Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The 1994 Cowboys have always in my opinion been the most interesting of all the Cowboys teams of that era. One aspect is that they didn't when the Super Bowl so it is fun to speculate about how good they 'actually' were. Another is that they had a different head coach than the previous two teams so it is fun to speculate how good they would have been had Johnson still been coaching them. Also because while they still truly had a great team (and were still probably better than many Super Bowl teams in history) they were however just beginning to feel the effects of free agency.

In my opinion while I don't really think the '94 Cowboys were better than the '92 or '93 clubs I do think that they had the best starting lineup of any of the three '90's Super Bowl teams. The '92 Cowboys basically had an injury free season and that had a lot to do with why they ended up being as good as they were (and they also had great depth to come in so the guys that they had on the field were almost always fresh). Pretty much same can be said for the '93 Cowboys but they did face a few more obstacles than the '92 Cowboys in injuries and holdouts but their stars were a year older and a year better so they were able to overcome those injuries and very realistically could have been a 15-1 team if Emmit didn't hold out and they were able to get into their groove from the very beginning of the season.

When it comes to '94 I think the big three were at the peak of their careers during that season. They still had Alvin Harper who was a much better second receiver than Kevin Williams was and their defensive talent was really coming into their own. Probably the only spot on the defensive side of the ball where they were merely average was at one of the cornerback positions with Larry Brown. Kevin Smith on the other side though had turned into one of the better corners in the league at the time. They didn't have the same kind of depth that the '92 and '93 squads did though and they had obvious shortcomings at the head coaching position which turned them into a team that probably wasn't quite as motivated. Even with that though they were still head and shoulders better than everyone in the league other than San Francisco and the '49ers had basically built their roster in the offseason specifically to beat Dallas.

If Johnson stays at Dallas one more year does he make some moves in the offseason that allows the team to keep some of their '92 and '93 depth. Does he keep the Cowboys motivated through the season to where by the end they are just playing at another level above San Francisco.

When all is said and done though I don't think things turn out too terribly different from what they ended up being. While it's very likely the '94 Cowboys could have three-peated. If they had though I don't think they win again in '95. I think it would have been incredibly unlikely Johnson would have stayed through the '95 season even if him and Jerry didn't have the falling out that they did and a '95 Cowboys team that had just finished a three peat probably would have been even less motivated than the '94 team was (with a team that had even less depth than they had in '94 and stars that were just beginning their slide).

The Cowboys should have three-peated in 1994 even without Johnson. I disagree about Larry Brown, thinking he was still an excellent starter. To me, the weak link in the defense was Robert Jones at MLB, who had talent but not instincts. He was exposed big time by the Niners in the Championship game but the Cowboys would have won that game without the early turnovers. Switzer did a good coaching job that season but didnt prepare them properly for the Niners at the end. The defense played its worst game of the season ...

I was on Ryan Bush's You Tube Channel, and he had some enlightening videos. The first one has to do with Jerry and Jimmy's fallout:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3343QK_eoU

The next one is something that nobody has heard before (regarding Charles Haley): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbeyy6oOBTU

Also, he had a video on his channel about Alvin Harper, and how he almost went to Pittsburgh. I remember watching ESPN back then right after FA started, and they were talking on Sportscenter about how the Steelers were interested in Harper, so it's not news to me.

Yes, Switzer now instead of Johnson, but injuries along with some change in personnel can also to be said of this campaign's difference between it and the previous two. No more Norv, no more Norton Jr, Erik Williams out for the season after Week #8 to name a few. I keep forgetting that Larry Allen was NOT onboard for either '92 or '93; but this being his rookie year. actually.

Though it was not quite as the case as it'd be the following year, the cracks and some complacency were starting to show in '94. Prior to that penultimate MNF game at a suddenly-no-longer-good Mora Saints team (and fresh off being victimized at home two Saturdays ago vs Cleveland in that double Belichick/Saban masterpiece), Charles Haley commented on his concern over his team no longer putting teams away - and then they play subpar yet again. Though I think likely not the case, you never know if this all would have still played out like this even had Jimmy still been there. I give Big D an over-50% shot in such a hypothetical, but with San Fran's off-season acquisitions (Norton at LB, and obviously "knowing" that Dallas offense), there's no guarantee that a three-peat happens under JJ's watch. An even closer game that NFCC would have been, a very top-tier Classic, but Forty Niners may have prevailed anyway. Maybe SF still beats them in that regular season game as well.

But sloppiness and imperfections aside, they were still just as much SB-win-capable as they were the two previous years. They were still a scary team that could dominate at a moment's notice. Back to that regular season game at Candlestick, I thought Dallas would beat them again. And going into that NFCC, I gave them even-odds. If I ever did know this in the first place, I forgot that Blair Thomas actually was on that team! In for #22, the former-Nittany Lion scored two TDs in that 35-9 divisional romp over GB! If Big D comes back in the NFCC, and/or not dig themselves in that 1st Q hole in the first place, they pummel SD two weeks later just as SF did - even if they don't necessarily score 49 points.

And if 'steamrolling-down-the-stretch' Blitzburgh doesn't allow the Chargers to make it there in the first place, it would have been real difficult for they to beat Dallas. Noticeably more-so difficult than their actual SB date in the dessert a year later. This despite the '94 Steelers, IMO, being stronger and having more "bite" than any of those last three Bills teams. A much different match-up SBXXIX would have been between Pit/Dal than the case with SBXXX! LeBeau instead of Capers, Bam Morris instead of Foster, no 'Slash', no Deion to throw away from, etc. It still would have been no less difficult for Neil. At least a couple INTs still happen vs that still great Dallas pass-defense. If Steelers weren't able to turn the yardage into TDs vs the Chargers...then just imagine the case vs Dallas (or San Fran)! Cowboys by 10 or 17 (though a 'closer' 17 than opening day); pretty much the same had they played the Forty Niners (though I think they give them a bit better of a game). Less luster now in '94, but Dallas still a 'machine' if they needed to be, NFCC notwithstanding. At the very least, they were '1b' to San Fran while being quite above Blitzburgh and the rest.

Jimmy hogs up most of the 'pie-chart' for the reason of Big D's success in the '90s, and I don't think that's unfair. Jimmy, I think, wins SBXXX as well along with an additional one or two more had he stayed thru 1997. But still...Switzer should get more credit for both '94 & '95! He shouldn't be judged by that, at (many) times, not-so-serious persona. Though professional ball a very different animal than college, he COULD coach! I opine that more than half the HCs that made the playoffs in either of those two seasons - if given the keys in '94 - wouldn't have won Jerry that third Lombardi. Though I wouldn't bet on it, quite unlikely with me, had Jimmy still been in Dallas in '96 & '97, perhaps he also gets eliminated in the divisional and then suffers a losing season the next year. You never know.

Switzer...I really would have liked to see him take over a subpar NFL team and try rebuilding them from scratch. Barry getting hired, instead, in '89 not a terrible 'what-if' to ponder.

And if 'steamrolling-down-the-stretch' Blitzburgh doesn't allow the Chargers to make it there in the first place, it would have been real difficult for they to beat Dallas. Noticeably more-so difficult than their actual SB date in the dessert a year later. This despite the '94 Steelers, IMO, being stronger and having more "bite" than any of those last three Bills teams. A much different match-up SBXXIX would have been between Pit/Dal than the case with SBXXX! LeBeau instead of Capers, Bam Morris instead of Foster, no 'Slash', no Deion to throw away from, etc. It still would have been no less difficult for Neil. At least a couple INTs still happen vs that still great Dallas pass-defense. If Steelers weren't able to turn the yardage into TDs vs the Chargers...then just imagine the case vs Dallas (or San Fran)! Cowboys by 10 or 17 (though a 'closer' 17 than opening day); pretty much the same had they played the Forty Niners (though I think they give them a bit better of a game). Less luster now in '94, but Dallas still a 'machine' if they needed to be, NFCC notwithstanding. At the very least, they were '1b' to San Fran while being quite above Blitzburgh and the rest.

O'Donnell wasn't too bad, but he turned out to be the one that held them back from winning the big games. If they had a guy like Ben back then, they could have defeated Dallas. They weren't that invincible, especially on defense, where they had a shaky secondary and LB's in 94 outside of Darrin Smith and Darren Woodson.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

And if 'steamrolling-down-the-stretch' Blitzburgh doesn't allow the Chargers to make it there in the first place, it would have been real difficult for they to beat Dallas. Noticeably more-so difficult than their actual SB date in the dessert a year later. This despite the '94 Steelers, IMO, being stronger and having more "bite" than any of those last three Bills teams. A much different match-up SBXXIX would have been between Pit/Dal than the case with SBXXX! LeBeau instead of Capers, Bam Morris instead of Foster, no 'Slash', no Deion to throw away from, etc. It still would have been no less difficult for Neil. At least a couple INTs still happen vs that still great Dallas pass-defense. If Steelers weren't able to turn the yardage into TDs vs the Chargers...then just imagine the case vs Dallas (or San Fran)! Cowboys by 10 or 17 (though a 'closer' 17 than opening day); pretty much the same had they played the Forty Niners (though I think they give them a bit better of a game). Less luster now in '94, but Dallas still a 'machine' if they needed to be, NFCC notwithstanding. At the very least, they were '1b' to San Fran while being quite above Blitzburgh and the rest.

O'Donnell wasn't too bad, but he turned out to be the one that held them back from winning the big games. If they had a guy like Ben back then, they could have defeated Dallas. They weren't that invincible, especially on defense, where they had a shaky secondary and LB's in 94 outside of Darrin Smith and Darren Woodson.

'95 Cowboys perhaps. But likely not the '94 team.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

And if 'steamrolling-down-the-stretch' Blitzburgh doesn't allow the Chargers to make it there in the first place, it would have been real difficult for they to beat Dallas. Noticeably more-so difficult than their actual SB date in the dessert a year later. This despite the '94 Steelers, IMO, being stronger and having more "bite" than any of those last three Bills teams. A much different match-up SBXXIX would have been between Pit/Dal than the case with SBXXX! LeBeau instead of Capers, Bam Morris instead of Foster, no 'Slash', no Deion to throw away from, etc. It still would have been no less difficult for Neil. At least a couple INTs still happen vs that still great Dallas pass-defense. If Steelers weren't able to turn the yardage into TDs vs the Chargers...then just imagine the case vs Dallas (or San Fran)! Cowboys by 10 or 17 (though a 'closer' 17 than opening day); pretty much the same had they played the Forty Niners (though I think they give them a bit better of a game). Less luster now in '94, but Dallas still a 'machine' if they needed to be, NFCC notwithstanding. At the very least, they were '1b' to San Fran while being quite above Blitzburgh and the rest.

O'Donnell wasn't too bad, but he turned out to be the one that held them back from winning the big games. If they had a guy like Ben back then, they could have defeated Dallas. They weren't that invincible, especially on defense, where they had a shaky secondary and LB's in 94 outside of Darrin Smith and Darren Woodson.

Correction: "Desert", not "dessert". And I did mean to place each Capers and Foster first for I always knew they were '94.

No, O'Donnell not bad. He did light things up vs Belichick/Saban in completing the hattrick (but Vinny did 'help' as well)! Such an irony in that the 'Burgh couldn't do a thing vs Dallas yet Browns (who Steelers would threep) do what they did vs them that third-last Saturday. A very memorable game with me. Working with a bunch of dudes, all of us just a 'hop-and-a-skip' from betting action. Everyone thinking that picking a ten-point-favorite, Dallas, in a parlay that'd have the two-time-defending-World Champs beating a 'plain-good' Cleveland team by "JUST" 3...(quote from a friend calling me from a barroom payphone, "So this means that Dallas will only have to win by three? Get real!")...a "real" shock to many! A perfect opportunity for an uncharacteristic Troy Aikman two-minute-drill, but not to be! Not to be. Nick not a college phenom at the same time that Barry was. But this would have to the closest to such a big Saban/Switzer showdown!

Back to O'Donnell, yes, he does some big stuff vs Indy in that AFCC, but yeah...there are many Steeler-fans who feel that despite Neil being the more stereotypical 'dynamic' QB...that Bubby Brister is actually the franchise's best QB post-Bradshaw/pre-Big Ben. All I'll say is that whoever does 'win' that debate...it's not at all by much. No, Bubby no HOVG-er either. But gets much less credit historically than he should (see '89, 4-0 in '98, etc).

Up until recently, I've always harped on we all "missing out" on a Super Bowl "of the Ages"! It "should" have been 4-0 ('70s) Pittsburgh vs 4-0 ('80s) Forty Niners! "Blitzburgh" would have "given them a game" and, maybe (just "maybe") would have actually WON!" Steelers, I think, do have their moments throughout! Young would have gotten to know Lloyd, Green, Levon, etc even better than he already did. Woodson would have held his own vs Rice, etc. But so many intangibles. It wouldn't have been enough. 'Bananas' having to deal with Dana & Bryant! Ricky Watters likely making enough of a Swiss Army Knife/Marshall Faulk-precursor out of himself, Brent Jones making just enough key plays, etc...Forty Niners by 10 or 13!

But Dallas by as much as 17! Now that would have been even-more frustrating! Maybe, at times, Steelers sort-of making it look like they're still in it; but Big D then doing just enough to further the distance. Steelers owned Dallas in the '70s. They were better and had their number. But Dallas even-MORE-so two decades later! In the '70s, both won SBs; each being SB-win-capable. '90s Steelers were just shy of being able to do that. Just shy.

Thanks to '34/'42 Bears, 2007 Patriots, '51/'53 Browns, '67/'68 Colts, etc (and quite a few more), no one will anoint the '94 Cowboys as "the best team to not win-it-all"; but in such a convo, they should certainly at least be mentioned! They were a powerful team with, really, not much less "bite" at all than '92/'93! It took all of the way until the final gun of that '94 NFCC to know that they were now not going to threepeat/make "History". Only then did you now know that runaway-train finally was stopped short! Only then.

All of this said...I really didn't like those 'double-star' unis! They were allowed to play in them for the NFCC yet San Diego wasn't allowed to play in their powdered blues in the Super Bowl. Not that it would at all (lol) have made a difference, but still.

95 Cowboys perhaps. But likely not the '94 team.

Remember the game against Cincinnati, when Jeff Blake and Darnay Scott bombed them to a 14-0 lead (before Dallas came back to win 23-20)? Dallas's secondary was vulnerable. Darren Woodson should have been FS, and James Washington was SS. And, their CB''s were shaky until Deion got there a year later (even though the 94 Dallas defense was better than the 95 defense as a whole).

There is a lot of romanticism about the 90's Cowboys, but they weren't as good as people think. They beat up on an average Bills team two years in a row (just like most NFC teams from 1984-96 did), and they get more credit than they deserve for it.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:

95 Cowboys perhaps. But likely not the '94 team.

Remember the game against Cincinnati, when Jeff Blake and Darnay Scott bombed them to a 14-0 lead (before Dallas came back to win 23-20)? Dallas's secondary was vulnerable. Darren Woodson should have been FS, and James Washington was SS. And, their CB''s were shaky until Deion got there a year later (even though the 94 Dallas defense was better than the 95 defense as a whole).

There is a lot of romanticism about the 90's Cowboys, but they weren't as good as people think. They beat up on an average Bills team two years in a row (just like most NFC teams from 1984-96 did), and they get more credit than they deserve for it.

I have to completely disagree with you there. Statistically they were the #1 defense in the league in 1994. They gave up 269.6 yards per game to Pittsburgh's 270.4. And they had the #1 pass defense that year as well.

And yeah they did lose to Cleveland. They also were 11-2 at that point and had won nine of their last ten games. We could pick out certain games during the regular season for any Super Bowl team and say they didn't look as good as they should have.

And yes they did beat up on the Bills teams. However the NFC was just far more top heavy than the AFC was during that era and there weren't very many AFC teams around that could compete with the best NFC teams when they were playing at their best. We also need to remember that the NFC East during the early '90's was arguably the best division there has ever been since the NFL went to the traditional divisional format in 1970. Probably the only division you could try to put up against it was the AFC Central during the '70's. And neither the Oilers or Bengals managed to get to any Super Bowls. I think the '90's Cowboys deserve all the credit they get and say for instance the salary cap didn't come about until the '00's we very well may be talking about Dallas having five or more Super Bowl wins during the '90's.

I think the '90's Cowboys deserve all the credit they get and say for instance the salary cap didn't come about until the '00's we very well may be talking about Dallas having five or more Super Bowl wins during the '90's.

With Jimmy Johnson, probably (depends on how good Denver gets without FA to help them, though. Some guys were home grown, but other players weren't, like Romanowski, Schlereth, Neil Smith, and Alfred Williams). However, I don't see them winning many more with guys like Switzer and Campo as HC.

However, my problem is with the NFC superiority myth from 1984-96 as a whole, not just Dallas. Those teams usually didn't beat anyone that great in the Super Bowl, but they were worshipped as these legendary teams. Also, people say that they had to beat up on tough NFC competition, but that wasn't always true.

The 1991 Redskins were a prime example. They beat up on one-hit wonder Falcon and Lion teams, didn't have to play Dallas and SF in the playoffs, and played the Eagles when they didn't have Randall Cunningham.

Also, what about the 85 Bears beating up on Dieter Brock? Or the 86 Giants not having to play a McMahon-led Bear team?