NFL "what-if" scenarios thread

[7DnBrnc53]

As a Steeler fan I have two what ifs:

1) What if the Steelers had kept Johnny Unitas and drafted Jim Brown instead of Gary Glick.

2) What if four of their five running backs and their placekicker had not been injured against Oakland in the 1976 AFC championship game.

1. The Steelers actually had some decent seasons from 1957-63. They had four winning seasons during that time period, including 1963, where they lost a winner-take-all game against the Giants for the East title. You have to believe that Unitas and Jim Brown make a big difference for the Steelers in that era. They probably win a couple NFL Title Games in that time span.

In reality, though, 1965 is when the Steelers really went downhill because the talent on the team was sparse (I heard that the coaches around that time weren't very good, either). If that still happens in this new reality, Jim Brown may still retire around 29, and Johnny Unitas may end up demanding a trade at some point.

2. There is a good chance that they win, and go on to beat the Vikings in the SB. They should have defeated the Raiders in Week 1 that year when they were healthier (if Franco didn't fumble with about five minutes left).

[conace21]

What does "irl" mean? I've never seen that one before.

In real life.

[JameisLoseston]

I would think Unitas and Brown on the Steelers would be hardly different from Unitas and Brown on the Browns, which in turn is hardly different from Plum/Ryan and Brown on the Browns. So basically just convert what the Browns did IRL to Pittsburgh. And once again, unfortunately, we don't get to make a Terry Bradshaw connection here, because he was drafted in 1970, by which time Unitas is very much declining. So they draft him normally. This is beginning to become a pattern, and it's quite strange.

[BD Sullivan]

I’m convinced that my Vikings would have won one or both of SBs 5 and 6 if they wouldn’t have let Joe Kapp walk.

Let's see about that. First of all, they certainly weren't beating the 72 Dolphins with Joe Kapp at QB. 71 is worth a deeper dive. Holding Joe Kapp would have caused the Vikings to pass up on, well, reacquiring Fran Tarkenton, who irl was better than Joe Kapp. Fran came from the Giants, who irl picked up Norm Snead, who had a Pro Bowl year before imploding, to replace Tarkenton. Let's say Tarkenton just stays with the Giants. Snead, the previous year, was a backup for... the Vikings! He was part of a miserable rotation of Snead, Gary Cuozzo, and Bob Lee. They somehow went 11-3 with this shitshow, they were a great team. If Kapp is still in the picture... well, irl he finished up with a horrible season for the Pats and then was out of the league, so there's no telling he wouldn't have been benched for Snead or someone else. But if his production is more like his last year with Minnesota, then yes, it certainly improves their odds. The opportunity cost of denying the team Tarkenton a year later, however, is very high. Meanwhile, there is no Phil Simms tie-in to be found over in New York, because Tarkenton retired in 1978, and Simms was drafted in 1979. So they draft him anyways, and any continuing effects end there.

SBs 5 and 6 were played after the 70 and 71 seasons so the unbeaten Dolphins don’t figure into the conversation. My comment also has nothing to do with what wound up happening with Sir Francis. I simply believe that the Vikings would have won in one or both of those seasons with a still relatively young Kapp at QB.

The Vikings 1971 defense was good enough that Alan Page was NFL MVP and allowed 10 points or less in nine games. Numbers like that would make any team a winner. Hell, they could have won the playoff game at Dallas with a real QB or a decent running attack. They only gave up 183 yards for the game, but Cuozzo and Lee each threw two picks and Clint Jones was the only RB with more than 15 yards for the game with 52.

[Rupert Patrick]

I’m convinced that my Vikings would have won one or both of SBs 5 and 6 if they wouldn’t have let Joe Kapp walk.

Let's see about that. First of all, they certainly weren't beating the 72 Dolphins with Joe Kapp at QB. 71 is worth a deeper dive. Holding Joe Kapp would have caused the Vikings to pass up on, well, reacquiring Fran Tarkenton, who irl was better than Joe Kapp. Fran came from the Giants, who irl picked up Norm Snead, who had a Pro Bowl year before imploding, to replace Tarkenton. Let's say Tarkenton just stays with the Giants. Snead, the previous year, was a backup for... the Vikings! He was part of a miserable rotation of Snead, Gary Cuozzo, and Bob Lee. They somehow went 11-3 with this shitshow, they were a great team. If Kapp is still in the picture... well, irl he finished up with a horrible season for the Pats and then was out of the league, so there's no telling he wouldn't have been benched for Snead or someone else. But if his production is more like his last year with Minnesota, then yes, it certainly improves their odds. The opportunity cost of denying the team Tarkenton a year later, however, is very high. Meanwhile, there is no Phil Simms tie-in to be found over in New York, because Tarkenton retired in 1978, and Simms was drafted in 1979. So they draft him anyways, and any continuing effects end there.

SBs 5 and 6 were played after the 70 and 71 seasons so the unbeaten Dolphins don’t figure into the conversation. My comment also has nothing to do with what wound up happening with Sir Francis. I simply believe that the Vikings would have won in one or both of those seasons with a still relatively young Kapp at QB.

And that would have really changed things because had the Vikings won either of those Super Bowls with Kapp, there is no way Tarkenton would have wound up back in Minnesota in 1972.

[JameisLoseston]

SBs 5 and 6 were played after the 70 and 71 seasons so the unbeaten Dolphins don’t figure into the conversation. My comment also has nothing to do with what wound up happening with Sir Francis. I simply believe that the Vikings would have won in one or both of those seasons with a still relatively young Kapp at QB.

And that would have really changed things because had the Vikings won either of those Super Bowls with Kapp, there is no way Tarkenton would have wound up back in Minnesota in 1972.

I did bungle the years (oof), but this. If Kapp (a) stuck and (b) was good, Tarkenton wasn't coming back, so my line of argumentation essentially stands. Considering how Kapp actually went out, though, he may have imploded and opened the door for Sir Francis anyways.

[Bryan]

What if the AFL didn't have a gentleman's agreement with the NFL to not sign each other's players, and instead had the rich owners like Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams simply sign star NFL players in 1960 to future AFL contracts? Would that have brought about a quicker merger, or would that have caused the demise of the AFL?

[conace21]

What if the AFL didn't have a gentleman's agreement with the NFL to not sign each other's players, and instead had the rich owners like Lamar Hunt and Bud Adams simply sign star NFL players in 1960 to future AFL contracts? Would that have brought about a quicker merger, or would that have caused the demise of the AFL?

The New York Titans (under Harry Wismer) and Oakland Raiders couldn't have afforded to sign star NFL players. Stories of Wismer's cost-cutting measures may be exaggerated, but they are pretty amusing. Ralph Wilson had to lend the Raiders $400,000 to keep them afloat.

[JohnH19]

The Vikings 1971 defense was good enough that Alan Page was NFL MVP and allowed 10 points or less in nine games. Numbers like that would make any team a winner. Hell, they could have won the playoff game at Dallas with a real QB or a decent running attack. They only gave up 183 yards for the game, but Cuozzo and Lee each threw two picks and Clint Jones was the only RB with more than 15 yards for the game with 52.

The playoff game against Dallas was actually in Minnesota.

The Vikings actually gave up less than 10 points per game over the three year stretch from 1969-71; 133, 143 and 139 for a total of 415 points in 42 games. Add to that the points they scored on interception and fumble returns plus the turnovers that set the mediocre offences up for easy points and you have a defence that was probably the most dominant of all time over a multi-year stretch. Regrettably, it’s vastly underrated and largely forgotten because they didn’t win a SB.

[lastcat3]

The Vikings 1971 defense was good enough that Alan Page was NFL MVP and allowed 10 points or less in nine games. Numbers like that would make any team a winner. Hell, they could have won the playoff game at Dallas with a real QB or a decent running attack. They only gave up 183 yards for the game, but Cuozzo and Lee each threw two picks and Clint Jones was the only RB with more than 15 yards for the game with 52.

The playoff game against Dallas was actually in Minnesota.

The Vikings actually gave up less than 10 points per game over the three year stretch from 1969-71; 133, 143 and 139 for a total of 415 points in 42 games. Add to that the points they scored on interception and fumble returns plus the turnovers that set the mediocre offences up for easy points and you have a defence that was probably the most dominant of all time over a multi-year stretch. Regrettably, it’s vastly underrated and largely forgotten because they didn’t win a SB.

That's probably true but I also think that is only part of the story for why they aren't remembered say as much as the '90's Bills who went through a similar situation. And that is because the '70's Vikings really weren't a very fun team to watch. They were one of those ground and pound teams that expected to win at the hands of their defense and not at the hands of their offense lead by a Hall of Fame quarterback and set of wide receivers.

The '70's Vikings and Rams were really poster boys of the style of play of that era and why the league needed to make some changes toward the end of the decade in order to open things up.