losperros wrote:
And better coached than the Vikings. Yeah, I know. I've just committed Vikings sacrilege! But I really believe the Vikings weren't as well prepared or game-day-coached as the other teams that you mentioned. At least not for that one day showdown called the Super Bowl. Just my two cents.
LOL! It may sound like sacrilege but you're right. I don't know if those teams were better coached overall but in those 4 particular games, Bud was out-coached. Grant was a great head coach but in the Super Bowls, he tended to be too conservative and predictable. There were match-up problems in some of those games too.
Sigh... what could have been... the Vikes were just 4 wins away from being considered one of the greatest teams of all time. Hopefully, in some alternate universe, they won those 4 games.
JEC334 wrote:I wasn't around until the 90's so I didnt get to live those Purple People Eater days. According to my dad, who is a Steelers fan btw

, said that the Vikings only played good games back then when the weather was harsh.
No offense, but your dad is absolutely wrong about that and it's reflected in the team's W/L records during that era. From 1969 to 1976, the Vikings had
one season with fewer than 10 wins. They won 11+ games 6 times in 8 years and went 12-2 four times! This was when there were 14 games in a season, not 16. Believe me, those games weren't all played in bad weather and there's no way they could have compiled those records if they were only playing well in harsh weather conditions. The late '60s/early '70s Vikes were just plain
good.