Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

conace21 wrote: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.

I'm not engaging in hypothetical teams. It's enough to figure out if one Vikings team from one year could beat a SB team from another year. By the time Tarkenton got back the defense had slipped.

You'd have to walk back all of the trades as well. The Vikings got draft picks that would become Ron Yary, Ed White, Bob Grim and Clint Jones for Tarkenton. None of that affected the defense, and only Yary was a starter in 1969, and only part time at that. So yeah, the Vikings probably would have been a better team in 1969 at least had that trade not gone down. But it did!

ChrisBabcock wrote: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.

But the thing is, Bud Grant was a CFL guy. If anyone should have known about shifting offenses, it would be Bud. Or did he forget all of that when he was indoctrinated back into the NFL?

Jay Z wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote: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.

But the thing is, Bud Grant was a CFL guy. If anyone should have known about shifting offenses, it would be Bud. Or did he forget all of that when he was indoctrinated back into the NFL?

Good lord! It sounds like you're talking about Bill Peterson not Bud Grant. The Chiefs caught the Vikes on a bad day. Minnesota beat the Chiefs up on opening day in 1970. The Dolphins were better. The Steelers were better that day and caught some breaks. The Raiders game may have been different if Brent McLanahan wouldn't have fumbled on the Raiders goal line while the game was still scoreless. It was a rout after that.

Damn rights the Vikings would have won the SB in 1970 and/or 1971 but I'm not thinking with Fran because that's a big what-if. Joe Kapp is the guy that should have still been at the helm and there is no way in hell that he would have allowed one or both of those teams to fall short.

JohnH19 wrote:Good lord! It sounds like you're talking about Bill Peterson not Bud Grant. The Chiefs caught the Vikes on a bad day. Minnesota beat the Chiefs up on opening day in 1970. The Dolphins were better. The Steelers were better that day and caught some breaks. The Raiders game may have been different if Brent McLanahan wouldn't have fumbled on the Raiders goal line while the game was still scoreless. It was a rout after that.

Damn rights the Vikings would have won the SB in 1970 and/or 1971 but I'm not thinking with Fran because that's a big what-if. Joe Kapp is the guy that should have still been at the helm and there is no way in hell that he would have allowed one or both of those teams to fall short.

The Chiefs were a more well rounded team than the Vikes. From 1967-71, 1969 was the best offense for the Vikes. But even leading the league in points, it was still only an average offense. The Raiders or even Jets probably were a better matchup for the Vikes, as the Chiefs were willing to play a ball control game.

The Kapp departure was a little bizarre, and Cuozzo has become an easy target. But there's really no guarantee that Kapp could have even equalled his 1969 performance. He wasn't young. 1969 was far better than 1967-68 for him, and he was awful in Boston in 1970.

As for Super Bowl XI, the Vikings had 5 first downs on their first 9 possessions of the game. NINE possessions. They weren't going to win that game no matter what. Wasn't even the first time they fumbled in the red zone in a Super Bowl. Or the second.

Joe Kapp was only 32 in 1970 and, yes, he could have equaled and surpassed his 1969 performance. Check his CFL stats and you'll see that he was an accomplished and prolific passer so '69 was no fluke.

I don't necessarily think that the Vikings would have beaten the Raiders but it would have been interesting to see them play with a lead for the first time in a SB.

Time to make Championship game picks:

I don't expect the Brady thumb injury to slow him down. I also expect that Belichick and company has extensively studied the film from last week's Pittsburgh-Jacksonville game to see how Roethlisberger scored 42 points against the Jags defense. If the Jags play the same defensive schemes against New England, this game could get ugly as I doubt Jacksonville can keep up with Brady in an offensive shootout. The weather will be mild (mid 40's) and will not favor New England. I don't expect another high scoring game, but I think it will be closer than most expect: New England 24 - Jacksonville 20.

The Eagles-Vikings game should be the better game of the two. I expect a defensive struggle, and I think the Vikings have too much defense and will find a way to win on the road. Weather will also be in the mid-40's at gametime, with little or no wind. Minnesota 17-Philadelphia 16.

Rupert Patrick wrote:Time to make Championship game picks:

I don't expect the Brady thumb injury to slow him down. I also expect that Belichick and company has extensively studied the film from last week's Pittsburgh-Jacksonville game to see how Roethlisberger scored 42 points against the Jags defense. If the Jags play the same defensive schemes against New England, this game could get ugly as I doubt Jacksonville can keep up with Brady in an offensive shootout. The weather will be mild (mid 40's) and will not favor New England. I don't expect another high scoring game, but I think it will be closer than most expect: New England 24 - Jacksonville 20.

The Eagles-Vikings game should be the better game of the two. I expect a defensive struggle, and I think the Vikings have too much defense and will find a way to win on the road. Weather will also be in the mid-40's at gametime, with little or no wind. Minnesota 17-Philadelphia 16.

I agree with you about New England. The Steelers put up over 560 yards of offense on the #1 defense and Brady is a superior passer to Ben. I too look for New England to exploit the Jacksonville D by using every type of play - dink n dunk, long to mid-range passes, followed by mixing up the run. Belichick is the best at this. Meanwhile, I look for the defense to key in on Fournette as I don't envision Bortles beating them. I predict NE to spy him on nearly every play. Patriots 31, Jaguars 17

Jay Z wrote:

conace21 wrote: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.

I'm not engaging in hypothetical teams. It's enough to figure out if one Vikings team from one year could beat a SB team from another year. By the time Tarkenton got back the defense had slipped.

You'd have to walk back all of the trades as well. The Vikings got draft picks that would become Ron Yary, Ed White, Bob Grim and Clint Jones for Tarkenton. None of that affected the defense, and only Yary was a starter in 1969, and only part time at that. So yeah, the Vikings probably would have been a better team in 1969 at least had that trade not gone down. But it did!

I think placing a team from one year to another (the 1973 Vikings into 1971) is just as hypothetical as placing one player on that team a year earlier. I'm not thinking in terms of "What it Minnesota had never traded Tarkenton?" More along the lines of "What if they had traded for him a year earlier?"

conace21 wrote:I think placing a team from one year to another (the 1973 Vikings into 1971) is just as hypothetical as placing one player on that team a year earlier. I'm not thinking in terms of "What it Minnesota had never traded Tarkenton?" More along the lines of "What if they had traded for him a year earlier?"

Well, I don't think the Giants would have been interested in trading Tarkenton a year earlier.

They could have traded for Billy Kilmer a year earlier; he was on the market. Would have been a better fit than Snead, I think. Kilmer is an example of a QB like Kapp who wound up playing well into his 30s. I think Kilmer was better than Kapp, though.

The issue with Kapp is how he would have held up with his running. Kapp ran a tremendous amount, and in a roughhouse style, for a quarterback his age. 269 yards, plus 52 in the playoffs, at age 30 in 1968. The Super Bowl year he was down to 104, but another 108 in the playoffs. Then just 70 the year in Boston. Given his passing limitations, could he have survived for much longer? I guess we'll never know.

Another good comp to Kapp would be Billy Wade, but again, I think Wade was better than Kapp based on available evidence.

Picking Patriots and Eagles