Even underdogs can fight harder, or come up with wrinkles. Fight hard for the first half at least. The Vikings laid an egg every single time.JohnH19 wrote:Right, but what you didn't see was anything that was specifically related to coaching. Grant was a superb head coach so it's very presumptuous to assume that he somehow became a poor head coach in the week or two before a Super Bowl game. Even if something in his coaching style changed, it wouldn't necessarily cause his team to suddenly play like crap. The Vikings had a bad day against the Chiefs but it's quite likely that the Dolphins, Steelers and Raiders were simply better teams.
The Broncos were not favored in any of their four Super Bowl losses, I believe. But the defense showed up against the Cowboys. They hung in for a half against the Giants. They hung in for a quarter against the Redskins. Against the 49ers they laid an egg.
Grant probably got better regular season records out of his talent than Tom Landry would. Landry would throw games away on occasion by being too dedicated to his philosophy, being too cute. He never really figured out how to put together a good secondary. Landry was also worse at Grant at keeping team morale on an even keel from year to year.
In the Super Bowl I would take Landry over Grant given the same talent level on the team. Landry would have adjustments. Grant just had nothing to contribute, nothing to say in those matchups, and it showed. In every case, even Super Bowl IV, the writeup is the same.
1) The Vikings really have a vanilla scheme
2) We think we can take advantage of Player X
3) We can take advantage of that player!
4) We win!
It's the same script every time. Yes, I blame that on Bud Grant. He was a good coach in other venues and in other respects. Just not in the Super Bowl.
The only touchdown was on a blocked punt right before the clinching drive.