losing to a Browns team in the playoffs that Dallas had blown out 52-14 in the previous year’s playoffs and again 28-7 in the 68 regular season.

            Every year from 1966 through the early 70s Dallas was either in the NFL/NFC title game or in the top contenders mix and expected to make the title game. You can’t say that about any other team.

            But I note yet more sorry hypocrisy from you in acknowledging that teams success isn’t defined solely by winning the Super Bowl, and in your claim that the better team doesn’t even necessarily make it the farthest.

            “The ’67 Rams were also a better team than Dallas, crushing them with the Fearsome Foursome–in Dallas, 35-13.”

            By that logic the Colts, Steelers, Vikings, Rams, and 49ers were better than the 66 and 67 Packers since all those teams beat Green Bay in the regular season those years.

            “love the way you ducked the sorry ’77 crop of playoff QBs that the ’77 Cowboys faced altogether”

            No, I already educated you on that earlier, though it’s funny that you’re focusing only on QBs (and even getting that wrong, especially the 71 opponents) while ignoring the rest of the teams, you dimwitted coward.

            Craig Morton was a good QB who’s in the Denver ring of honor, who’s only one of three men to lead two different franchises to the Super Bowl, and who had just torched the Raiders and Steelers with 100+ passer ratings his previous two games. So Cliff Harris and Doomsday holding him (or anyone else frankly) to a 0.0 rating in SB 12 is a big deal.

            The Broncos went 12-2 and were a great defensive team on a roll that had a decent offense that ranked 10th in scoring and had picked things up mightily in its last several games (they averaged 315 yards/game in their last 6 games against teams other than Dallas; for perspective the league average was 286 that year). They had balance between Morton (and receivers with multiple career Pro Bowls like Haven Moses and TE Riley Odoms) and a good rushing committee led by Otis Armstrong (2 career Pro Bowls).

            Denver avenged one of its 2 losses when it beat the Raiders in the playoffs a week after beating the Steelers by double digits. Its other regular season loss was to Dallas.

            The 77 Bears featured Walter Payton, like the 84 Bears, but Payton’s best year was 1977. He was NFL MVP and won his lone rushing title with 1,852 yards in 14 games for an incredible average of 132.3 yards/game and 5.5 yards/attempt. By contrast in 84 Payton gained a more down to earth 1,684 yards in 16 games for a 105.3 yards/game average and 4.4 yards/attempt.

            The Bears ranked #1 in rushing in both 77 and 84, but in 77 ranked 21st in passing versus 26th in 84 (with McMahon playing most of the season). Bob Avellini was the full time starter in 77, actually had a winning record as a starter, and was better that year than backup Stever Fuller was in 84.

            The 77 Bears ranked 3rd in total offense and 13th in scoring, compared to the 84 Bears who ranked 7th in total offense and 16th in scoring even with McMahon playing QB (who was out for the 49ers game). So the Bears certainly had a better offense when they faced Dallas in 77 than when they faced the 49ers in 84.

            The 77 Vikings were roughly similar to the 84 Giants in that they ranked mid pack on both sides of the ball. Bob Lee had to step in for an injured Tarkenton, however the Vikings still had 5 HoFers on the field against Dallas’ 3 HoF starters. If you don’t think they were that hot and Dallas outclassed them then call for that skewed ratio to change. The Vikings also had Pro Bowler RB Chuck Foreman (5 career Pro Bowls), 2 WRs with multiple career Pro Bowls each (Sammy White made the Pro Bowl that year and Ahmad Rashad led the NFC in receptions), and other Pro Bowlers all over the field.

            Dallas blasted Chicago and its 3rd ranked offense 37-0 until the Bears threw a garbage time TD pass late when the Cowboys were cycling in backups.

            Doomsday shut down Walter Payton at his best. holding him to 60 yards on 19 attempts for a 3.16 average. The Cowboys held the Bears’ total rushing yards to 81, by far their lowest output of the season and the only game they failed to gain over 100.

            There’s a clip floating around of Cliff Harris stoning Walter Payton one on one when both are squared up. Harris also recovered a fumble that game.

            By contrast the 84 49ers only beat the Bears and their 7th ranked offense 23-0. Despite backup QB Fuller posing absolutely no threat, a Walter Payton near the end of his career managed to gain 92 yards on 22 attempts for a 4.2 average, and SF allowed 149 rushing yards to Chicago overall.

            Doomsday held the Vikings and all their HoFers and Pro Bowlers to 2 field goals. One came after a long kick off return to the 48 yard line, immediately followed by a 44 yard passing interference call on Charlie Waters where both he and Benny Barnes got there in plenty of time to stop any chance of the completion but simply hit the WR slightly too early. Minnesota had 1st and goal at the Cowboys 8 and Doomsday stopped them cold to force the field goal.

            That’s why solely relying on points allowed to judge defensive performance is stupid, as I’ve educated you. Other factors like special teams and turnovers impact that stat more than they impact yards.

            The other Vikings field goal came on a drive where Harvey Martin forced a Chuck Foreman fumble at one point that was clearly recovered by DD Lewis but the officials failed to properly award possession to the Cowboys (Lewis tossed the ball away in frustration). The Replay clearly showed Foreman’s legs were still up when he lost the ball.

            Doomsday still held Minnesota to its lowest point total of the year. Pro Bowl RB Chuck Foreman, with 2 HoF lineman blocking for him and a 3rd O-lineman in his 3rd of 4 Pro Bowl years, was held to just 59 yards on 21 carries for a 2.8 average just a week after he had rushed for over 100 against a great Rams defense.

            When you watch these old games Cliff Harris is all over the place making ferocious tackles or at least getting into the action at the end on seemingly almost every play on every part of the field. He’s one of the great hustle players in NFL history. You almost never see a receiver he’s covering catch the ball.

            Dallas had also beaten the Vikings (with Tarkenton) early in the regular season. It’s hard to beat an NFL team twice in the same year but the Cowboys had to do that to two good teams in the playoffs.

            Dallas had also beaten the Broncos in the regular season 14-6. The rematch would be even more dominant. The Cowboys crushed Denver 27-10 in a game that wasn’t as close as the score indicated.

            The Bronco’s lone field goal came after they had been stopped and failed on a fake punt that lost 4 yards. But a Dallas penalty gave them a fresh set of downs in field goal range.

            The Bronco’s lone TD was set up by a 67 yard kick off return by playmaker Rick Upchurch (Cliff Harris would knock him unconscious a little later on a passing play). That’s widely considered to have been the hardest hitting SB of all time, and Cliff Harris was a big part of that.

            The starting Dallas defense didn’t really give up a true, legitimate long scoring drive the entire postseason. Again, that illustrates the ignorance of judging defenses solely by points allowed.

            Conversely, the Cowboys helped their offense a lot by generating 19 turnovers in the 14 game regular season and another 19(!) in the postseason. The 84 49ers forced 10 turnovers in the 16 game season and 6 in the playoffs.

            Harvey Martin, with a league-leading 20 sacks (in 14 games), was named Defensive Player of the Year. No 80s 49er ever won that award. Martin and Randy White shared Super Bowl MVP status, the second time that award went to a Cowboy defender (Howley being the first defender ever named SB MVP). That remains the only time it was given to multiple players and it’s a testament to how dominant the entire defensive unit was. As the unquestioned best player in the secondary, Cliff Harris was a huge part of that. The 49ers’ SB MVPs were all offensive players. All of them.

            Dallas held Morton, a good QB, to a 0.0 rating and the Broncos overall to incredibly just 35 net passing yards. That was by far Denver’s lowest number of the year, and the 156 total yards Dallas held them to was also their lowest.

            Their dominance on the scoreboard aside, the 77 Cowboys’ real claim to defensive fame was in total defense. They only allowed 229.5 yards/game, one of the lowest figures in modern history. That, combined with their championship success, firmly puts them in the argument for greatest defense of all time. For perspective the 84 49ers allowed 323.5 yards/game. Yes there was passing stat inflation but that’s still a huge difference and also reflects SF’s #10 ranking in total defense that year. The league average of 329.8 was only 2% higher. By contrast the 1977 league average of 285.8 yards/game was a full 25% higher than #1 ranked Doomsday’s average.

            “Because of those two huge losses to Pittsburgh in the ’70s.”

            “Huge”, LOL? 4 points with controversies to boot? The Steelers’ loss to the Cowboys in SB 30 was by a bigger, more decisive margin than those two 70s games COMBINED.

            And you’re wrong. The Cowboys would have the tiebreaks if they make it to and win another SB first because they’d have more conference championships, 9 to 8 (the primary tie breaker), and they currently have a much higher overall winning percentage.

            All Time Winning Percentage
            Dallas Cowboys – .573 (1st)
            Pittsburgh Steelers – .529 (11th)

            For what it’s worth Dallas also has the head to head edge in the all time series with Pittsburgh, 17-15.

            They should have about as many HoFers, at least from the modern era, especially since Dallas had two separate extended runs of elite success (2 different “dynasties” one might say, lol) and the 21st Century Steelers mostly aren’t eligible yet, but due to the anti-Cowboys bias they’re not even close.

            “As for the collective Landry Cowboy excuses about what went wrong in SB XIII”

            Correction: that was me answering your idiotic questions, you lying coward. We shouldn’t even be discussing that diversionary garbage because the fluky outcome of those two 4 point games shouldn’t impact the HoF candidacies of the players being discussed, all of whom have SB rings anyway and so don’t have to face the Marino hurdles.

            Me: “…and Jackie Smith dropping a wide open TD pass when the vaunted Steel Curtain had been hopelessly beaten on the play”

            You: “and…that’s PITTSBURGH’S fault?”

            Me: “Pittsburgh had nothing to do with it, which was my point, halfwit.”

            You: “Jackie Smith’s drop is the Cowboy’s fault.”

            Wow. Man, your reading comprehension sucks. I’m not sure you’d be much smarter even if you had finished high school.

            Yes. Again, it was an unearned fluky break for Pittsburgh on a play in which their defense had been thoroughly beaten.

            “Landry put SMITH in on that play, not Billy Joe DuPree….The Cowboys signed Smith out of retirement. No one FORCED him on them.”

            Jackie Smith is in the HoF because he was normally sure handed. That’s why the SB drop was so fluky and out of character.

            “The PI against Lynn Swann could have been overcome if the Cowboys had held the Steelers to a field goal.”

            It was a totally BS PI call without which the Steelers’ drive would have been stopped and the rest of the game would have been entirely different. Of course it could have been overcome if Dallas stopped them again on that drive, or scored 10 more TDs, or any number of other things, but that’s a specious retort that misses the point.

            BTW, the Steelers could have stopped the Cowboys from scoring after Larry Brown’s two interceptions in SB 30……but they didn’t. Except those plays, which were both legal and involved no interference from the officials, actually resulted in part because the ferocious Dallas pass rush had been knocking O’Donnell around all day, Cowboys pass rushers started to break through early, and O’Donnell felt pressured into firing prematurely. Brown also caught both passes and had good returns. Those were Steelers mistakes but also earned by the Cowboys.

            “Franco Harris runs up the middle, as Waters runs into a game official, and scores easily.”

            Actually the official ran into Waters and clumsily (that’s the charitable explanation) sustained contact rather than bailing out immediately in a 90 degree direction to minimize his interference in the game.

            “No doubt Cliff Harris would have had a better feel for where that official would have been and been in place to make the tackle. But, of course, Franco would have run over Cliff anyway.”

            LOL! Even you don’t believe that nonsense. Walter Payton and Larry Csonka didn’t run over Cliff Harris. Neither did Franco Harris. Franco was held to a pathetic 2.4 yards/carry average outside of that one play.

            “The ensuing Kickoff fumble was all Randy White’s fault”

            Sure, but the kick off was an accidental botch by the Steelers, and Randy White normally wasn’t playing with a cast on his arm. It was a fluky, lucky play.

            “Didn’t run Dorsett enough? Did it help matters any more that Dorsett botched a reverse handoff to Drew Pearson?”

            A trick play? What does that have to do with him averaging 6 yards/carry?

            “Did it help matters any more that Dorsett botched a reverse handoff to Drew Pearson? How about a Staubach fumble after being sacked by Mean Joe Greene?”

            But even with all that stuff happening Dallas likely wins if just one of the unearned flukes I cited doesn’t happen.

            ““(P)osting all this anti-Cowboys garbage here…” Yes, because it is a part of this site glorifying the Lombardi Packers and other DYNASTIES. Landry’s Cowboys need not apply or visit.”

            Except you had no interest in running down all those non-dynastic teams I listed with more HoFers than Dallas. You’re only hostile to Dallas, and are clearly seething with hatred for the team.

            Could that be related to that double digit beatdown by the Cowboys the last time they tangled with the Steelers in the Super Bowl?

            Still giving you nightmares? Probably doesn’t help that Dallas has beaten Pittsburgh the last 2 times the teams have played. In fact despite this being one of the most mediocre decades in Dallas history, the Cowboys are UNDEFEATED against the Steelers for the 2010s, LOL. Why can’t the Steelers beat the Cowboys? Even though they rarely play each other (which has been the case since the full merger in 1970), by your insipid logic that must mean Dallas is far superior and the number of Steelers HoFers from this era should be greatly reduced.

            “The Landry Cowboys are well-represented, perhaps even over-represented, in the Hall of Fame (Bob Hayes?). ”

            But you don’t feel all those teams with fewer SB wins and more HoFers are over-represented, hypocrite. You’ve been thoroughly exposed as a mindless Cowboys hater and crushed. You’re finished now, Scott.

            Oh and Bob Hayes had an even more revolutionary impact on the league than Randy Moss did, and, unlike Moss, Hayes was the leading receiver on a Super Bowl champion team. The fastest real player in NFL history is rightly in Canton.

            “And all the logic and math I need:”

            Clearly you don’t possess enough of either. You should have at least finished high school and maybe gone on to college. That could have helped a little.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 18, 2018

            ““The rag-tag QB combo of the ’71 Vikings don’t add up to Phil Simms, Brodie was better than the ’84 Bears’ back-up (just like Tony Romo was better than Quincy Carter. Eyes roll) , and that Miami game manager (who was CARRIED to two world titles by Larry Csonka) was far inferior to Dan Marino.”

            “Wrong. You got the comparisons mixed up…” No. We are going round-by-round. It was you who mixed the comparison up to manipulate the perception that the Cowboys faced “better competition” than the ’84 ‘Niners. Who did the ’71 Cowboys face in their first round vs. who the ’84 ‘Niners faced? Who did the Cowboys face in the Conference title game vs. who the ‘Niners faced? And who presented the tougher challenge in the Super Bowl? The Dolphins’ game manager or Dan Marino? Don’t try to pull the slick trick of mixing the comparisons. You’re way too dumb to pull it off, Rasputin.

            Phil Simms was a 4,000-yd. passer, would be the Pro Bowl MVP (back when it was a legitimate game) the next season, and would be a record-setting Super Bowl MVP the year after that. The ’71 Minnesota QB reps don’t compare. Brodie was better than the ’84 Chicago backup but he wasn’t better than Simms. As for the Miami game manager, look at his career. When he had big years the Dolphins missed the playoffs or had losing records. When he had small years they won it all. Marino tore up the record books with no defensive help and virtually no running game. There is no comparison.

            Further exposing your stupidity, two of the three playoff opponents of the ”84 ‘Niners would later win world titles. Two of the three opponents of the ’71 Cowboys would not.

            “Holding his team to “only” 16 points [they had been averaging 32]…isn’t shutting him down either. It’s simply less than his average (“contained”)…” Rasputin sucks at math, relativity, and reality, folks. He’s just an ignorant, stupid person.

            A typical Rasputin response: “And even if SF had shut down Marino (which they didn’t) [They did. Kind of like O.J.’s “Even if I did it”], so what?” So what. That is Rasputin’s sheepish, cop-out way of saying “You kicked my ass on that one.” I accept your concession, dummy.

            As for “the 49ers played in a sorry division” crap… In ’84, the Rams (21 ppg, Eric Dickerson running for NFL-record 2,105 yards with 14 TDs) were shut out by the 49ers at home and scored 16 in San Francisco in the season finale. That same season the Rams pasted the ’84 Bears’ defense with 29 points (Dickerson 149 yds, 2 TDs). Would have been 30 but they botched the PAT. The Montana/Walsh 49ers always had an excellent defense within their dynasty, dummy.

            “…multiple career Pro Bowl RB Jim Kiick, and that great offensive line, not to mention Pro Bowl kick returner Mercury Morris setting them up. That’s why the early 70s Dolphins had a better offense overall than the 80s Dolphins did.”

            Jim Kiick. Yeah, right. He hadn’t made a Pro Bowl in two years going into that Super Bowl and would be replaced by Morris the next year. If you are going to claim that Dallas not running Dorsett enough against Pittsburgh in SB XIII was a key factor, then Shula and Miami did the Cowboys an enormous favor by not running Morris AT ALL (0 carries) in SB VI. The ’71 Dolphins had a greater running game than the ’84 Dolphins but were not as explosive or as productive, point-wise. The ’84 ‘Niners had a much stronger challenge.

            I asked a simple question, “Ummm…how did the Doomsday defense do vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth in Super Bowl XIII?”

            The Rasputin cop-out response: “LOL! Different era, teams, rules, and circumstances.” The rules for pass coverage, pass blocking were the same from 1978-84. There was no change in the game of NFL football within that span. The only difference was in the teams and the year. The dummy didn’t understand or refused to recognize that the comparison was the 318-yd performances of the QBs (Bradshaw; Marino) vs. the defenses (’49ers, who yielded one TD pass and 16 points; Cowboys, who yielded a Super Bowl-worst 4 TD passes and Super Bowl-worst 35 points). My point: Yards can be manipulated, points cannot be.

            “The 77 Bears ranked 3rd in total offense and 13th in scoring, compared to the 84 Bears who ranked 7th in total offense and 16th in scoring even with McMahon playing QB (who was out for the 49ers game). So the Bears certainly had a better offense when they faced Dallas in 77 than when they faced the 49ers in 84.” Are you serious? Perfect example of how yards can be manipulated…by liars like Rasputin. So, you’re saying, Avellini was a better QB (18 ppg) than McMahon (22 ppg)? Even the Bears’ backup QB put up 23 points and two TD passes in dethroning the Redskins as NFC champs–in Washington–the week before. The ’77 Bears were better than the ’84 Bears? LMAO!!! Beautiful. LOL!!! The rankings you talk about refer to yards, not points scored, dummy.

            As for the ’77 Vikings, they were operating on fumes and didn’t have Fran Tarkenton. With Tarkenton in place in ’78, they beat the Cowboys in Dallas on Monday Night Football. They never beat Minnesota legitimately in the playoffs with Tarkenton in the lineup (“legitimately” refers to the Drew Pearson pushoff; He tried to do that to Wagner in SB X and failed and again on Ronnie Lott in The Catch game. Lott intercepted and, of course, the officials called PI–on Lott!).

            ” The 84 49ers forced 10 turnovers in the 16 game season and 6 in the playoffs.” WTF? The ’49ers had 25 INTs and 23 fumble recoveries in ’84. SMH.

            “No 80s 49er (defender) ever won that award (SB MVP). Martin and Randy White shared Super Bowl MVP status, the second time that award went to a Cowboy defender (Howley being the first defender ever named SB MVP; And undeservedly so–Mike Curtis was the REAL SB V MVP). That remains the only time it was given to multiple players and it’s a testament to how dominant the entire defensive unit was…” It was a testament to how dominant the defensive line was. As for the Dallas offense in SBs V, VI, and XII, they gave the media no definitive offensive player to name MVP. In V, the offense sucked; in VI, Duane Thomas was the MVP but there was concern he wouldn’t say a word, so they gave it Staubach on the strength of two short (seven yards each) TD passes; in XII, the phantom “TD Catch” of Butch Johnson and the fullback TD pass (gadget play) and Dorsett not being a huge factor gave them no true offensive player to glorify.

            “The 49ers’ SB MVPs were all offensive players. All of them.” The same can be said about the Steelers Super Bowls of the ’70s, so what’s your point, numbskull? In the 49ers Super Bowl wins in the ’80s, Montana was ALWAYS a factor and Jerry Rice was spectacular in SB XXIII. Of course, Franco Harris was a record-breaker in SB IX, Swann was spectacular in exposing Cliff Harris (who foolishly called him out…Well, that’s just Cliff being Cliff) in SB X, Bradshaw (with the “overrated” pair of Swann and Stallworth) was a record-breaker in SB XIII (thanks, Cliff Harris), and Bradshaw and Stallworth were great in beating the Rams in SB XIV. That’s not a knock on the defenses or their players, idiot.

            ““Huge”, LOL? 4 points with controversies to boot? The Steelers’ loss to the Cowboys in SB 30 was by a bigger, more decisive margin than those two 70s games COMBINED.” Thanks to Neil O’Donnell. But the Packers and Steelers STILL have more overall world championships than the Cowboys–as it should be.

            The Cowboys are well-represented in the Hall of Fame. There are no double-standards that they face (e.g., Rasputin whining: “It seems that if they have no Super Bowl rings, a Cowboy can’t get in the Hall”). That’s ALL bull. Jackie Smith is in and Terrell Owens, after his Rasputin-like whining, will be enshrined this summer. Enjoy it.

            All the math and logic I need regarding Landry’s Cowboys is this:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 21, 2018

            We have a true common opponent between the 77 Cowboys and 84 49ers in Walter Payton. Payton was way better in 77 than in 84, yet the Cowboys defensed him a lot better than 49ers did in 84.

            Walter Payton
            1977 – 132.3 yards/game, 5.5 y/c, 16 total TDs, rushing title, NFL MVP
            1984 – 105.3 yards/game, 4.4 y/c, 11 total TDs

            Walter Payton Playoff Production Against Defenses
            77 Doomsday – 60 yards on 19 carries, 3.2 y/c
            84 San Fran – 92 yards on 22 carries, 4.2 y/c

            Bears Team Playoff Rushing Production Against Defenses
            77 Doomsday – 81 yards on 27 carries, 3 y/c
            84 San Fran – 149 yards on 32 carries, 4.7 y/c

            The 49ers actually allowed the Bears to rush for MORE than their 4.4 y/c average that season while Dallas held them to far less. That’s despite Chicago having its full time starting QB against the Cowboys while they had lost McMahon to injury and had to start back up Steve Fuller in the 84 playoffs. That’s telling. Now back to the 71 Cowboys….

            “No. We are going round-by-round. It was you who mixed the comparison up to manipulate the perception that the Cowboys faced “better competition” than the ’84 ‘Niners.

            LMFAO! Wrong, moron. It doesn’t matter what order they played the three opponents in. You falsely claimed the 84 49ers faced better playoff QBs than the 71 Cowboys. You even stupidly claimed, “The ’71 Cowboys got three games off. The ’84 ‘Niners did not.” I debunked that ignorant assertion. Brodie, Griese, and the Viking tandem of Lee/ Gary Cuozzo were better combined than the group of Fuller, Marino, and Simms. Now that you’re realizing how badly you’re getting your ass kicked you want to twist the comparison into only a round versus round thing which would be meaningless and represents you reaching new heights of cowardice and stupidity. But ok. Brodie was LIGHT YEARS better than Fuller, in fact the gap between the NFC title game opposing QBs was bigger than that between Simms and the Vikings QBs and that between Marino and Griese (both HoFers, Greise was first team All Pro that year and had HoF help in the passing game) combined. So you’d still lose. Not that your contorted comparison is meaningful anyway.

            “Who did the ’71 Cowboys face in their first round vs. who the ’84 ‘Niners faced? Who did the Cowboys face in the Conference title game vs. who the ‘Niners faced? And who presented the tougher challenge in the Super Bowl?”

            The overall comparison is what matters. In the first round the 49ers played a Giants team that ranked mid pack on both sides of the ball. The Cowboys played a Vikings team loaded with HoFers on both sides of the ball that ranked #1 in scoring allowed and #2 in total defense that year. In fact the Vikings teams of the 60s and 70s boasted some of the greatest defenses of all time, and were some of the greatest overall teams to not win a Super Bowl. They were much better than Randy Moss’s 98 Vikings. The 71 Cowboys had to beat both that year’s NFL MVP in Viking Alan Page and the previous year’s MVP in John Brodie. The Vikings QBs were more than capable backups who between them had started all but two games that season and got their team to the playoffs. Both their WRs were Pro Bowl quality, Bob Grimm making it that year and Gene Washington the previous two seasons. Both their offensive and defensive lines were loaded with HoFers and Pro Bowlers.

            Plus the 84 Giants were a WILD CARD team, while the Vikings won their division. In fact the 71 Cowboys didn’t play any wild card teams. All three of their opponents were division champions.

            Edge? 71 Vikings.

            The 84 NFC Championship against a McMahon-led Bears team sans McMahon now quarterbacked by a journeyman backup with only a couple of starts under his belt was far closer to your notion of “taking a game off” than any of the Cowboys’ playoff games. That Bears team only ranked 7th in offense and 16th in scoring even with McMahon. With Fuller they couldn’t pass the ball.

            By contrast in the 71 NFC Championship the Cowboys faced a 49ers team that ranked 3rd in offense and 9th in scoring. Even their defense was really good, ranking 6th in both points and yards. Their balance was within the offense too, as they brought a 9th ranked rushing attack to complement the passing attack of John Brodie, the 1970 NFL MVP.

            This one’s not even close. The 71 49ers were a much tougher opponent, especially on offense.

            Both teams played Miami in the Super Bowl. All you can talk about with the 84 Dolphins is Marino. They were one dimensional. By contrast the 71 Dolphins featured HoFers in both the passing and running games, and of course they had that great No Name Defense. Oh and while Page was the AP MVP, the NEA selected Bob Griese as the NFL MVP in 1971.

            The 71 Dolphins would go undefeated the following season and win another SB the year after that. The Marino Dolphins would never even make it to another SB. So the 71 Griese/Csonka/Warfield Dolphins presented the tougher challenge.

            Not only did the 71 Cowboys play tougher opponents, but Dallas defensed them better, setting records that still stand.

            “Brodie was better than the ’84 Chicago backup but he wasn’t better than Simms.”

            Again, Brodie went to as many Pro Bowls as Simms but was also first team All Pro and NFL MVP in 1970. Simms never made either. Brodie led the NFL in yards 3 years, completion percentage twice, TDs twice, and passer rating once. Simms never led in ANY of those things. Brodie was better. It’s not even close. You have no case.

            “As for the Miami game manager, look at his career. When he had big years the Dolphins missed the playoffs or had losing records. When he had small years they won it all.”

            Griese was first team All Pro and the NEA NFL MVP in 1971 and he made it to the Super Bowl. He also had the NFL’s second highest passer rating and was tied for a close second in passing TDs. Isn’t that a “big year”, LOL?

            “Marino tore up the record books with no defensive help and virtually no running game.”

            Thank you for agreeing with me about how one dimensional the 84 Dolphins were. The 71 Dolphins were much better when the running game and defense are factored in.

            Your inability to think critically or maintain a train of thought makes this debate entertaining despite being ridiculously easy.

            “two of the three playoff opponents of the ”84 ‘Niners would later win world titles. Two of the three opponents of the ’71 Cowboys would not.”

            Not Marino, LOL. He’s your one boasting point and you just threw him under the bus as a loser. Pick an argument and try not to contradict it. Griese, the Dallas final game opponent you keep disparaging, won TWO Super Bowls. And Brodie and the Vikings failed to win Super Bowls in part because the Cowboys kept beating them (especially the 49ers) in the playoffs. You lose whichever argument you want to run with.

            “A typical Rasputin response: “And even if SF had shut down Marino (which they didn’t) [They did.”

            Except he threw for more yards than his average that season, LMFAO, and scored as many points as the 71 Cowboys allowed in the entire postseason combined.

            So no, only someone who sucks as much at competition, math, reading, and life as you do would idiotically claim Marino was “shut down”.

            “As for “the 49ers played in a sorry division” crap… In ’84, the Rams (21 ppg, Eric Dickerson running for NFL-record 2,105 yards with 14 TDs)”

            And they only ranked 21st in offense and 12th in scoring, as I educated you on earlier. The Rams only ranked 27th in passing, so a good (but not necessarily great) defense could focus on stopping the run. The Rams were one dimensional.

            “The Montana/Walsh 49ers always had an excellent defense within their dynasty, dummy.”

            They ranked 10th. They were good but not great, and their stats were skewed both by their offensive ball control and playing in a sorry division. Division aside, the vast majority of their games overall were against lousy offenses as the facts I posted earlier show.

            “If you are going to claim that Dallas not running Dorsett enough against Pittsburgh in SB XIII was a key factor, then Shula and Miami did the Cowboys an enormous favor by not running Morris AT ALL (0 carries) in SB VI.”

            Maybe, maybe not. We KNOW Dorsett ran well in SB 13. But it wouldn’t have mattered. SB VI wasn’t a fluky 4 point game. It was a display of crushing dominance and historical greatness.

            “The ’71 Dolphins had a greater running game than the ’84 Dolphins but were not as explosive or as productive, point-wise. The ’84 ‘Niners had a much stronger challenge.”

            Wrong, because it’s tougher to defense a balanced offense than a one dimensional one. That’s a big reason the Griese/Csonka Dolphins went undefeated in 72 and won 2 SBs while Marino never won any. If you had played football at some point in your life or knew much about the sport you would understand that. Plus having a great defense to limit the opponent’s opportunities and get the ball back to your offense helps a great deal even if the offense stylistically prefers ground ball control to padding its stats.

            “I asked a simple question, “Ummm…how did the Doomsday defense do vs. Bradshaw, Swann, and Stallworth in Super Bowl XIII?” The Rasputin cop-out response: “LOL! Different era, teams, rules, and circumstances.” The rules for pass coverage, pass blocking were the same from 1978-84.”

            We were talking about 1971 there, moron. Even the Cowboys 77 roster wasn’t the same as 78. For one thing HoFer Mel Renfro and former All Decade tackle Ralph Neely both retired. They also suffered numerous key injuries in 1978, of which Randy White was just one, that was reflected in much of the dip in the team’s statistical performance.

            The 71 Cowboys were even further removed, and they were still within that streak where they beat the Steelers 7 times in a row.

            “My point: Yards can be manipulated, points cannot be.”

            Your assertion is logically incoherent gibberish and you didn’t even begin to support any thesis resembling it, moron.

            Me: “The 77 Bears ranked 3rd in total offense and 13th in scoring, compared to the 84 Bears who ranked 7th in total offense and 16th in scoring even with McMahon playing QB (who was out for the 49ers game). So the Bears certainly had a better offense when they faced Dallas in 77 than when they faced the 49ers in 84.”

            You: “Are you serious? Perfect example of how yards can be manipulated…by liars like Rasputin. So, you’re saying, Avellini was a better QB (18 ppg) than McMahon (22 ppg)?”

            Oh wow, you’re stupid. You’re a liar, Scott, but you’re also quite dumb. Try rereading my comment (which YOU quoted) and coming up with a logical response.

            Hint – Don’t forget the epochal leap in stat inflation between 1977 and 1984, which is why I, and presumably you, have been mostly dealing in contemporary rankings.

            Hint #2 – Note where I remind you that McMahon wasn’t even playing in the 84 postseason. Backup Steve Fuller was.

            BTW, have I mentioned how stupid you are?

            “The rankings you talk about refer to yards, not points scored, dummy.”

            I cited both, you idiot. You QUOTED ME CITING SCORING TOO. You really should have stayed and finished high school, Scott. It might not have helped but trying couldn’t have hurt.

            “As for the ’77 Vikings, they were operating on fumes and didn’t have Fran Tarkenton. With Tarkenton in place in ’78, they beat the Cowboys in Dallas on Monday Night Football.”

            Actually the Vikings lost to Dallas in the 1977 regular season…..with Tarkenton playing. It was a close game between two great teams but Doomsday held Fran to a 31 passer rating. They intercepted him 3 times.

            Cliff Harris intercepted Tarkenton twice.*

            As for supposedly “running on fumes”, the Vikings made it all the way to the NFC Championship so that’s something else you just completely made up. QB Bob Lee won most of the games he started that year, unlike Steve Fuller in 1984.

            The Rams pounded the Vikings in the regular season 35-3, intercepting Tarkenton twice. Bob Lee led the Vikings to a revenge victory over those Rams in the divisional playoff game. “Fumes”? Hardly.

            *Ouch! That must sting, LMFAO! Quite the faceplant you had there.

            “They never beat Minnesota legitimately in the playoffs with Tarkenton in the lineup (“legitimately” refers to the Drew Pearson pushoff;”

            Hogwash on both counts. The Cowboys went 9-4 against the Vikings in the 60s and 70s, including 3-1 against them in the playoffs. As for Tarkenton personally, Dallas went 10-4 against him in his career, and 5-3 against Tarkenton with the Vikings.

            And Pearson didn’t “push off”. That’s blind whining. Watching the footage closely shows Nate Wright just falls. Pearson only went for the ball, kept his feet. and made a historically great play to win the game. It was a good no call.

            Furthermore, it was as “legitimate” a win as there could be since the Cowboys had mostly outplayed Minnesota. Dallas out gained the Vikings 356 yards to 215 yards. As for the QB comparison Staubach completed 17 of 29 (59%) for 246 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, and a 97.8 rating. Tarkenton only completed 12 of 26 (46%) for 135 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, and a 46.2 rating. Even without the Hail Mary Staubach would have posted significantly better numbers.

            Tarkenton was great but Staubach was better.

            The real blown call that game was in the second quarter when a Viking ran plum into punt returner Cliff Harris when the ball was still high in the air, blocking him away from it and letting it fall to the ground. Cowboy Pat Donovan made a mistake by diving and swiping it and the Vikings recovered on the Dallas 4, setting up their first TD. Should have been an easy punt interference penalty to call. Fortunately the Cowboys overcame that robbery to win anyway.

            “WTF? The ’49ers had 25 INTs and 23 fumble recoveries in ’84. SMH.”

            Typo on the first part, but the 84 49ers only forced 6 turnovers in the playoffs. That’s less than the 7 their offense lost.

            77 Doomsday forced 19 turnovers in the playoffs. I think that’s the all time NFL record. For comparisons with some other great (not merely good) defenses, the 85 Bears forced 10, the 72 Dolphins forced 10, the 2000 Ravens forced 12, the 2002 Bucs forced 13, the 78 Steelers forced 14, and the 92 Cowboys forced 15.

            “Howley being the first defender ever named SB MVP; And undeservedly so–Mike Curtis was the REAL SB V MVP)”

            Howley played an awesome game in SB V, accounting for multiple turnovers as he would again in SB VI.

            Me: “Martin and Randy White shared Super Bowl MVP status, the second time that award went to a Cowboy defender (Howley being the first defender ever named SB MVP). That remains the only time it was given to multiple players and it’s a testament to how dominant the entire defensive unit was…”

            You: “It was a testament to how dominant the defensive line was.”

            The entire defense was dominant. Dooomsday held Denver to 35(!) net passing yards and 32% completion, which both still stand as Super Bowl records. Three different Dallas CBs had interceptions and Cliff Harris knocked the Broncos’ best playmaker unconscious with a ferocious but clean hit.

            “Duane Thomas was the MVP” (of SB VI) “but there was concern he wouldn’t say a word, so they gave it Staubach on the strength of two short (seven yards each) TD passes”

            Hogwash. Staubach posted a 115.9 passer rating, completed 63.2% of his passes, and threw 2 TD passes with 0 INTs against an historically great defense. He was the legitimate MVP.

            As I explained before, Walt Garrison did more than Duane Thomas to get the running game going early. Walt slightly out gained Thomas in the first half and he was the one doing the tough running. Thomas gained most of his yards in the 2nd half. He played well too but Garrison ended up with almost as many total rushing yards, 74 to Thomas’ 95, and Walt averaged 5.3 yards/carry to Thomas’ 5.

            But Chuck Howley was the next best choice if it didn’t go to Staubach. He recovered a Csonka fumble early that helped set the tone and intercepted Griese late with a 41 yard return to seal the win.

            Or maybe Bob Lilly, who had that iconic 29 yard sack of Griese early (another Super Bowl record that still stands) and was front and center in shutting down a great Miami running game even as the Cowboys set a Super Bowl rushing record of 252 yards (between Garrison, Thomas, Calvin Hill, Staubach, and some others) against a great Dolphins defense.

            “in XII, the phantom “TD Catch” of Butch Johnson and the fullback TD pass (gadget play) and Dorsett not being a huge factor gave them no true offensive player to glorify.”

            The catch was valid under the rules of the time and the offense did rack up a healthy 325 yards, but that was a slug fest between two great defenses and Doomsday was awesome, doing things no team has done before or since.

            You really have no point.

            ““The 49ers’ SB MVPs were all offensive players. All of them.” The same can be said about the Steelers Super Bowls of the ’70s, so what’s your point, numbskull?”

            Most MVPs are offensive players. That it’s so rare underscores how special it is that the Cowboys have produced so many defensive ones (4 overall). Just adding another piece of evidence, moron. It’s not proof by itself but it enhances the overall case.

            “Swann was spectacular in exposing Cliff Harris (who foolishly called him out…Well, that’s just Cliff being Cliff) in SB X”

            Except they threw away from Cliff Harris all day so the only thing “exposed” here is your ignorance, LOL. Even your “called him out” line is BS Steeler mythology.

            Swann was cheapshotted and knocked out against the Raiders a couple of weeks earlier. A reporter, always looking to stir the pot, ridiculously asked Harris if he’d take it easy on Swann since he was coming off a concussion. Harris gave a reasonable answer under the circumstances that a safety like him would about any player. Here’s an excerpt from a 2001 Pittsburgh newspaper talking about it (search for “A Super Bowl stage provided Lynn Swann’s ticket to Canton”):

            “”One of the reporters asked me if I was going to ease up on Swann because of his concussion. All I said was, ‘This is pro football, fellas. If he runs into my area, I’m going to knock him out.'”

            Much to Harris’ chagrin even today, he never got his shot at Swann.

            “Go ahead, ask him how many times he came across the middle that day. He caught zero balls in my area. He and Terry Bradshaw listened to me. They didn’t jeopardize his health. They never called a play for him over the middle until the one time when I was in a safety blitz.”

            That turned out to be the play that iced the Steelers’ win.

            Leading, 15-10, with little more than three minutes to play, Bradshaw faced a third-and-4 at the Steelers’ 36. Cowboys Coach Tom Landry called an all-out blitz, leaving cornerback Mark Washington in single coverage on Swann. Linebacker D.D. Lewis had a clear shot at Bradshaw but missed. Bradshaw stepped up and unloaded the ball just as Harris hit him in the midsection and defensive tackle Larry Cole hit him in the head. More than 80 million people watching the game around the world saw how the play ended, but Bradshaw didn’t. He was knocked out with a concussion.”

            That’s a PITTSBURGH paper completely contradicting you, chump. It was a similar story in SB XIII.

            “But the Packers and Steelers STILL have more overall world championships than the Cowboys–as it should be.”

            The Packers have fewer Super Bowls (apples to apples) and the Steelers and Cowboys are just one apart so Dallas could erase that with their next SB win.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 21, 2018

            “The 49ers actually allowed the Bears to rush for MORE than their 4.4 y/c average that season while Dallas held them to far less. That’s despite Chicago having its full time starting QB against the Cowboys while they had lost McMahon to injury and had to start back up Steve Fuller in the 84 playoffs. That’s telling.”

            What’s telling is which defense recorded a shutout (despite competing against a much better offensive line) and which one did not. Avellini, Steve Fuller. What’s the difference? Fuller threw two TD passes in the Bears dethroning of the NFC Champion Redskins the week before. How many playoff wins did Avellini record in his illustrious career?

            More Rasputin ignorance followed, as usual:
            “Brodie, Griese, and the Viking tandem of Lee/ Gary Cuozzo were better combined than the group of Fuller, Marino, and Simms.”

            Who would take the Viking Backups over Simms? An idiot–like Rasputin. Who would say a game manager was a better passer than Marino (in ’84!)? An ignorant person–like Rasputin. Who could meltdown so badly that they would stupidly say Swann and Stallworth were overrated–you guessed it, Rasputin.

            “The 71 Cowboys had to beat both that year’s NFL MVP in Viking Alan Page and the previous year’s MVP in John Brodie. The Vikings QBs were more than capable backups who between them had started all but two games that season and got their team to the playoffs. Both their WRs were Pro Bowl quality, Bob Grimm making it that year and Gene Washington the previous two seasons. Both their offensive and defensive lines were loaded with HoFers and Pro Bowlers.”

            Bob Grimm (WHO?) and the “other” Gene Washington? Catching passes from a back-up tag team of Viking QBs? LOL!!! You’re pathetically hysterical. Phil Simms and his receiving corps were a far more challenging package. Brodie was better than the ’84 Bears’ backup, but the 49ers defense’s performance against Walter Payton was done against better offensive linemen than the ’77 Cowboys had to face. As for the Super Bowl, It’s not even a comparison. Marino was a far greater challenge than the Miami game manager of ’71 and although Warfield is in the Hall of Fame Duper and Clayton were a far greater package than Warfield and…? Who was the other receiver in the ’71 Dolphins’ offense? Exactly. The 49ers had to go through Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton, and Dan Marino in 1984–Three of the top 10 players in pro football history. Who did the ’71 Cowboys have to deal with? Outside of Payton, who did the ’77 Cowboys have to go through?

            The only coward was you when you saw that the Viking duo don’t even add up to Phil Simms. So, in typical Rasputin fashion,, you manipulated it to distort the picture. Anyone could see that, dummy. You’re too dumb to pull that off. And Marino is worlds ahead of Bob Griese, who had Larry Csonka and a whole team to carry him to two world titles. Only Brodie, who was not a good as Simms, proved a better QB in his respective playoff round (Conference Championship Game)

            “Plus the 84 Giants were a WILD CARD team, while the Vikings won their division. In fact the 71 Cowboys didn’t play any wild card teams. All three of their opponents were division champions.”

            Ummm…numbskull? The Redskins were the ’71 NFC wild card team. Under Rozelle’s format, If the top seed and the wild card team were from the same division, they could only face each other in the conference championship game. Stupid, ignorant Rasputin. SMH.

            “Plus the 84 Giants were a WILD CARD team,”

            “Edge? 71 Vikings (over ’84 Giants).”

            The Giants won a Super Bowl two years later with Simms, idiot. You think the Viking ever even GET TO a Super Bowl with those two stiffs continuing to QB their team?

            “Both teams played Miami in the Super Bowl. All you can talk about with the 84 Dolphins is Marino. They were one dimensional. By contrast the 71 Dolphins featured HoFers in both the passing and running games, and of course they had that great No Name Defense. Oh and while Page was the AP MVP, the NEA selected Bob Griese as the NFL MVP in 1971.”

            The ’71 Dolphins were a running team that occasionally threw the ball. They averaged 10 points less per game than the ’84 Dolphins. The defense was essentially aided by Csonka. He controlled the ball for 45-50 minutes getting 4 to 5 yards a carry. So the defense only had to make two to four stops the entire game. The only serious standouts on that defense were Nick Buoniconti and Jake Scott. I will say that Dick Anderson was better than Cliff Harris. As for NEA’s ’71 “MVP,” that’s just another case of the “experts” getting it wrong. After all, Chuck Howley was MVP of Super Bowl V (Mike Curtis was robbed).

            “Brodie was better (than Simms). It’s not even close. You have no case.” No case? Simms, Pro Bowl MVP. Simms, Super Bowl MVP. Simms Super Bowl Record 88 percent completion pct. in one game on 22-25 passing with 3 TDs (that 88 percent took the Miami game manager’s weak 6-7 “passing performance” of SB VIII off the books…THANK GOD!!!)

            “That’s a big reason the Griese/Csonka Dolphins went undefeated in 72…” Hold up liar. The game manager breaks his leg early in game 5 and the Dolphins win 10 straight WITHOUT him to close out the season and then win the opening round playoff game. LMAO!!! MVP my ass.

            “I cited both, you idiot. You QUOTED ME CITING SCORING TOO. You really should have stayed and finished high school, Scott. It might not have helped but trying couldn’t have hurt.”

            Dummy, because a team ranked higher in scoring one year vs. a team from another year doesn’t mean they were a better scoring team. Example: Team X was first in the league in scoring in year X averaging 10 ppg. Team Y was 5th in the league in scoring in year Y averaging 25 points per game. Who was the better scoring team, Dumbass?

            “(T)wo of the three playoff opponents of the ”84 ‘Niners would later win world titles. Two of the three opponents of the ’71 Cowboys would not.”
            Dumb response of a noncollege graduate who has no reading comprehension skills: “Not Marino, LOL. He’s your one boasting point and you just threw him under the bus as a loser.” No. That’s more of an indictment on Miami’s lack of defense. How do you interpret that as a knock on Marino? Oh, that’s right. You’re ignorant. You cant help it, Rasputin.

            Speaking of your ignorance, stupidity, and lack of college education, dummy, entertain me and the rest of the readers. Further expose yourself by answering this question: Exactly how were Lynn Swann and John Stallworth “overrated?” And if they were “overrated,” then what does that say about Cliff Harris’ pathetic coverage skills and lack of intellect as a free safety when dealing with them in coverage on football’s biggest stage, in front of the whole world? They are STILL in your thoughts and nightmares along with those of other Cowboys fans–I LOVE IT!!! Good to see Terry Bradshaw lives in Dallas to torment all of you even more. LOL!!!

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 21, 2018

            “What’s telling is which defense recorded a shutout (despite competing against a much better offensive line) and which one did not.”

            LOL! The offensive line? You’re really into desperate cherry-picking now. That 77 Bears offensive line didn’t get into Walter Payton’s way when he averaged 132.3 yards/game, 5.5 y/c, and was named NFL MVP. The bottom line is that he produced much better in 1977 than in 1984, and yet Doomsday stoned him while he ran pretty wild against the 84 49ers.

            The Cowboys took a 37-0 lead and were cycling in backups in the last few minutes when the Bears threw that meaningless garbage time TD. They essentially DID post a shutout, and were more dominant than San Fran was in its 23-0 victory over a team that was missing its starting QB and was weaker offensively than it had been in 1977 anyway.

            “Avellini, Steve Fuller. What’s the difference? Fuller threw two TD passes in the Bears dethroning of the NFC Champion Redskins the week before. How many playoff wins did Avellini record in his illustrious career?”

            Avellini was the full time starter so the 77 Bears had continuity. That’s the difference. Avellini also won more games overall than Fuller and a lot more in 77 than Fuller did in 84.

            And the 84 Redskins had a lousy 25th ranked pass defense so don’t even try to boast about that.

            Me: “Brodie, Griese, and the Viking tandem of Lee/ Gary Cuozzo were better combined than the group of Fuller, Marino, and Simms.”

            You: “Who would take the Viking Backups over Simms?”

            BRODIE was better than Simms, moron. Try to keep up. The Vikings QBs were better than Steve Fuller. The gap between Marino and HoF, first team All Pro Griese isn’t enough to make up the difference.

            But that’s just the QBs, showing you lose even on your own ridiculously cherry-picked terms, being the coward you are. When you factor HoF/Pro Bowl WRs, HoFer Larry Csonka and the running games, and the greater early 70s defenses, it’s not even close. The 71 Cowboys faced much tougher competition than 84 San Fran and was more dominant.

            “Who could meltdown so badly that they would stupidly say Swann and Stallworth were overrated”

            You’re the one having the meltdown, Chico, not me. Many HoF observers say those guys are overrated. For one example search for “espn most overrated of all time”. Here’s an excerpt:

            “3. Lynn Swann
            Hmmm. In nine seasons, he was a Pro Bowler only three times. Averaged less than 40 catches per season. A couple of great playoff performances, but lots of so-so ones. In terms of career stats, you can’t get more straightforward than the footballreference.com summary: “Lynn Swann is not in the all-time top 50 in any major category.” So why is he in the Hall of Fame?”

            At least I do think he barely deserves in, so I’m not as hard on him as some. He just didn’t deserve to be in as soon as he was, long before guys like Drew Pearson, Cliff Branch, and Harold Carmichael (who are all still waiting), let alone waaaay more deserving guys from other positions like Chuck Howley or Johnny Robinson (who are also still waiting).

            “Bob Grimm (WHO?) and the “other” Gene Washington? Catching passes from a back-up tag team of Viking QBs?”

            Grimm was a Pro Bowl WR in 71 and Washington had been a Pro Bowler the previous year. I just told you that, moron. And those “back-up” Viking QBs had started almost all the games that year and gotten their team to the playoffs. It wasn’t a Steve Fuller situation where someone completely different has to step in and play at the very end.

            Dallas played the same Vikings team that had spent the season earning the playoff spot. The 49ers played a different, lesser Bears team.

            “Phil Simms and his receiving corps were a far more challenging package.”

            The Giants had no Pro Bowl receivers. In fact their receiving corps has a combined zero CAREER Pro Bowls. The 71 Vikings WRs had at least 3 career Pro Bowls and Gene Washington had a first team All Pro selection. Just 2 years earlier he had been named as the best at his position in the league.

            But it’s Brodie and the 49ers offense overall that was better than Simms and the 84 Giants. Try to keep up.

            “The 49ers had to go through Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton, and Dan Marino in 1984–Three of the top 10 players in pro football history. Who did the ’71 Cowboys have to deal with?”

            Vikings – Alan Page (1971 NFL MVP, HoF), Carl Eller (HoF), Paul Krause (NFL Career Interception Record Holder with 81, HoF), Mick Tingelhoff (HoF), Ron Yary (HoF);
            71 Pro Bowlers – 5

            49ers – John Brodie (1970 NFL MVP), Dave Wilcox (HoF), Jimmy Johnson (HoF);
            71 Pro Bowlers – 9

            Dolphins – Bob Griese (HoF), Paul Warfield (HoF), Larry Csonka (HoF), Larry Little (HoF), Nick Buoniconti (HoF);
            71 Pro Bowlers – 7

            Now let’s compare.

            Giants – Lawrence Taylor (HoF), Harry Carson (HoF);
            84 Pro Bowlers – 3

            Bears – Walter Payton (HoF), Dan Hampton (HoF), Mike Singletary (HoF), Richard Dent (HoF),
            84 Pro Bowlers – 4

            Dolphins – Dan Marino (1984 NFL MVP, HoF), Dwight Stephenson (HoF);
            84 Pro Bowlers – 8

            Total starting 1971 HoFers (all 3 teams combined) – 12
            Total 1971 Pro Bowlers – 21.

            Total starting 1984 HoFers – 8
            Total 1984 Pro Bowlers – 15

            You were saying, LMFAO? And that’s with Marino’s record setting (if one dimensional) regular season passing run skewing the stats by giving a lot of guys aberrational Pro Bowl status. If we added up the career Pro Bowls it would be even more one sided. Crushing in fact.

            “Outside of Payton, who did the ’77 Cowboys have to go through?”

            For one thing a lot better Payton than the 49ers did as we’ve established, and one whose starting QB was able to suit up, unlike in 1984. And a great Vikings team loaded with HoFers as in 71. And a Broncos team with a great defense (that held opponents to 10.6 points/game) and balanced offense that had avenged its only non-Dallas loss by beating the Raiders in the playoffs a week after beating the Steelers by double digits. Their QB Craig Morton, the 1977 NFL Comeback Player of the Year, remains one of only 3 men in NFL history to lead two different franchises to the Super Bowl (along with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner), and had just torched Pittsburgh and Oakland in the playoffs with passer ratings of over 100 in each game.

            In fact Morton had the 2nd highest passer rating in the AFC, behind only Bob Griese (LOL!). He also tied for 2nd with 3 game winning drives. First place in 1977 with 4? Guess. No seriously guess. Answer: Bob Avellini. Did you guess right, LMFAO?

            The leader of their top 10 committee rushing attack, Otis Armstrong, had won the rushing title in 1974 and made his second Pro Bowl in 1976.

            They even had a great special teams, featuring big play kick returner and 4 time Pro Bowler (with 3 first team All Pros) Rick Upchurch.

            You already shot yourself in the foot by conceding that Marino had no defense or running game. So who’s the tougher opponent? Marino by himself or balanced teams loaded with talent and versatile strengths?

            I say the latter, but then I actually know something about football.

            Hilarious butthurt meltdown from Scott Remington: “The only coward was you when you saw that the Viking duo don’t even add up to Phil Simms. So, in typical Rasputin fashion,, you manipulated it to distort the picture. Anyone could see that, dummy. You’re too dumb to pull that off.”

            Actually dimwit I just did the logical analysis of comparing best to best, second best to second best, and third best to third best. So it’s Griese versus Marino, Brodie versus Simms (Brodie wins easily as the facts I posted and you didn’t even try to rebut show), and the successful Vikings QBs who had played almost all year and gotten their team to the playoffs over journeyman Bears backup QB Steve Fuller who was pressed into duty at the last minute. The 71 Cowboys faced better QBs and more importantly tougher opposition overall than the 84 49ers, period. You’re the coward who can’t accept this and keeps trying but failing to weasel around and lie about it.

            Me: “Plus the 84 Giants were a WILD CARD team, while the Vikings won their division. In fact the 71 Cowboys didn’t play any wild card teams. All three of their opponents were division champions.”

            You: “Ummm…numbskull? The Redskins were the ’71 NFC wild card team. Under Rozelle’s format, If the top seed and the wild card team were from the same division, they could only face each other in the conference championship game. Stupid, ignorant Rasputin. SMH.”

            What’s your point, moron? You didn’t dispute what I said. You just confirmed it. The Cowboys had to play 3 division champions in a row while the 49ers didn’t.

            “The Giants won a Super Bowl two years later with Simms, idiot. You think the Viking ever even GET TO a Super Bowl with those two stiffs continuing to QB their team?”

            The 70s Dolphins would go undefeated the following year and win a 2nd Super Bowl the year after that. That crushes what any of your 84 opponents did, especially Marino’s Dolphins. By your own logic here you just completely lost this argument.

            “The ’71 Dolphins were a running team that occasionally threw the ball.”

            Extremely efficiently, which is why first team All Pro QB Bob Griese had the 2nd best passer rating in the league.

            “They averaged 10 points less per game than the ’84 Dolphins.”

            Ignoring the massive stat inflation between 1971 and 1984, that’s because the 71 Dolphins played a ball control running attack as you just said. Even then they ranked 4th in scoring. It was a lot harder to stop the early Dolphins offense from getting whatever they ended up getting than it was to stop a one dimensional team like Marino’s though.

            Besides, Doomsday held them to THIRTEEN points less than the 49ers held Marino’s team to.

            Lots of champions have held their opponents to somewhere in the teens. That’s the way a football game typically works out when there’s some back and forth scoring (that’s why so many points/game allowed averages by top teams are in the teens even across eras). NO ONE BUT THE 71 COWBOYS have held their SB opponent without a TD, let alone to only 3 points.

            “The defense was essentially aided by Csonka.”

            Whom Doomsday also had to stop at the same time they were dealing with HoFers like Griese and Warfield in the passing attack. Thanks for reinforcing my point, but you should really learn to stop digging your own hole.

            “I will say that Dick Anderson was better than Cliff Harris.”

            Wrong, LOL. Not even close. Cliff Harris had 6 Pro Bowls and 3 first team All Pros to Anderson’s 3 Pro Bowls and 2 first team All Pros. Harris was a revolutionary player and one of the most ferocious hitters in NFL history. He was rightly selected first team All Decade. Even in the 1971 playoffs Harris had interceptions in both the Divisional and NFC Championship rounds.

            Since you ignorantly disparaged his intelligence earlier, I’ll add that he was a very smart player. I was recently watching a 1978 game against the Eagles where Harold Carmichael caught a pass near the sideline and dropped the ball while on the ground without being touched. While other players were mostly standing around Harris ran over from the other side of the field and was alert and intelligent enough to pick it up and run with it all the way to near the Eagles’ goalline. The turnover stood. He recovered another fumble later in that game AND intercepted Jaworski to kill any residual comeback hopes, along with making a lot of tackles as usual.

            “As for NEA’s ’71 “MVP,” that’s just another case of the “experts” getting it wrong.”

            Well I think Staubach should have been MVP over Page, but Brodie did lead in the NFC in yards and TDs so he’s certainly in the mix. Do you also think the experts were “wrong” to crown him league MVP in 1970? If so, why?

            “After all, Chuck Howley was MVP of Super Bowl V (Mike Curtis was robbed).”

            Not really. They just didn’t know which way the razor close game was going to tilt by the time they picked the MVP. Howley had a great game as usual.

            ““Brodie was better (than Simms). It’s not even close. You have no case.” No case? Simms, Pro Bowl MVP. Simms, Super Bowl MVP. Simms Super Bowl Record 88 percent completion pct. in one game on 22-25 passing with 3 TDs (that 88 percent took the Miami game manager’s weak 6-7 “passing performance” of SB VIII off the books…THANK GOD!!!)”

            So your entire “case” is one game, LOL? Excuse me, you also mentioned a “Pro Bowl MVP”, LMFAO!! Leaving aside the absurdity of putting enormous weight on the fun little Pro Bowl (Vikings WR Ahmad Rashad was also a Pro Bowl MVP, btw), I love how you undermine your own SB completion percentage argument by having to point out that BOB GRIESE also held that record, LOL. Simms doesn’t come close to Brodie’s statistical accomplishments as I showed earlier. Simms was also never first team All Pro, let alone NFL MVP like Brodie was. You have no case. Brodie was better than Simms.

            You: “The ’71 Dolphins had a greater running game than the ’84 Dolphins but were not as explosive or as productive, point-wise. The ’84 ‘Niners had a much stronger challenge.”

            Me: “Wrong, because it’s tougher to defense a balanced offense than a one dimensional one. That’s a big reason the Griese/Csonka Dolphins went undefeated in 72 and won 2 SBs while Marino never won any.”

            You: “Hold up liar. The game manager breaks his leg early in game 5 and the Dolphins win 10 straight WITHOUT him to close out the season and then win the opening round playoff game. LMAO!!! MVP my ass.”

            I told no lie, liar. We were talking about the importance of the running game and having a balanced overall team, you idiot. You’re just underscoring my point. The 84 Dolphins were all about one guy. The early 70s Dolphins were a truly great team.

            “a team ranked higher in scoring one year vs. a team from another year doesn’t mean they were a better scoring team. Example: Team X was first in the league in scoring in year X averaging 10 ppg. Team Y was 5th in the league in scoring in year Y averaging 25 points per game.”

            And the league itself isn’t the same every year, especially with massive offensive stat inflation in play, moron. That’s why reasonably intelligent people also look at contemporary rankings. Talking to you is often like teaching special ed, but do I really need to explain this to you?

            ““Not Marino, LOL. He’s your one boasting point and you just threw him under the bus as a loser.” No. That’s more of an indictment on Miami’s lack of defense. How do you interpret that as a knock on Marino?”

            You unwittingly knocked his entire team, you idiot. No team he was on ever won a Super Bowl. If you had finished high school…or maybe at least learned how to play chess at some point….then maybe you’d know better than to boast about your other 2 opponents winning a Super Bowl apiece in later years while attacking teams that didn’t, leaving your own crown jewel SB opponent exposed like that. If your new premise is that teams that later won Super Bowls are superior to ones that didn’t, then the 1971 Dolphins obliterate the 84 Dolphins going away.

            Case closed.

            “And if they were “overrated,” then what does that say about Cliff Harris’ pathetic coverage skills and lack of intellect as a free safety when dealing with them in coverage on football’s biggest stage, in front of the whole world?”

            That’s your pathetic (non)reply to me debunking your quaint little delusional Steelers myth by quoting from a PITTSBURGH PAPER saying that Swann caught nothing around Cliff Harris all day, and had his biggest play when Cliff Harris was helping knock Terry Bradshaw unconscious on a safety blitz? That’s just….sad.

            “They are STILL in your thoughts and nightmares along with those of other Cowboys fans–I LOVE IT!!! Good to see Terry Bradshaw lives in Dallas to torment all of you even more. LOL!!!”

            No, like many people Bradshaw just realized how much better Texas is than states like California or Pennsylvania. You’re the one having nightmares about Larry Brown, Scott Case (ouch! ANOTHER Steelers WR just got laid out! It’s almost like Cliff Harris put on a jersey and snuck back onto the field in SB 30), and Troy Aikman. You’re so haunted that you’ve spent….how many posts and words now….obsessively talking about a team you DON’T ROOT FOR because you hate them so much, at the cost of being humiliated and having your ass kicked all over this page.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 23, 2018

            Dealing with an ignoranat noncollege graduate or noncollege antendee (Rasputin never would have got in at U. of Pittsburgh) can be tiring for an MA holder and proud Panther like myself. Just for better insight, I’ve checked you out on other posts and you have proven to be quite dumb. What’s worse, you have gotten your ass kicked by men, women, and possibly children. Yet all the while, you’re the one claiming victory. It’s pathetically laughable.

            You know you were defeated regarding the ’71 and ’77 Cowboys playoff foes vs. the ’84 ‘Niners and in a desperate display of childish dishonesty (not that anyone was buying it) mixed the rounds of QBs each team faced in a failed attempt to say that the Cowboys of those years faced “tougher competition.” It was obvious to anyone with a fraction of a gnat’s brain that If you looked at the QBs each team faced round-by-round that the 49ers defense of ’84 faced much stiffer competition.

            The ’71 Vikings backups and Bob Avillini don’t add up to Phil Simms, do they Rasputin? Show us your ignorance again by saying “yes.”

            As for the ’71 and ’77 conference title games, Brodie was better than Steve Fuller but Bob Lee was not. Fuller had been starter in the NFL with Kansas City and , yes, he dethroned the Washington Redskins the week before with two TD passes. It was a big deal because the ‘Skins had dominated the NFC for the previous two years and was looking to three-peat as conference champions, dummy. No one beat Gibbs’ ‘Skins at home in the post season. Nobody but a team QBed by…Steve Fuller. So, Gibbs ‘Skins are in your nightmares and thoughts like Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, too? They took two SBs in Landry’s time and crushed the Cowboys in the NFC Title game to boot. Of course, as we all know, the Redskins are undefeated vs. the Cowboys in playoff competition. Both were crushing defeats. Not surprisingly, Cliff Harris was undressed by a true Hall of Fame receiver (which Drew Pearson was not), Charley Taylor, on a big playoff stage.

            In the Super Bowl all the ’71 and ’77 Cowboys had to do was defend a game manager and a Cowboy reject. The ‘Niners had to defend Dan Marino at his absolute peak. He was far better than a game manager. And Craig Morton vs. Dan Marino…PLEASE.

            The ’77 Cowboys played against offenses that each averaged less than 20 ppg. The ’84 ‘Niners played teams that averaged 18, 20, and 32 ppg. Avellini, Lee, and Morton don’t even add up Simms. Of that group, only the slightly-above mediocre Morton is better than Fuller. No need to insult Marino with that comparison. Neither Avellini, Lee, nor Morton ever came close to making a Pro Bowl, let alone the Hall of Fame. Please, spare us all the “Morton’s in the Broncos’ Ring of Honor” crap. I reiterate, the ’77 Cowboys playoff run, defensively, was light work. Not because they were so dominant but because the competition, offensively, was sooo weak. In ’77, Payton had no one else on offense around him (And they STILL couldn’t shut them out), the Viking had no Tarkenton (who was healthy and back in the saddle the next season to douse the Cowboys with two TD passes in a 21-10 swatting on MNF in Dallas; Yet the “dominant” Dallas defense couldn’t shut out Bob Lee), and Morton was a QB they knew inside-out (kind of like Jon Gruden coaching against Rich Gannon and the Raiders in THAT Super Bowl. We laughed like hyenas in Pittsburgh on that one).

            So, now, based on what I’ve seen on other posts, you are “embracing” ESPN because they stupidly said Lynn Swann was overrated. Yeah. Sure. That fat slob Jason Whitlock got on one of those shows and said Joe Namath was overrated. Both are stupid, ignorant statements, with absolutely no merit. And to say John Stallworth was overrated are the words of an idiot. STILL on your mind and in your nightmares about Landry’s Cowboys and Cliff Harris’, failures. LOL!!! If your performance is vital to a victory in a world title game, you are not overrated.

            So, Rasputin loves those subpar QBs, doesn’t he? Avellini, Gary Guazzo, Bob Lee, Mike Boryla, Pat Haden, Tony Romo…on…and…on…and…on…

            I’m obsessing over the Cowboys? You don’t see me on any Cowboys posts on this site, do you? I see you on Packers sites (butt-hurt from the spankings from Lombardi’s Packers), Steelers sites (Swann and Stallworth STILL haunting you), still trying to say how the Landry Cowboys were better. I’m sure you are on some 49ers posts, too (Montana, Walsh, Dwight Clark, Fred Dean and that excellent 49ers defense–featuring players far better than Chuck Howley and Cliff Harris– still loom over your head). You know the Landry Cowboys got nothing (0-13) versus those dynasties (Lombardi’s Packers; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) when they had opportunities to play them, right? LMAO!!!

            What’s with all your Hall of Fame “affirmative action” for the Cowboys? All this talk of “under-representation” and “it must be proportionate?” The Hall of Fame is about individual brilliance. The Landry Cowboys were a case of “the sum is greater than the parts.” Chuck Howley leaves, D.D. Lewis replaces him, the ship keeps sailing; Cliff Harris leaves, Michael Downs replaces him, the ship keeps sailing; Dave Richards leaves, “Hollywood” Henderson replaces him, the ship keeps sailing. Ralph Neely leaves, Pat Donovan replaces him, the ship keeps sailing. Too many replaceable parts, only a few VITAL parts. Vital parts (Bob Lilly; Roger Staubach; Randy White; Tony Dorsett) get into the HOF. Replaceable parts (Howley, Harris, Drew Pearson) do not.

            Once again, pay attention. Former Cowboy Jackie Smith is in the Hall of Fame. Former Cowboy receiver Terrell Owens will be inducted into the Hall of Fame this summer (more than Drew Pearson can say). Enjoy it.

            All the math and logic that I need is this and will be all I’ll say for as long as your foolishness, stupidity, and ignorance continues to pollute and contaminate this Lombardi dynasty’s post:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 23, 2018

            The high school dropout Scott Remington is showcasing his ignorance and dishonesty by simply repeating some tired points that have been thoroughly debunked. He’s out of ammo.

            “I’m obsessing over the Cowboys? You don’t see me on any Cowboys posts on this site, do you?”

            You’re talking about them, halfwit. Your obsessive hatred of the Cowboys has driven you into spamming up this page with dozens of posts about them, LMFAO. You persist in humiliating yourself when even you know I’ve kicked your ass all over this page. Your lies pretending otherwise (and desperately alluding to “other posts” without specifics, LOL) are feeble and collapse in the eyes of any honest observer reading this exchange. It’s also clear which team haunts whose nightmares. 🙂

            As for your inane, utterly demolished arguments comparing the 71 and 77 Cowboys to the 84 49ers, the mountain of facts and logical points I’ve posted already crush you. Since you’re too pathetic to either admit you’re wrong like a man or at least come up with something new, here I’ll just reiterate that we have a true common opponent in Walter Payton, who was waaaay better in his lone rushing title and NFL MVP season of 1977 than he was in 1984 (he posted vastly better numbers, o-line aside), yet Doomsday stoned him while he ran wild against San Fran.

            All you’ve got is (poorly done) speculation. When it came to the actual, non-imaginary common opponent Dallas did much better. Period. As for your idiotic championing of the 84 journeyman Bears backup QB Steve Fuller (LOL!) and his 2 TDs against the Redskins you keep celebrating, 77 Broncos QB Craig Morton threw 2 TDs against EACH the Raiders and Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain in his two playoff games (that’s a total of 4 TDs, since you suck at math) before Dallas held him to a 0.0 passer rating and his team to a SB record low 35 passing yards and 32% completion. So by your own logic you must feel Morton is awesome now. After all, the Steelers and even the Raiders were a lot better than the 84 Redskins and their 25th(!) ranked pass defense.

            That said, I didn’t claim the 77 opponents had better QBs as a group than the 84 opponents (though the 49ers didn’t hold any of theirs to a 0.0 passer rating). I said the 71 opponents did, and I refuted your idiotic assertion otherwise. But both the 71 and 77 opponents had better RUNNING games than the 84 opponents (that’s part of the offense too, moron), and better overall teams. It’s hilarious watching how you keep running away from discussing opposing RBs like the coward you are.

            I already went through every score the Dallas starters (who did shut out Chicago 37-0 before the backups cycled in during garbage time) allowed that postseason (it didn’t take long) and showed that the only one that didn’t result from a big return or a penalty putting the opponent in field goal range was one Vikings FG drive where the Cowboys forced a Chuck Foreman fumble and recovered it but the officials blew the call by not awarding it. That’s it.

            Maybe if Doomsday had gotten to play Marino they would have held him to 80 passing yards instead of the 318(!) San Fran surrendered. It certainly would have been easier to focus on a single great player (as they did with poor Walter Payton) than a great TEAM.

            As for the 71 Cowboys, and your desperate PPG fix, no one but the 85 Bears has held their playoff opponents to fewer combined points, and no one…..NO ONE but the 71 Cowboys has held their SB opponent without a TD. The early 70s Dolphins weren’t slouches as an opponent either. They were a great team that was about to go undefeated and win back to back SBs. They were way better than the 80s Dolphins.

            In fact the Cowboys’ playoff opponents were better in both seasons than the 49ers’ 84 opponents were, and they defensed them better.

            “Of course, as we all know, the Redskins are undefeated vs. the Cowboys in playoff competition.”

            All 2 games, LOL? The Jaguars are undefeated vs. the Steelers in the playoffs at 2-0, LMFAO! Unlike the overall Cowboys/Redskins series though, which Dallas dominates, Jacksonville also leads the Steelers head to head in the overall series 14-11. That’s just…….embarrassing.

            I’d rather have the 70(!)-44-2 head to head advantage in wins and the massive advantage in conference championships, division titles (over the Redskins directly), and the 5-3 Super Bowl edge the Cowboys enjoy.

            “you are “embracing” ESPN because they stupidly said Lynn Swann was overrated.”

            No, moron, I just provided a quick example to show I’m not the only one who’s said that. They are overrated.

            “LOL!!! If your performance is vital to a victory in a world title game, you are not overrated.”

            You mean like Larry Brown, LMFAO? You still having nightmares about that double digit beatdown in Super Bowl 30? What about the 2010s and the Cowboys being undefeated this decade so far against the Steelers? What’s up with that?

            “The Hall of Fame is about individual brilliance.”

            You mean like being SB MVP, being selected first team All Pro 5 times, or being first team All Decade? Stuff like that?

            “Cliff Harris leaves, Michael Downs replaces him, the ship keeps sailing;”

            Wait…what, LOL? Have you already forgotten these sledgehammer blows?

            Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

            With Harris
            1975 – 8th
            1976 – 7th
            1977 – 2nd
            1978 – 5th
            1979 – 3rd

            Without Harris
            1980 – 16th
            1981 – 21st
            1982 – 11th
            1983 – 27th
            1984 – 5th
            1985 – 26th

            Wrong again, dimwit.

            “Dave Richards leaves, “Hollywood” Henderson replaces him”

            Huh? You mean Dave Edwards?

            “Chuck Howley leaves, D.D. Lewis replaces him, the ship keeps sailing; Cliff Harris leaves, Michael Downs replaces him, the ship keeps sailing; Dave Richards leaves, “Hollywood” Henderson replaces him, the ship keeps sailing. Ralph Neely leaves, Pat Donovan replaces him, the ship keeps sailing. Too many replaceable parts, only a few VITAL parts. Vital parts (Bob Lilly; Roger Staubach; Randy White; Tony Dorsett) get into the HOF. Replaceable parts (Howley, Harris, Drew Pearson) do not.”

            Randy White succeeded Bob Lilly, Staubach succeeded Don Meredith and Craig Morton and was succeeded by Danny White, Drew Pearson succeeded Bob Hayes before being succeeded by Michael Irvin (drafted by Landry), and Tony Dorsett succeeded a Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, and later Preston Pearson-led committee before being succeeded by Herschel Walker.

            The Cowboys were the best at finding great players. They were the innovators in scouting and selection. That’s why they were able to keep reloading. Other teams struck at least partly lucky gold and had brief championship runs that lasted a few to several years. However, while the Packers and Steelers both fell away like shooting stars that burned out, the Cowboys remained consistently elite because they found more good and great players.

            Skewed HoF count aside, the Dallas Cowboys certainly have a better All Time team than the Steelers or anyone else. Franco Harris may be a HoFer but he’s not as good as the second string Dallas RB, Tony Dorsett. I’m not even sure I’d take him over Herschel Walker. Walker was certainly more explosive, physical and with world class speed, able to block and catch extremely well. Receiver? LOL, not even close. I’d Certainly take Michael Irvin and Bob Hayes over Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. I’d take Drew Pearson over them too. And Tony Hill was a more athletic version of Stallworth.

            But I love that you’ve now been reduced to arguing that the Cowboys having longer periods of elite success than other teams is somehow proof that they shouldn’t have as many HoFers as those other teams, LMFAO. That shows that at the very least this educational beating I’ve given you has caused the facts about the Cowboys’ superior success on the field, in the Landry era and overall, to sink in, along with the fact that many of those teams with less success have more HoFers than Dallas, and your insane hypocrisy on that matter.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            April 10, 2018

            So, Rasputin, are you a man or a coward? I answered your “pertinent questions without hesitation and I’ve exposed the cowardly lie you attempted by omitting the first four years (1971-74) of Harris’ negative impact on the Landry Cowboys pass defense (they went from third to 19th–LMAO!!!). The Landry’s Cowboys are well-represented in the Hall of Fame. No frauds (Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson), only TRUE greats (Bob Lilly, Roger Staubach, Tony Dorsett, Randy White)

            Now, Rasputin, what are your answers for THESE questions?:

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin? They had multiple (five) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin? They had multiple (four) opportunities. What happened?

            Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            April 11, 2018

            Actually, Scott, you’ve fled like the coward you are from any question or facts relating to even all those non-dynasty teams having more HoFers than the Cowboys because that destroys your assertion that Dallas isn’t underrepresented. And I’ve already answered your idiotic questions, though sometimes you label the sensible, easily supportable answers “excuses” (don’t ask if you don’t want answers, moron). But to showcase how cowardly you are in NOT answering my questions I’ll answer your questions again.

            “Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Lombardi Packers, Rasputin?”

            The Lombardi Packers were SLIGHTLY better than Dallas during Lombardi’s brief run, as the two one score title games indicate. After all, the Cowboys had only been around 7 years (66 was their first ever winning season) while the Packers are older than the NFL itself. Two of the three guys I’m pushing for the HoF weren’t even on the team yet.

            As for whether the Packers being slightly better in that brief period should keep Chuck Howley out of the HoF, Dallas only has 3 starters from those games in the HoF, while the Packers have 12. Green Bay certainly wasn’t FOUR TIMES better, nor do I think it would be an insult to Lombardi’s memory for the 60s Cowboy HoFer total to reach 4, especially since Howley (like the other Cowboy Hofers) later won a Super Bowl and was even a SB MVP.

            “Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Steelers in their reign from 1974-79, Rasputin?”

            They only played a couple of games that matter in that short span and those were both decided by 4 points, LOL! In 1975 Dallas overachieved to even make it to the Super Bowl (thanks to Drew Pearson and the Hail Mary) since they were rebuilding after a big wave of retirements and weren’t projected to even make the playoffs. Pittsburgh probably had the better team that year, though the Cowboys led most of the game. SB XIII was about atrocious officiating (both the BS passing interference call and an official literally blocking for Franco Harris on his only good run of the day), Randy White’s cast causing a key fumble on a botched Steelers kickoff they undeniably got lucky on, and Jackie Smith dropping a wide open TD pass when the vaunted Steel Curtain had been hopelessly beaten on the play. Landry has also been criticized for not running Dorsett enough, since the Steelers couldn’t stop him while Dallas did shut Pittsburgh’s running game down (except for the one official-aided TD). It’s not that none of those things could happen for Dallas to win. Pittsburgh needed them all to happen. If only one of those things didn’t happen then Dallas likely wins, despite the Cowboys not being as good in 78 as they were by the time they peaked in the playoffs in 1977 and 1971.

            If they had played more Dallas would have won, as they did in 1972 and against the Steelers 7 games in a row in that mid 60s-early 70s stretch.

            “Why couldn’t the Cowboys EVER beat the Joe Montana/Walsh machine, Rasputin?”

            Dallas was in decline by the 80s with players like Staubach and Harris retiring after 1979, and Mel Renfro and Rayfield Wright leaving in the late 70s. Remember how I already pointed that out, you stupidly disagreed with me, and then I crushed you with stats and rankings proving Dallas was in decline? They were still good but not what they had been several years earlier.

            More pertinent is why do the 49ers have more HoFers than the Cowboys given that Dallas has had way more success in terms of conference championship games, total wins, winning seasons, etc., and is 4-2 against San Francisco head to head in NFC title games? From 1970-1980 Landry went 7-1 against the 49ers, including 3-1 in the playoffs.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            I’ve proved Dallas is seriously underrepresented in Canton given its success on the field.

          • Rasputin
            April 10, 2018

            Meant to say if Pittsburgh was as bad as you say for that long then they shouldn’t have TWICE AS MANY HoFers from the Landry era as the Cowboys do, as they do, several of which weren’t even part of their 70s dynasty.

  22. Rasputin
    March 28, 2018
    Reply

    To recap:

    Landry Era 1960-1988

    Primary HoF Players (excluding rookie season)
    Packers – 14 (2 with no SB ring)
    Redskins – 10 (6 with no SB ring)
    Bears – 10 (5 with no SB ring)
    Colts – 9 (5 with no SB ring)
    Oilers – 9 (8 with no SB ring)
    Browns – 9 (8 with no SB ring)
    Rams – 9 (9 with no SB ring)
    Dolphins – 8 (2 with no SB ring)
    Giants – 8 (6 with no SB ring)
    Vikings – 8 (7 with no SB ring)
    Chiefs – 7 (0 with no SB ring)
    COWBOYS – 7 (0 with no SB ring)
    Lions – 6 (6 with no SB ring)
    Bills – 6 (6 with no SB ring)
    Chargers – 5 (4 with no SB ring)
    Eagles – 5 (4 with no SB ring)
    Cardinals – 4 (4 with no SB ring)

    Regular Season Wins
    COWBOYS –250
    Browns – 238
    Rams – 236
    Redskins – 224
    Vikings – 218
    Bears – 213
    Colts – 211
    Chargers – 210
    Packers – 208
    Dolphins – 205
    Chiefs – 205
    Cardinals – 193
    Giants – 188
    Lions – 186
    Oilers – 183
    Eagles – 178
    Bills – 176

    Playoff Wins
    COWBOYS – 20
    Dolphins – 14
    Redskins – 13
    Vikings – 12
    Packers – 10
    Oilers – 8
    Rams – 8
    Giants – 6
    Bears – 6
    Colts – 6
    Chiefs – 5
    Browns – 5
    Chargers – 4
    Eagles – 4
    Bills – 4
    Lions – 0
    Cardinals – 0

    Super Bowl Wins
    COWBOYS – 2
    Packers – 2
    Dolphins – 2
    Redskins – 2
    Giants – 1
    Bears – 1
    Chiefs -1
    Colts – 1
    Oilers – 0
    Browns – 0
    Rams -0
    Vikings – 0
    Lions – 0
    Bills – 0
    Chargers – 0
    Eagles -0
    Cardinals – 0

    Conference Championships
    COWBOYS – 5
    Dolphins – 5
    Redskins – 4
    Vikings – 4
    Packers – 2 (3 pre-1966 NFL titles)
    Chiefs – 2 (1 pre-1966 AFL title)
    Colts – 2
    Giants – 1
    Bears – 1 (1 pre-1966 NFL title)
    Eagles – 1 (1 pre-1966 NFL title)
    Rams – 1
    Oilers – 0 (2 pre-1966 AFL titles)
    Browns – 0 (1 pre-1966 NFL title)
    Lions – 0
    Bills – 0 (2 pre-1966 AFL titles)
    Chargers – 0 (1 pre-1966 AFL title)
    Cardinals – 0

    Conference Championship Game Appearances
    COWBOYS – 12
    Dolphins – 6
    Rams – 6
    Vikings – 6
    Redskins – 5
    Browns – 5
    Bears – 3
    Colts – 3
    Oilers – 3
    Packers – 2
    Chiefs – 2
    Bills – 2
    Chargers – 2
    Giants – 1
    Eagles – 1
    Lions – 0
    Cardinals – 0

    Division Championships
    COWBOYS – 13
    Vikings – 11
    Dolphins – 10
    Rams – 10
    Browns – 10
    Colts – 9
    Packers – 8
    Chargers – 8
    Bears – 6
    Bills – 6
    Redskins – 5
    Giants – 4
    Chiefs – 4
    Oilers – 4
    Eagles – 3
    Cardinals – 2
    Lions – 1

    Winning Seasons (more wins than losses, excluding ties)
    COWBOYS – 20
    Browns – 20
    Rams – 19
    Dolphins – 15
    Redskins – 15
    Vikings – 15
    Colts – 15
    Chargers – 15
    Chiefs – 13
    Bears – 12
    Giants – 11
    Oilers – 11
    Bills – 11
    Cardinals – 11
    Packers – 11
    Lions – 10
    Eagles – 8

    Double Digit Winning Seasons
    COWBOYS – 16
    Rams – 14
    Dolphins – 13
    Redskins – 10
    Browns – 10
    Colts – 9
    Vikings – 8
    Oilers – 8
    Bears – 7
    Giants – 6
    Packers – 6
    Chiefs – 6
    Eagles – 6
    Chargers – 6
    Bills – 5
    Cardinals – 3
    Lions – 2

    Playoff Seasons
    COWBOYS -18
    Rams – 15
    Vikings – 14
    Browns – 13
    Dolphins – 12
    Redskins – 10
    Oilers – 10
    Colts – 9
    Chargers – 9
    Packers – 8
    Bears – 8
    Bills – 8
    Giants – 7
    Chiefs – 6
    Eagles – 6
    Lions – 3
    Cardinals – 3

    The Cowboys were more successful than any of those teams in the Landry era, vastly more successful than most of them, and yet in HoFers are down around the lowly Lions, Eagles, etc. and only 3 above the freaking Cardinals. The Cardinals!

    I’ll list the 3 teams with more SB wins than Dallas in the Landry era separately. Lest one assumes they have more HoFers than Dallas simply because they won more Super Bowls, I’ll show that many of their HoFers came from outside their SB dynasties. In fact instead of just the Landry era I’ll show that these other teams have more HoFers than Dallas from the Cowboys’ founding through the end of the 90s (the team’s first 40 years of existence) despite NONE of them winning more Super Bowls than the Cowboys in that span. I’ll also add the Packers here for fun even though they only equaled the Cowboys in SB wins in the Landry era.

    1960-1999

    Primary HoF Players
    Packers – 16 (2 with no SB ring)
    Steelers – 15 (5 with no SB ring)
    49ers – 14 (8 with no SB ring)
    Raiders – 14 (3 with no SB ring)
    COWBOYS – 13 (0 with no SB ring)

    Super Bowl Wins
    COWBOYS – 5
    49ers – 5
    Steelers – 4
    Raiders – 3
    Packers – 3

    Conference Championships
    COWBOYS – 8
    49ers – 5
    Steelers – 5
    Raiders – 4
    Packers – 4 (3 pre-1966 NFL titles)

    Conference Championship Game Appearances
    COWBOYS – 16
    49ers – 12
    Raiders – 12
    Steelers – 10
    Packers – 5

    Regular Season Wins
    COWBOYS – 352
    Raiders – 348
    49ers – 334
    Steelers – 315
    Packers – 311

    Playoff Wins
    COWBOYS – 32
    49ers – 24
    Steelers – 21
    Raiders – 21
    Packers – 19

    Division Championships
    COWBOYS – 19
    49ers – 16
    Steelers – 14
    Raiders – 13
    Packers – 11

    Winning Seasons (more wins than losses, excluding ties)
    COWBOYS – 27
    49ers – 25
    Raiders – 25
    Steelers – 23
    Packers – 20

    Double Digit Winning Seasons
    COWBOYS – 23
    49ers – 18
    Raiders – 15
    Steelers – 13
    Packers – 11

    Playoff Seasons
    COWBOYS – 26
    49ers – 19
    Steelers – 18
    Raiders – 18
    Packers -14

    Once again the Cowboys have been the most successful team, leading every category like above, but have the fewest HoFers. Especially telling is the fact that the Cowboys have almost twice as many playoff seasons and MORE than twice as many double digit winning seasons as the Packers, both metrics indicating elite status, and yet the Packers have the most HoFers from that era.

    The Cowboys are the most underrepresented team in Canton given their success on the field. Inducting 3 Landry era players….

    Chuck Howley
    Cliff Harris
    Drew Pearson

    ….who are all long overdue anyway, would rectify this. It would be bring the Landry total up to 10, still below the Packers, 49ers, Steelers, and Raiders, but even with the Redskins and slightly above the Vikings and those many other teams listed above, which would be more fitting. It would take the all time Dallas total to 16, tying the Super Bowl era Packers, which would be appropriate since the Cowboys have won more Super Bowls and dominate across metrics.

    Since the Steelers’ last 2 SBs have been too recent for those HoF players to become eligible, at this point the Cowboys should have the most HoFers from the Super Bowl era. Only the 49ers won as many in the 20th Century, and the Cowboys won more conference championship games, won more total games, and had more playoff and winning seasons.

  23. Scott Remington
    April 28, 2018
    Reply

    “Scott Remington is showcasing his ignorance and dishonesty by simply repeating some tired points that have been thoroughly debunked. He’s out of ammo.”

    What is ignorant about pointing out that the Lombardi Packers won more world titles (5) than Landry’s Cowboys (2)? What is ignorant about pointing out that the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers won more world titles (4) than Landry’s Cowboys (2)? And where is the dishonesty about those statements? Rasputin, you show both ignorance and dishonesty (what else is new?) when you claim I’m out of ammo because that’s all the ammo I need, dummy. You’re making a fool of yourself. Five (Lombardi Packers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry Cowboys world titles). Four (Super Bowl 70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers) is greater than two (Landry Cowboys). Those facts cannot ever be debunked. You’re fighting a lost cause.

    What part of that math does your noncollege graduate brain fail to understand? What “college” did you attend? It stole your money because it taught you nothing.

    “…desperately alluding to “other posts” (Rasputin has trolled on) without specifics, LOL”

    You lie and then you laugh about it, Rasputin? SMH.

    You’ve polluted this Lombardi Packers post with all this crap about the so-called “greatness” of the Landry Cowboys (paper champions, at best) and you’ve done the same on Jerry Kramer’s post. You’ve contaminated Jack Ham’s post as well. Stay on COWBOY posts.

    Paper Champs, like Landry’s Cowboys, can bully and dominate the flawed teams (the Avellini QBed Bears–poor Walter Payton; the backup QBed Vikings; the pre-Montana/Walsh 49ers–Brodie/Nolan; or Morton QBed Broncos) with ease. As I said previously, light work. But when faced with the truth (Lombardi’s Packers; the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; the Montana/Walsh 49ers) they get exposed, crumble, lose, and give us pitiful alibi’s. All the while, going 0-13 in the process.

    Bye-bye, Rasputin, and don’t come back. This is a post about a DYNASTY. One that, not surprisingly, dominated Landry’s Cowboys among others. Paper champions are not welcome here. Scram and good riddance.

    • Rasputin
      April 28, 2018
      Reply

      Yeah, you’re done. Multiple knockout blows in that last post left you floored for days and unable to even try to respond in your latest give up post. Your repeated rhetoric and dishonest cherry-picking are insipid and have already been debunked all over this page. This exchange has been useful though.

      We’ve established that the Cowboys were the most successful team in the 20th Century SB era and yet have fewer HoFers from that era than many teams with much less success, the awesome 29 year Landry era being particularly underrepresented in Canton.

      We’ve established that you’re a lying hypocrite who opposes more Cowboys HoFers because of an alleged lack of SB wins but is fine with numerous teams with fewer or zero SB wins have more HoFers. Your entire position has collapsed under the weight of its own exposed contradictions.

      We’ve also established that you suck at math and your reading comprehension is atrocious. If you had stayed and finished high school, Scott Remington, that would probably still be true, since you’re a drooling moron, but maybe you would at least be seasoned enough not to have spent all this time humiliating yourself in a lost position.

      It’s especially hilarious that you futilely swipe at the Cowboys’ 71 and 77 opponents, when the 71 Cowboys crushed a truly great Dolphins team that would go undefeated the following season and repeat the year after that (“the truth”?) with a record setting, dominant performance (24-3, no fluky 4 point squeaker there). The 77 Cowboys annihilated a Broncos team that had just trashed the Steelers and Raiders in the playoffs and had beaten everyone they played that year except for Dallas. They would have been “the truth” if Doomsday hadn’t stood in their way.

      In the 90s the Cowboys beat a great 49ers team that was essentially the league’s other rival super power in that era by double digits TWICE in back to back NFC Championship games, and then crushed a great Bills team with more HoFers than those Cowboys teams have in their last two of 4 consecutive Super Bowls. Either of those opponents would have been “the truth” if Dallas hadn’t stood in their way. You’d be proclaiming the 1995 Steelers “the truth” if the Cowboys hadn’t beaten them by double digits too in Super Bowl 30.

      As for this being a “Lombardi Packers post”, it’s actually a discussion about how many HoFers a one roster merits. The HoF is ultimately an individual award, and you’ve been thoroughly defeated on the issue of various Cowboy candidates’ individual brilliance, but to the extent that team success is a factor to consider, this was as good a place as any to point out that Dallas is sorely underrepresented in Canton, in stark contrast to the early to mid 60s Packers. The discussion wouldn’t have filled this page the way it did if you hadn’t let your obsessive fear and hatred of the Cowboys compel you to reply by filling this page up with the garbage you posted. I’m glad it did.

      5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

      Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

      • Scott Remington
        April 30, 2018
        Reply

        Not done at all. the fact is you sent your April 23rd post but not to my attention. Another form of deception on your part because YOU are done. I never received your 4/23 post. Remember how I destroyed you in the March 8 post and YOU couldn’t come back for six whole days. And unlike your 4/23 display of ignorance, my March 8 post had a “reply” option in the top right corner. You puposely and cowardly supplied no option. I had to scroll down to see you had responded. Very, very cowardly, Rasputin. No balls at all. That’s alright. Just like the paper champ Landry Cowboys.

        BTW, i must point it out that you are too stupid to try ttrick the readers into saying the Cowboys are the greatest team by ending the NFL with the end of the 20th century. The world has moved on into the 21st century. And also noted was that you started this by talking about the “Landry Cowboys Dynasty.” Landry’s Cowboys were never a dynasty. Jerry Kramer, Dave Robinson, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Joe Montana, Bill, Walsh, and Fred Dean messed those plans up. LOL!!! You sheepishly HAVE TO drag Jimmy Johnson’s crew into the mix just to get the Copwboys a few more Super Bowls. Have the Cowboys won any SBs in the 21st century? The Packers and Steelers have. The Steelers have won two. Swann and Stallworth, especially, destroyed landry’s Cowboys attempts at being truly great. And they are forever in the nightmares of Landry’s Cowboys and their fans. Those guy were the ultimate Cowboys killers. It is pitiful thatn yeas later, we STILL hear the Cowboys and their delusional fans (like Rasputin) still drolling and vomiting with excuses and hypotheticals: Jerry Kramer was offsides, JAck Lambert should have been ejected for trashing Cliff Harris, if Jackie Smith had caught that pass, PI on Swann, Randy White’s fumble, Montana was really throwing the ball away and Dwight Clark saved him. Notice how most of these are against the Steelers? Get over it. The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers were a better–much better–team. They even wasted the greatest Landry Cowboys team in ’77, giving them one of their two losses, 28-13, as Franco Harris ran for 179 yards including a 61-yd. TDromp right up the middle with Cliff Harris tossing a lazy, half-assed arm at him.

        Rasputin ignorance ran abundant as usual:

        “As for this being a “Lombardi Packers post”, it’s actually a discussion about how many HoFers a one roster merits.” No, it is a post about the greatness of the Lombardi Packers.

        Of course, it wouldn’t be Rasputin without stealing and lying:

        “The HoF is ultimately an individual award…” I said that, dummy. That’s no ariginal. I schooled you on the reality of the situation. The Landry Cowboy were the classic tale of the sum is greater than the parts. And Howley, Harris, and Pearson were not vital parts (Lilly, Staubach,White, or Dorsett) but replaceable parts. Write ’em off. Let ’em go. Who cares?

        The Cardinals, Vikings, Rams, etc., etc., etc. had better individuals than the Landry Cowboys. These players were simply playing on bad or flawed teams. Should Robert Brazile be in the Hall of Fame over Chuck Howley? Absolutely. Should Kenny Easley be in over Cliff Harris? Of course. Should Randy Moss be fitted for a HOF Jacket over Drew Pearson, like Steve Largent previously has been? There is no question. As for that ridiculous Drew Pearson NFL Draft speech, he talked about the “FIVE-TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMIONSHIP DALLAS COWBOYS!!!” My thoughts were, “How many of those did you win, Drew?”

        Finally, the thought to remember and all the math and logic I need regarding the Landry Cowboys so-called “greatness”:

        Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two. Why don’t you re-read the intelligent words of Sam G. Goldberg:

        SAM M. GOLDENBERG
        February 19, 2018
        Rasputin

        ‘…I understand your argument that Landry’s Cowboys sustained a long period of winning, but this cannot be compared to Lombardi’s Packers. Lombardi’s Packers were a dynasty! The ultimate team of the sixties. The Steelers of the 70’s are the comparison.” And as a Steelers fan, I would respectfully ad the Montana/Walsh 49ers to that mix. One common link. They were undefeated vs. Landry’s Cowboys during their respective, dynastic world title runs.

        • Rasputin
          April 30, 2018
          Reply

          I don’t control email notifications or “supply” the “reply” button, moron, but as anyone can see by the nested structure my above reply was directly to your last post where you were the one who replied to the op (not “Rasputin”) despite addressing me in your post like the sniveling weasel you are, Scott Remington, you lying coward. You did the same thing on Feb. 26, and again with your latest batch of vomit below, LMFAO. As for you not getting an email notification, I never “received” your March 8 post either. I only found it by refreshing the page on a hunch days later. Sometimes glitches happen. But it normally doesn’t matter whom you’re replying to, the email notification should arrive for everyone who clicked the “notify me” box. I did “receive” your previous (and latest) one that you apparently tried to hide though, judging from your own projection-laced comments, and I replied the same day. I only mentioned the lag in your response to mock you since you had howled about that before. That my points were knockout blows is evidenced less by your slow response time and more by your failure to address them. You’ve never “destroyed” anything here but your own credibility.

          “This is a post about a DYNASTY.”

          Actually it’s about how many HoFers one Packers roster merits. The “12” in the headline refers to HoFers. The word “dynasty” doesn’t appear in the article. It’s a brief blog piece but it served as a useful launching point for a broader discussion about the relationship between team success and number of HoFers. The petty semantics of a tangent is far less interesting.

          “BTW, i must point it out that you are too stupid to try ttrick the readers into saying the Cowboys are the greatest team by ending the NFL with the end of the 20th century. The world has moved on into the 21st century”

          But I was talking specifically about the 20th Century, halfwit, partly because most 21st Century players aren’t eligible yet and partly because the Cowboys who should be in the HoF but aren’t are all from the 20th Century. I can analyze or discuss any time period I want. The world has moved on from the 1960s too but Gosselin’s question focused on that one period and you hypocritically had no complaint. Man, you’re a faceplanting buffoon.

          That the Cowboys of that long era have more SB wins than the Steelers and everyone else but the 49ers, and more conference titles and overall success than the 49ers and everyone else, and yet have way fewer HoFers than those teams and many more even less successful ones is noteworthy when thinking about the topic I laid out above.

          “And also noted was that you started this by talking about the “Landry Cowboys Dynasty.””

          Another lie. Anyone can scroll up and see that my first response here on Feb. 15 didn’t mention the word “dynasty” and yet you replied to me anyway to whine because you’re a butthurt Steelers fan who obsessively fears and hates the Dallas Cowboys.

          Maybe it’s because the 90s Cowboys went undefeated against the Steelers, 4-0, winning every game by DOUBLE DIGITS, including the beat down in Super Bowl 30, culminating in a 37-7 laugher at Pittsburgh in the 1997 opener. As the 1977 Cowboys essentially shut out the Bears at Walter Payton’s best in the playoffs 37-0 before cycling in backups and giving up one meaningless garbage time TD near the end (which you ignorantly tried to attach great importance to before being smacked down and ridiculed), Dallas was beating Pittsburgh 37-0 before taking out most key starters on both sides of the ball and giving up one garbage time TD.

          Maybe it’s because the Cowboys are currently undefeated against the Steelers in the 2010s.

          Or maybe it’s because Dallas has a winning all time head to head record against Pittsburgh.

          But it’s probably all those things and more, with jealousy over the well earned “America’s Team” thing thrown in. Being the projection-prone clown you are, it’s clear you’re having nightmares about Larry Brown, Troy Aikman, Larry Allen, Ezekiel Elliott, and lots of other Cowboys. If you’re an old fan you’re also having nightmares about Chuck Howley, Bob Lilly, and Bob Hayes who owned your team year after year. Heck, Dallas got its first ever NFL win against the Steelers in 1961. Beating Pittsburgh is an old Cowboys tradition that continues to this day. 🙂

          “Swann and Stallworth, especially, destroyed landry’s Cowboys attempts at being truly great.”

          No, they were truly great. If you win more games than anyone else for a decade or more, making it to 5 Super Bowls in 9 years and 12 conference championships in 17 years, and post an NFL RECORD 20 consecutive winning seasons, the word “great” hardly seems adequate. The word “dynasty” may not even do it justice because lots of teams have had dynasties but no one has done what the Landry Cowboys accomplished. But I’m willing to use the word “dynasty” broadly defined. And there is no precise definition, small fry.

          “JAck Lambert should have been ejected for trashing Cliff Harris,”

          You mean running up behind him and pulling him down, LOL? I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Lambert should have been ejected for such a pansy move. He never tried anything like that again, and certainly not when Harris was facing him.

          “The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers were a better–much better–team.”

          The “Super Bowl 70s Steelers” never played the 71 Cowboys. Chuck Howley beat Pittsburgh the last 7 times he played them. And the Steelers lost to the Broncos so didn’t play the 77 Cowboys when they were peaking in the playoffs and were better than in 78, or Dallas would have won.

          “They even wasted the greatest Landry Cowboys team in ’77, giving them one of their two losses, 28-13, as Franco Harris ran for 179 yards including a 61-yd.”

          The 74 “Super Bowl” Steelers were wasted by the Bengals (LOL!), the Oilers, and the Raiders, Oakland pounding your guys 17-0 (shut out!). The 75 Steelers were wasted by the Rams and Bills (by double digits). The 76 Steelers were embarrassed by multiple teams, including the Vikings, and finally obliterated in the playoffs by the Raiders again 24-7. The 78 Steelers were wasted by Houston and the Rams. The 79 Steelers were wasted by the Eagles, the Bengals again (34-10, LMFAO!), the Chargers (35-7!), and Houston.

          Only the 72 Dolphins have gone undefeated. And guess who obliterated them 24-3 in the previous year’s Super Bowl in record setting fashion. Give up? The Dallas Cowboys.

          “Of course, it wouldn’t be Rasputin without stealing and lying: “The HoF is ultimately an individual award…” I said that, dummy. That’s no ariginal. I schooled you on the reality of the situation.”

          Wrong again, you lying moron. I said this back on Feb. 18 in direct reply to you near the top of this page as anyone can see: “The Hall of Fame is ultimately an individual award, but if one is to take team success into account as a major factor to consider, as this article does in its premise, then the Dallas Cowboys are one of the most underrepresented teams in Canton.” I said the same thing on Feb. 26 and had talked about individual cases even earlier.

          You’re not just wrong, Scott Remington, but your claims are often the opposite of the truth.

          “The Landry Cowboy were the classic tale of the sum is greater than the parts. And Howley, Harris, and Pearson were not vital parts (Lilly, Staubach,White, or Dorsett) but replaceable parts. Write ’em off. Let ’em go. Who cares?”

          I already debunked that, LOL. Here’s another sledgehammer blow for old time’s sake.

          Cowboys Pass Defense Ranking

          With Harris
          1975 – 8th
          1976 – 7th
          1977 – 2nd
          1978 – 5th
          1979 – 3rd

          Without Harris
          1980 – 16th
          1981 – 21st
          1982 – 11th
          1983 – 27th
          1984 – 5th
          1985 – 26th

          You have no response to these facts. You’ve gotten REALLY quiet about it since I crushed your little attempt to lie about Harris’ initial impact on the team. You tried to claim that their pass defense briefly dipping was his fault until I posted more precise stats from that season showing the big improvement once he became the starter a few games in, LOL.

          All three of those guys and more have great individual cases. That they all won Super Bowls is just extra.

          “The Cardinals, Vikings, Rams, etc., etc., etc. had better individuals than the Landry Cowboys.

          Yawn. Already debunked in detail above.

          “Should Robert Brazile be in the Hall of Fame over Chuck Howley? Absolutely. Should Kenny Easley be in over Cliff Harris? Of course.”

          Not only are your blind assertions here wrong, but I smashed your cowardly attempt at cherry-picking by listing a whole bunch of guys inducted in recent decades and explaining point by point why Howley, Harris, and Pearson are more deserving of HoF status than them. I even got you to retreat to the position of admitting that Howley at least is more deserving than about half of them but untenably claiming that most of them don’t deserve to be in Canton either. You had to throw the whole system under the bus to try to argue against inducting more Cowboys, LMFAO. You’re a joke and you ARE done.

          “Why don’t you re-read the intelligent words of Sam G. Goldberg:”

          You left out this sentence:

          Sam G. Goldberg – “I certainly think Chuck Howley should be a Hall of Famer.”

          LOL! You really are a faceplanting halfwit, Scottie. Wait….let me guess….Goldberg is right about some things (the blindly emotional, off topic part you quoted) and wrong about others (the clear cut statement about the more objective heart of the topic). I agree. I just disagree on what he’s right and wrong about.

          5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

          Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            May 1, 2018

            “I even got you to retreat to the position of admitting that Howley at least is more deserving…” No. I said Howley may have been a better player than some guys who sneaked into the the Hall of Fame but that doesn’t mean he’s a Hall of Famer. Your reading comprehension is horrible. That’s the result of not graduating (or attending. Let’s be real, Rasputin, you never got into an accredited four-year university, did you?) from college.

            Beating the Steelers is a Cowboys tradition? When did Staubach ever beat the Steelers? The Landry Cowboys at their peak never beat the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers. That STILL gnaws at you. And they never beat Lombardi’s Packers nor the Montana/Walsh 49ers.

            A Cowboy tendency or tradition (I’ll let the readers decide) is the ready-made, built-in excuses that they drool over us with when the Cowboys fail, which is abundantly often:
            Vs. Lombardi’s Packers–“We were a young expansion team.”; “Jerry Kramer Jumped offsides.”; “It was cold.” Wah, wah, wah.

            Vs. The Suoer Bowl ’70s Steelers–“Lambert wasn’t ejected (for trashing Cliff Harris)”; “The Cowboys were rebuilding.”; “The Steelers caught the ’77 Cowboys at the right time.”; “…if jackie Smith hadn’t dropped that pass”; PI on Swann; “The official ran into Charlie Waters (Really? It was the other way around)”; “Randy White fumbled because he had on a cast (ummm??? Instead of passing the ball back to the Cowboy who was supposed to return the kick?)”; “Staubach didn’t finish the ’79 game (you mean after L.C. Greenwood ran through Rayfield Wright–what else is new?–to crush Roger and put him out of commission?).” Weep, weep, weep.

            Vs. Montana/Walsh 49ers–“The Cowboys were in decline (from ’81-’85, the Cowboys were in the playoffs four of those years went to two Conference titile games, won two divisional titles. They were fine–and the Montana/Walsh ‘Niners STILL obliterated them whenever they met); “Montana was throwing the ball away and Dwight Clark saved him.” Sob, sob, sob.

            ENOUGH!

            The Landry Cowboys were paper champions. “They beat the Broncos who trashed the Steelers, therefore…” Uh, no. Just because Riddick Bowe (Landry’s Cowboys and a great parallel) beat Evander Holyfield (Denver Broncos) doesn’t mean Bowe (Landry Cowboys) would beat Mike Tyson (Steelers). The Broncos and the Cowboy reject QB had a nice, extremely lucky ride in ’77. How did the Broncos with that QB do against the Steelers the next year–regular season and playoffs? LOL!!! All the defeats you mentioned about the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers suffering have interesting themes:

            1) These were teams that the Steelers regularly defeated regular or postseason (Raiders, Bills, Vikings, Oilers, Chargers). However, at least THOSE teams had the heart to come back and beat the Steelers during their Dynastic run. Dallas couldn’t do it even ONCE!

            2) Hey, Mr. Regular Season Success? What was more significant? The Rams going 2-0 vs the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers in the regular season or 0-1 vs the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers in the Super Bowl? What’s bigger?

            3) Maybe that’s one reason these teams produced more HOFers than Landry’s Cowboys. They had the balls to stand up to the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers (and Lombardi’s Packers and the Montana/Walsh 49ers, btw) and beat them while the Cowboys had multiple shots to redeem themselves and salvage some pride and walked away with an old-fashioned ass-whipping EVERY time. “They didn’t play that often.” You big liar. From 1975-79 they played four times, including a span of three years in a row. After each soul-crushing defeat, it would seem, the Cowboys should have seen the Steeler game on the schedule and had that marked and circled in bright red ink. But in each match what happened? Another ass-whipping at the hands of the Steelers. Where was the Dallas motivation? Where was the Cowboys pride? I have to admit, the Raiders never allowed the Steelers to make them their chumps in the ’70s. But Landry’s Cowboys did. Just Like they were the chumps of Lombardi’s Packers and just like they were chumps of the Montana/Walsh 49ers.

            As for the whole “It was only by a touchdown, It was only by four points,” it doesn’t matter. A loss is a loss. An ass-whipping is an ass-whipping. When the loser always comes up with lame excuses it only magnifies and confirms how soul-crushing the loss was. Then the meltdowns come with ridiculous denegrating of the great players who administered the defeat/ass-whipping (e.g, “Jerry Kramer was offsides”; “Swann and Stallworth are overrated”; “Lambert was a pansy” (Was LAMBERT the one who was taunting and bullying–a kicker!?!?!? That’s just Cliff Harris being Cliff Harris. and he got what he deserved); “Montana was throwing it away and Dwight Clark saved him”). That is the state of being a Dallas Cowboys fan, I guess. In Western PA, we relish the fact that we have more Super Bowls than anyone else.

            May Howley, Harris, and Pearson forever remain on the outside looking into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And if even one of them does manage to sneak in, I hope your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren live to see it.

            All the math and logic I need is this:

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

            Bonus question: When did Roger Staubach or Drew Pearson ever beat the Steelers?

          • Rasputin
            May 7, 2018

            “I said Howley may have been a better player than some guys who sneaked into the the Hall of Fame but that doesn’t mean he’s a Hall of Famer. Your reading comprehension is horrible.”

            No, your reading comprehension is horrible. I didn’t say you called him a HoFer, moron. You shouldn’t have stopped reading my comment in mid sentence (the part you quoted) before the large portion where I mocked you for claiming about half the senior HoFers of the past few decades didn’t deserve induction and throwing the entire system under the bus just to argue for keeping Howley out (the part you left out, coward), all because the Dallas Cowboys have beaten your team so much throughout your life that’s it’s given you an obsessive, crippling hatred of them. If you had graduated high school, Scott Remington, maybe you wouldn’t have posted such a sorry response.

            “When did Staubach ever beat the Steelers? The Landry Cowboys at their peak never beat the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers.”

            Chuck Howley beat the Steelers the last 7 times he played them, halfwit. BTW, his record setting Super Bowl victory over a great Miami team definitely constitutes ONE of the Landry era peaks, LMFAO. Unlike Lombardi and Noll, Landry’s success lasted long enough and was non-flukish enough, with completely different waves of great, HoF quality players, that his teams saw multiple peaks.

            I only skimmed the rest of your irrational, teary-eyed rant. Looks like you’re just reposting already debunked material. You’ve gotten your ass kicked all over this site and you’re punch drunk.

            You’ve already lost this debate because you’ve asserted that HoF count shouldn’t be tied to team success, contradicting much of the other crap you’ve posted here. It’s over. Your position isn’t even coherent enough to be cleanly wrong with some dignity. You’re wrong on multiple levels in various ways, and even at odds with yourself. You’re a bad, sniveling loser, Scott Remington.

            If team success doesn’t matter then it wouldn’t matter if Howley, Pearson, and Harris lost every game they ever played. Their candidacies would rest solely on their individual brilliance. All three have overwhelmingly strong Canton cases as I’ve shown. Two first team All Decade players and a guy with 5 first team AP All Pro selections. Count up what percentage of eligible retired players with 5 first team NFL All Pros are in the HoF. Go ahead. I’ll wait, LOL.

            And if team success does matter then you’ve been repeatedly crushed on that front too. So you lose either way. But I appreciate you stupidly offering to keep serving as a prop for me to make this point.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            May 7, 2018

            “…because the Dallas Cowboys have beaten your team so much throughout your life that’s it’s given you an obsessive, crippling hatred of them.”

            Not at all. You don’t see me going on Cowboy posts and reading archives of Dallas newspapers, do you? Like you are all on Jack Ham’s site, reading the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, etc., etc., etc. Swann and Stallworth and those Super Bowl losses are STILL in your nightmares. LOL!!! How many times have you gone on the Green Bay Press-Gazette? Swann and Stallworth destroy the Cowboys, you call them “overrated.” Jerry Kramer keeps Dallas out of Super Bowl II, you say Howley was a better player (than Kramer? Ridiculous) and you call his great block to clear the way for Bart Starr “overrated.” Any stupid thoughts on Joe Montana, Dwight Clark or Ronnie Lott? We’ve already seen the Rasputin ignorance about Fred Dean (lesser player than Howley? Ridiculous) and the excellent 49ers defense of the Montana/Walsh era.

            “…Unlike Lombardi and Noll (I guess you throw Walsh in there, too? SMH) Landry’s success lasted long enough and was non-flukish enough…”

            What was “fluky” about the five world titles that Lombardi’s Packers won? What was “fluky” about the four world titles that the Super Bowl ’70s Steelers won? What was “fluky” about both these teams making the Landry Cowboys their chumps (to the tune of 9-0) on their way to those championships? When did Chuck Howley ever beat the Lombardi Packers and Dave Robinson (I see you gave up that lost cause–the Howley was better than Robinson crap)? When did Staubach and Pearson ever beat Bradshaw, Swann and Stallworth? Directly answer all the questions, coward. Try not to answer the questions with other questions because that’s only a desperate display of no courage on your part, Rasputin. Lombardi and Noll each won more world titles than Landry in shorter spans of time. During Landry’s time! Therefore, their (Vince and Chuck) ratios are more impressive. And Tom’s record vs. each in the playoffs? Give us some alibi’s from the Cowboy’s Excuse Machine and entertain us with another Rasputin meltdown and display of ignorance.

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            May 11, 2018

            In the Super Bowl VI broadcast Pat Summerall said that before the game when he asked Miami players which Cowboy they most respected Chuck Howley’s name came up more than anyone else’s. Not surprisingly Howley turned in yet another great big game performance, helping seal the SB win.

            You’ve grown so desperate you’re actually trying to troll me for being an informed researcher, LOL? I wasn’t born when SB X happened and so have no live memories of either of those SBs, but I’m a history guy and love researching contemporary documents from various sources. I cited a Pittsburgh article to debunk your ignorant claims about Harris because as a Pittsburgh article it’d be even harder for you to dismiss it.

            On the other hand we know that YOU have memories of all those double digit beat downs in the 90s, including in SB XXX, and the Cowboys beating the Steelers in all the games they’ve played so far this decade. You’re a cowardly, projection prone moron with a crippling hatred of Dallas. But kicking your ass around this site is fun and provides me with an opportunity to post a lot of facts and arguments about the Cowboys’ underrepresentation in the HoF.

            Your post just repeated already debunked material and wasn’t really worth reading, but again I appreciate you volunteering to serve as a punching bag-like prop and for being such an amusing faceplanter.

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            May 14, 2018

            “In the Super Bowl VI broadcast Pat Summerall said that before the game when he asked Miami players which Cowboy they most respected Chuck Howley’s name came up more than anyone else’s. Not surprisingly Howley turned in yet another great big game performance, helping seal the SB win.” Yeah, sure. They worry about some faceless linebacker who is carried by Bob Lilly, Mel, Renfro, and Herb Adderley. Then they get dominated and run through, around, and away from by the guy they SHOULD HAVE BEEN worried about, Duane Thomas. Who the Cowboys foolishly trade instead of paying him the money he deserved. Doomsday shut down a game manager? (Yawn) Big deal. Duane Thomas was the real MVP of Super Bowl VI. Because of Thomas’ refusal to speak to anyone that year, Staubach (who averaged less than ten yards per completion; not an overpowering passing performance, even for that era–Starr, Namath, and Dawson did better) was the safe choice for the SPORT Magazine MVP.

            BTW, you suck at math. You actually say that Walt Garrison (WALT GARRISSON? How desperately ignorant is that?!?) had “almost” as many yards as Thomas in SB VI? Always know that 74 is not almost as much as 95, rocket scientist. Let me quote the late, great “Dandy Don” Meredith: “If you need four yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards. If you need 20 yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards.” SMH.

            Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

          • Rasputin
            May 15, 2018

            “Yeah, sure. They worry about some faceless linebacker who is carried by Bob Lilly, Mel, Renfro, and Herb Adderley.”

            Man, you’re ignorant. 5 first team All Pro selections and the previous year’s SB MVP is more “face” than anyone other than Lilly on either team at that point. And they were right to worry about Howley. He took momentum early by recovering a fumble and sealed the win late with an interception and 41 yard return.

            “Then they get dominated and run through, around, and away from by the guy they SHOULD HAVE BEEN worried about, Duane Thomas.”

            The guy who had fewer yards in the first half when the game was in doubt than Walt Garrison did? No. Dallas set a SB rushing record that stood for a while but Thomas had less than half that yardage and gained most of his late. That game was more about defense. By winning 24-3 Dallas set a record that STILL stands.

            “Who the Cowboys foolishly trade instead of paying him the money he deserved.”

            Sure, how’d the rest of his career go? Let me enlighten you. Dallas first traded Thomas to the Patriots. He was so disruptive that they sent him back and Rozelle took the unprecedented step of voiding the deal. Then they traded him to the Chargers. Thomas began there by getting suspended for 20 days for failing to show up. He never played a game for them. San Diego traded him to the Redskins. In his 2 years there he totaled 442 rushing yards at 3.5 y/c.

            No, moron, Dallas didn’t lose out on much by trading him, LOL.

            Duane Thomas derailed his own career by being immature and having a bad attitude.

            “Doomsday shut down a game manager?(Yawn) Big deal. ”

            A HoF QB. And a HoF RB. And HoF WR. Not knowing anything about football you keep leaving the running game in your blind spot, LOL.

            “Duane Thomas was the real MVP of Super Bowl VI. Because of Thomas’ refusal to speak to anyone that year, Staubach (who averaged less than ten yards per completion; not an overpowering passing performance, even for that era–Starr, Namath, and Dawson did better) was the safe choice for the SPORT Magazine MVP.”

            Nah. Staubach posted a 115.9 rating against a truly great defense. He threw 2 TDs with 0 INTs and completed 63.2% of his passes. He protected the ball while gradually prying the game open. He even rushed for 18 yards, including a key first down. Staubach was the rightful MVP.

            In fact he should have been the NFL MVP that year. After a 4-3 start alternating QBs the Cowboys went undefeated when they made Roger the full time starter. The league leading 104.8 passer rating he posted that season was insane considering that the NFL average then was 59.3. Since we’ve established that you (really do) suck at math let me assure you that’s a huge difference. At least it was fitting that he got to beat the MVP they did choose, Alan Page, head to head in the playoffs.

            “You actually say that Walt Garrison (WALT GARRISSON? How desperately ignorant is that?!?) had “almost” as many yards as Thomas in SB VI? Always know that 74 is not almost as much as 95, rocket scientist.”

            Actually I pointed out that Garrison had MORE yards in the first half than Thomas. Walt made the tough runs in the middle early on that gradually opened things up for the rest of the offense, including Thomas.

            Garrison also averaged 5.3 yards/carry while Thomas averaged 5 y/c.

            And 74 and 95 are only 21 yards apart, which isn’t much considering you’re whining that one should have been MVP while you’re trying to dismiss the other.

            Thomas only had 37.7% of the 252 total Cowboys rushing yards. Garrison finished with 29.4%. That’s not much difference. (Poor Scott’s eyes are really glazing over now, LOL).

            “Let me quote the late, great “Dandy Don” Meredith: “If you need four yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards. If you need 20 yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards.” SMH.”

            Some humorous hyperbole that mostly highlights his consistency. But Garrison averaged 5.3 y/c in the Super Bowl, as I just educated you, and a strong 4.3 y/c for his career. In fact he had two 17 yard runs in SB 6.

            Facts are facts.

            Speaking of facts you’ve been too moronic and/or cowardly to face….

            5 20th Century Cowboys SB wins is more than the Steelers’ 4, the Raiders’ 3, and the Packers’ 3, and 16 Landry double digit winning seasons is more than the Steelers’ and 49ers’ 8 (only half what the Cowboys had), let alone the Packers’ meager 6. Landry’s 2 SB wins is also more than the Vikings’ 0, the Rams 0 in that era, the Chiefs’ 1, the Colts’ 1, the Oilers’ 0, and the Browns’ 0 despite those teams and others having more HoFers. 18 is more than 6, 2 is more than 0, and 5 is more than 3.

            Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

          • Scott Remington
            May 16, 2018

            “Dallas didn’t lose out on much by trading (Duane Thomas), LOL.” Really? They didn’t win another Super Bowl until they finally found Thomas’ worthy successor, Tony Dorsett. SIX years later…Dummy.

            “Let me quote the late, great “Dandy Don” Meredith: “If you need four yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards. If you need 20 yards, and you give the ball to Walt Garrison, he’ll get you four yards.” SMH.”

            Some humorous hyperbole that mostly highlights his consistency…In fact he had two 17 yard runs in SB 6.”

            Meredith’s humorous observation was not highlighting consistency but the fact that Garrison was SLOW (like another Cowboy non-Hall of Famer, Drew Pearson). TWO 17-yard runs? Wow. Walt was running wild, huh? Did he have a run of over 20 yards that day? Duane Thomas did. Did Walt score a TD that game? Duane Thomas did.

            Your ignorance inevitably brings you into foolishly fighting lost causes that have unavoidable facts (Five and four are greater than two; six is greater than five; two out of three is greater than one out of three) and now your saying that Walt Garrison was on par or–even more ridiculous–better than Duane Thomas? After they foolishly traded Thomas, how many Super Bowls did Walt Garrison take them to?

            Good night, Ignorant trailer park Cowboys fan.

          • Rasputin
            May 15, 2018

            Seriously, only a drooling moron would try to blame Dallas for Duane Thomas derailing his own career when he flamed out even worse at every other place that gave him a chance.

          • Rasputin
            May 16, 2018

            “trailer park Cowboys fan.”

            The more bigoted and ignorant your sad attempts at insults get the more desperate you look, Scott Remington. 🙂

            ““Dallas didn’t lose out on much by trading (Duane Thomas), LOL.” Really? They didn’t win another Super Bowl until they finally found Thomas’ worthy successor, Tony Dorsett. SIX years later…Dummy.”

            And what did the Patriots, Chargers, and Redskins accomplish with Duane Thomas after he left Dallas? For a hint read the answer I just educated you with in the last post, moron. LMFAO!

            “Meredith’s humorous observation was not highlighting consistency but the fact that Garrison was SLOW (like another Cowboy non-Hall of Famer, Drew Pearson). TWO 17-yard runs? Wow. Walt was running wild, huh?”

            Nah, it was mostly praising his consistency. Walt Garrison averaged 5.3 y/c that Super Bowl (more than Thomas, btw) and a very healthy 4.3 y/c for his career. You lose again.

            “(Five and four are greater than two; six is greater than five; two out of three is greater than one out of three)”

            Five is more than four, 16 is more than 8, 2 is more than 0, 75 is more than 73, and 17 is more than 15. Any way you slice it Dallas is underrepresented in Canton.

  24. Scott Remington
    April 30, 2018
    Reply

    Worth repeating:

    Just can’t get around the fact that five (Lombardi’s Packers world titles) and four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers world titles; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys world titles). To be a dynasty–a world championship dynasty–the criteria is very simple. Win the most world titles over a decade or a series of decades and have a run of consecutive world titles along that period of time, starting from the first title. Lombardi’s Packers won the most world titles during the 1960s with consecutive world titles in ’61 and 62 and ’65, ’66, and ’67. The Super Bowl ’70s Steelers went back-to-back in ’74 and ’75 and again in ’78 and ’79 giving them the most world titles in the 1970s. The Montana/Walsh 49ers won world titles in ’81, ’84, then achieve a repeat in ’88 and ’89 giving them the most world titles in the 1980s. All these teams defeated the Landry Cowboys during their respective world title reigns repeatedly to the combined tune of 13-0 (Lombardi’s Pack 5-0; Super Bowl ’70s Steelers 4-0; Montana/Walsh ‘Niners 4-0). The Landry Cowboys were regularly beaten by these dynasties during their runs. So, Dallas only had only two world titles–spread out over seven years in the ’70s–and were shut out in world titles in the ’60s and ’80s completely. And as defending world champs, Landry’s Cowboys never repeated. Therefore, they were NOT a “dynasty.” End of discussion.

    I must throw in your ignorance that is always on display…

    “…the awesome 29 year Landry era being particularly underrepresented in Canton.” Two world titles in 29 years is solar systems away from “awesome.” SMH. And you wonder why many Cowboys AREN’T in the Hall of Fame? SMH. Howley, Harris, and Pearson aren’t in for a very simple reason: They don’t deserve to be in.

    Five (Lombardi Packers world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) and Four (Super Bowl ’70s Steelers; Montana/Walsh 49ers’ world titles) is greater than two (Landry’s Cowboys meager world title total–with no repeat) can never be debunked. In the history of the world’s numerical system, five and four has always been greater than two.

    Regular season success only gets you into the playoffs with a chance to win a world title. If you come away empty 18 of twenty years (like Landry’s Cowboys), those successful “regular seasons” don’t mean a thing. Especially when you’re talking about getting into the Hall of Fame. Great players on crappy teams (Gale Sayers; Dick Butkus; O.J.Simpson; Steve Largent) get sympathy. Pretty good players who play on brides’ maids most of their career (Howley, Harris, Pearson) and contribute to the brides’ maid status get nothing.

  25. Rasputin
    April 30, 2018
    Reply

    I reject your arbitrary definition of “dynasty” but those semantics are irrelevant. You failed to address all those facts comparing team success I posted above and you’ve been decisively crushed on the issue of team success. Cherry-picking is a lame tactic that doesn’t work when others have already posted the full truth.

    But you don’t believe HoFer count should be tied to team success anyway. So I guess it’s just a COINCIDENCE that you happen to both feel the Cowboys weren’t a true “dynasty” (a topic of obsessive importance to you) and believe they don’t have more players deserving HoF status on individual merit. You would no doubt deny that particular coincidence has anything to do with you hating the Cowboys due to them defeating your favorite team over and over again in the 60s-early 70s, the brutal beatdowns in the 90s, the double digit Dallas victory in SB 30, the recent Pittsburgh losses to the Romo and Dak Prescott Cowboys, Dallas having a winning record all time head to head against Pittsburgh, the Cowboys having the best all time winning percentage in the NFL, or jealousy over the “America’s Team” thing.

    Sure, LMFAO.

    And your obvious insecurity is no way related to Steelers fans behaving more obnoxiously in their 9 years of sitting on top of the SB count than relatively classy Cowboys fans did in their 13 years of sitting atop that count (SB wins + conference titles as tie breakers).

    As for Howley, Harris, and Pearson, they have between them 11 first team AP All Pro selections, 15 Pro Bowls, 2 first team All Decade slots, a SB MVP, 4 Super Bowl rings, and various records. Their resumes are brilliant even if you disregard the championships they won, and they should have been in the HoF long ago.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.