2017 NFL Playoffs

[BD Sullivan]

It's incorrect to call Bud Grant's teams lucky when what they actually were was superbly prepared to create their "luck". Only in their four SB losses did their winning formula escape them as their own mistakes proved to be their undoing.

Aided by outstanding special teams, among other things.

[Jay Z]

If the Vikings should go to the Super Bowl, their 41-year wait between trips will be the longest of any franchise to return to the Super Bowl. The current record I believe is the Packers going 29 years between Super Bowls II and XXXI.

The Colts went 36 years between two Super Bowls. That would be second.

While the above is true, the record will be broken should the Chiefs or Jets ever return to the Super Bowl. The Saints also had a longer drought before their first Super Bowl, as will the Browns and Lions should they ever make it.

What's more interesting is that the Vikings have the third highest number of playoff appearances in the Super Bowl era, 29, with no wins to date. Their 20 straight playoff appearances since 1976 without making the Super Bowl is also a record. Should that streak be broken this year, highest active will be the Chiefs, with 16. Should the Vikings win the Super Bowl, the Eagles with 21 playoff appearances, and the Oilers/Titans with 19, will be next up on the list of team who've never won.

Of even more trivial import is a challenge to the record of no division winners from the 1980 season ever winning the Super Bowl. It's 37 years and counting and 9 Super Bowl losses for that group. Either the streak will be broken this year or they'll go to 0 and 10. Curse of losing to the first Wild Card champion?

[BD Sullivan]

If the Vikings should go to the Super Bowl, their 41-year wait between trips will be the longest of any franchise to return to the Super Bowl. The current record I believe is the Packers going 29 years between Super Bowls II and XXXI.

The Colts went 36 years between two Super Bowls. That would be second.

While the above is true, the record will be broken should the Chiefs or Jets ever return to the Super Bowl. The Saints also had a longer drought before their first Super Bowl, as will the Browns and Lions should they ever make it.

It's been 44 years since the Dolphins won a Super Bowl. After their domination of the Vikes in SB VIII, they looked to be a dynasty that would be back again the next year. Then came the Toronto Northmen a few months later...

[Jay Z]

It's been 44 years since the Dolphins won a Super Bowl. After their domination of the Vikes in SB VIII, they looked to be a dynasty that would be back again the next year. Then came the Toronto Northmen a few months later...

True, though the Bengals, Bills, Browns, Cardinals, Chargers, Chiefs, Eagles, Falcons, Jets, Lions, Oilers/Titans, and Vikings have all gone longer or never won one! Plus some of the teams haven't even gotten there, and the Dolphins were there in the 1980s.

Browns, Chiefs, Jets, Lions and Vikings all have never gotten to the SB or had longer droughts than the Dolphins.

[Jay Z]

A little more on the Vikings:

While the Vikings have had a bunch of playoff appearances, one factor in the recent lack of Super Bowl appearances is the lack of #1 seeds. Since the "seeding era" began in 1975, the Vikings captured the first two NFC #1 seeds in 1975 and 1976, but only one since, in 1998. Generally #1 seeds lead to playoff appearances over time. Just not always in the season in question! Perfect example would be the 2010-2011 Packers.

Bud Grant's best teams mostly played in the pre-seed era, but they benefited from it, playing 10 of 11 non-Super Bowl games at home in the Met from 1969 to 1976. This included three home losses in divisional play, 1970, 1971, and 1975. They did win their one road playoff game, in Dallas in 1973. Since 1976 the Vikings have lost 5 home playoff games, but have won 5 on the road as well.

The Vikings 5 straight NFC Championship Game losses since 1977 is a record. However, if you count league championships in with conference championships, the Raiders hold the record with 6 straight losses from 1968 to 1975. Several other teams have lost 5 league/conference championships in succession. The record for championship wins in a row is also 5, held by several teams.

[Rupert Patrick]

A little more on the Vikings:

While the Vikings have had a bunch of playoff appearances, one factor in the recent lack of Super Bowl appearances is the lack of #1 seeds. Since the "seeding era" began in 1975, the Vikings captured the first two NFC #1 seeds in 1975 and 1976, but only one since, in 1998. Generally #1 seeds lead to playoff appearances over time. Just not always in the season in question! Perfect example would be the 2010-2011 Packers.

Bud Grant's best teams mostly played in the pre-seed era, but they benefited from it, playing 10 of 11 non-Super Bowl games at home in the Met from 1969 to 1976. This included three home losses in divisional play, 1970, 1971, and 1975. They did win their one road playoff game, in Dallas in 1973. Since 1976 the Vikings have lost 5 home playoff games, but have won 5 on the road as well.

The Vikings 5 straight NFC Championship Game losses since 1977 is a record. However, if you count league championships in with conference championships, the Raiders hold the record with 6 straight losses from 1968 to 1975. Several other teams have lost 5 league/conference championships in succession. The record for championship wins in a row is also 5, held by several teams.

The odd thing about the Raiders streak between 1968 and 1975 is that every year they went to the playoffs (they missed the postseason in 1971) with the exception of 1972 when they lost the Immaculate Reception game to Pittsburgh, the team they lost to in the playoffs that season would win the Super Bowl

[Saban1]

Well, Citizen, this particular Vikings fan has been with them for 50 years so I've seen it all. The difference between the Cubs and Vikings is that the Vikes have almost continuously been contenders since 1968. To be so close so many times without winning it all is where the heartbreak comes in. The Cubs were lovable losers who had some close calls before finally getting to and winning the WS.

It's incorrect to call Bud Grant's teams lucky when what they actually were was superbly prepared to create their "luck". Only in their four SB losses did their winning formula escape them as their own mistakes proved to be their undoing.

Just my opinion, but the Vikings were not very lucky in their Super Bowl opponents, playing very tough teams every time (Kansas City in Super Bowl IV, Miami in Super Bowl VIII, Pittsburgh in Super Bowl IX, and Oakland in Super Bowl XI.

Dallas was more fortunate in the 70's playing Baltimore (Super Bowl V), Miami (VI), and Denver (XII). Baltimore in 1970 was not one of the better Super Bowl teams. Miami was not as good in 1971 as they were in 1972 and 1973. Denver was a first time playoff team in 1977.

[Jay Z]

Just my opinion, but the Vikings were not very lucky in their Super Bowl opponents, playing very tough teams every time (Kansas City in Super Bowl IV, Miami in Super Bowl VIII, Pittsburgh in Super Bowl IX, and Oakland in Super Bowl XI.

Dallas was more fortunate in the 70's playing Baltimore (Super Bowl V), Miami (VI), and Denver (XII). Baltimore in 1970 was not one of the better Super Bowl teams. Miami was not as good in 1971 as they were in 1972 and 1973. Denver was a first time playoff team in 1977.

I wouldn't have any confidence in any of the Tarkenton teams beating anyone else in a Super Bowl. Put a Tarkenton team against the 1971 Dolphins. You can automatically pencil in Csonka for 100 yards rushing, probably closer to 150. Not a good way to start the game.

So the 1969 Vikings were the best chance. They're the only team that didn't get absolutely gashed by the run in the Super Bowl. They didn't do that much to stop Len Dawson, but it was their best defensive effort.

But... for the Vikings to win a Super Bowl, Bud Grant needs to be no where near the Super Bowl. I'm sorry. Grant was an awful Super Bowl coach. The worst ever, and it's not even close. Even if you're over matched in talent every single time, come up with some way to compete, at least for a while. Grant had nothing to offer, less than nothing. Every write-up of a Vikings Super Bowl loss, it's "The Vikings play vanilla schemes. We think we can do this to them. Come game time, the Vikings make no adjustments. Turns out we can do exactly what we thought we could do. We win!" It's an absolutely ludicrous approach to any NFL game, much less a Super Bowl. Try something, Bud!

More than the vanilla schemes, the Vikings always went in tentative and making mistakes they didn't normally make. I'm assuming this is due to Bud's non-contributions leading up to the game. So after the NFL/NFC championship, send Bud on a hunting or fishing trip and let Jerry Burns take over the team. Absent that, it's virtually a guaranteed loss.

[ChrisBabcock]

In episode 5 of Full Color Football which I watched recently (chronicling the 1969 season) someone mentioned (MacAmbridge I think) that the Vikings did not have any man in motion or shifting plays in their offense for Super Bowl IV. Kansas City had guys shifting before the snap throughout the game... which the Vikings hadn't seen in practice all season.

[conace21]

Just my opinion, but the Vikings were not very lucky in their Super Bowl opponents, playing very tough teams every time (Kansas City in Super Bowl IV, Miami in Super Bowl VIII, Pittsburgh in Super Bowl IX, and Oakland in Super Bowl XI.

Dallas was more fortunate in the 70's playing Baltimore (Super Bowl V), Miami (VI), and Denver (XII). Baltimore in 1970 was not one of the better Super Bowl teams. Miami was not as good in 1971 as they were in 1972 and 1973. Denver was a first time playoff team in 1977.

I wouldn't have any confidence in any of the Tarkenton teams beating anyone else in a Super Bowl. Put a Tarkenton team against the 1971 Dolphins. You can automatically pencil in Csonka for 100 yards rushing, probably closer to 150. Not a good way to start the game.

I don't know about that. The 1971 Vikings were not only the No. 1 scoring defense, they also ranked 6th in run defense, and 8th in yards per carry. 2 years later, their run defense had fallen to 11th, and in yards per carry, they were 23rd.
In their playoff loss to Dallas, they held the Cowboys to 10 first downs, 183 total yards and roughly 2.5 yards per carry. This was the same Cowboys team that lit up the Dolphins for 252 yards rushing in the Super Bowl. I think the 1970-71 Vikings could easily have won a Super Bowl if Tarkenton was at quarterback.