Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Of course both played in the opener at Three Rivers, Dallas pounding them 26-9. Steelers were slow starters early in the Cowher Era, not hitting stride until December going into January. One year removed from Jimmy Johnson, Dallas still an elite team but a bit sloppy. Lost at home to a Browns team who Steelers would complete the regular season sweep on in Cleveland the following week - and beat yet again, 29-9, three weeks later in the divisionals. Had Pittsburgh averted that Charger upset, and Dallas would have completed their rally in the next game (nor dug themselves such a hole 1st Q in the first place), how would a SBXXIX have looked between both teams?

I'm not going to say Steelers actually win, but it very likely would have been close at least. Definitely a different matchup than XXX. Barry Foster running against that Dallas D instead of Bam/Pegram. No 'Slash' to, perhaps, add a 'wrinkle' on O. Capers running the D instead of LeBeau. No Deion for Neil to throw away from. Is it a closer game (on the scoreboard as well), or being that Dallas was just one year removed from JJ instead of two (and Dallas having quite their way with the 'Burgh in the '90s), it may not have been as close as one would think? Dallas was at least in both their games vs SF in '94 as opposed to their blowout-loss a year later (at home and with Deion, mind you). Thoughts?

If there is any year during the Super Bowl error that two teams from the same conference were head and shoulders better than any one else from the other conference it would have been San Francisco and Dallas in '94. Aikman, Irvin, and Smith were all seasoned veterans by then and they knew when to turn it on when it counted. Unless they went up against a team who could match them talent wise (like '94 SF could) I don't think they get touched in the postseason.

You have to remember that they were that good and they were basically a team coaching themselves. I think that is an even more impressive season for them than '95 where they won the Super Bowl. The '95 team had some serious slumps during the year and you could tell they were a franchise starting to decline. In '94 there were no signs of a decline yet.

Pittsburgh stood no chance against that Cowboys or 49ers team. If the Cowboys met the Steelers in the Super Bowl the result may have looked similar to what the Niners did to San Diego.

Hail Casares wrote:Pittsburgh stood no chance against that Cowboys or 49ers team. If the Cowboys met the Steelers in the Super Bowl the result may have looked similar to what the Niners did to San Diego.

Wow...I just don't see it; even if I was a Dallas fan. Had Steelers/Dallas met two years earlier in SBXXVII? Yes, would have been painful to watch, but IMO not XXIX. And that also goes for if they would have played SF (Blitzburgh would have matched up better). Maybe Dallas wins by 10, maybe 14. Anything more, not by much; perhaps a late 'garbage' TD to win by 17 and that's about it. Most likely, though, not a double-digit affair at all.

lastcat3 wrote:If there is any year during the Super Bowl error that two teams from the same conference were head and shoulders better than any one else from the other conference it would have been San Francisco and Dallas in '94. Aikman, Irvin, and Smith were all seasoned veterans by then and they knew when to turn it on when it counted. Unless they went up against a team who could match them talent wise (like '94 SF could) I don't think they get touched in the postseason.

You have to remember that they were that good and they were basically a team coaching themselves. I think that is an even more impressive season for them than '95 where they won the Super Bowl. The '95 team had some serious slumps during the year and you could tell they were a franchise starting to decline. In '94 there were no signs of a decline yet.

Dallas did win some convincers in '94, looking no different than what they were the last two years leading up, but there were signs of weakening as early as the very next game after their Steel City opening thumping, letting a now-suddenly-bad Houston team frustrate them. After that was the home-loss to Detroit in that memorable Sanders/Smith showdown. Barely beating Cincy (allowing Blake to go up 14-0), losing at home to Browns of course followed by an unimpressive MNF victory over faltering Saints; a game in which Haley pre-game specifically pointed out his team's sloppy play, not being able to put teams away as they once did.

Yes they were still capable of winning-it-all, had simply too much talent, players "coaching themselves", etc. Very dominating win vs GB in the divisional and after the 1st Q following week, they were SB-caliber while also playing with such heart. Still, the 'cracks' were already starting to show though not as bad as the following year. And with Steelers rolling down the stretch as they did - and they bringing a real D unlike Buffalo - it would have had to be suspenseful well into the 4th Q.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:
Dallas did win some convincers in '94, looking no different than what they were the last two years leading up, but there were signs of weakening as early as the very next game after their Steel City opening thumping, letting a now-suddenly-bad Houston team frustrate them. After that was the home-loss to Detroit in that memorable Sanders/Smith showdown. Barely beating Cincy (allowing Blake to go up 14-0), losing at home to Browns of course followed by an unimpressive MNF victory over faltering Saints; a game in which Haley pre-game specifically pointed out his team's sloppy play, not being able to put teams away as they once did.

Yes they were still capable of winning-it-all, had simply too much talent, players "coaching themselves", etc. Very dominating win vs GB in the divisional and after the 1st Q following week, they were SB-caliber while also playing with such heart. Still, the 'cracks' were already starting to show though not as bad as the following year. And with Steelers rolling down the stretch as they did - and they bringing a real D unlike Buffalo - it would have had to be suspenseful well into the 4th Q.

[/quote]

If there is one thing that you could say about the '94 Dallas team was that they were not as consistently dominant as the '92 and '93 teams were (they didn't have JJ's fire keeping them going 100% of the time) however they were still able to turn it on when they needed to. Nobody outside of the '9ers could come close to them talent wise and when they needed to step up they did as they showed in the divisional round when they trounced Green Bay (as they weren't playing their best at the very end of the regular season).

Dallas wins a Super Bowl match up with Pittsburgh by about three touchdowns

One note in favor of Pittsburgh. Emmitt Smith had injured his hamstring late in the regular season, and he reinjured it (or injured the other one) in the NFCCG. A hobbled Emmitt, who had run for 170+ yards in the season opener against the Steelers, would be a huge boost for Pittsburgh. If they managed to contain a hobbled Emmitt they'd have a decent chance to win.

I do agree that in 1994, Dallas (at full strength) and SF were clearly the two best teams in the NFL.

It would have probably been similar to the Rams/Steelers SB from 1979-80: the AFC underdog grabs a late and hangs around early, the NFC favorite responds later, and hits a late TD to make the score more decisive than the game really was.

The Cowboys were slowly but surely showing chinks in the armor.

They and SF were still in a league of their own.

But it was different from 1992, considering the rest of the NFC if you take out DAL/SF wasn't THAT much better than the AFC (I'd take SD/PIT/MIA/CLE/NE over any of the other NFC contenders and fringe teams that hung around that year- Bears/Lions/Vikings/Eagles/Cardinals/Falcons- on a neutral field).

In '94, Dallas and San Fran didn't exactly have murderers row pushing them in their own divisions. I mean, only one other NFC team won 10 games- and the '94 Vikings were not exactly the 1992 Saints/Eagles

Whereas prior years it was NFC > AFC, this year it was DAL/SF > NFC > AFC.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:

Hail Casares wrote:Pittsburgh stood no chance against that Cowboys or 49ers team. If the Cowboys met the Steelers in the Super Bowl the result may have looked similar to what the Niners did to San Diego.

Wow...I just don't see it.

Color me shocked..............