Vikings Message Board.Com

King James wrote:
I said nothing about players. It takes more than a few great players to win a super bowl. It takes a team to win championships. This is about Bug Grant being a great NFL coach. Nice try though.

So it takes great players to help other players win a super bowl … but it doesn’t take great players to help a great coach win a super bowl?

Mothman wrote: Well, his teams certainly weren't good enough to win it. I see no reason why that's all on him.

By the way, were you even alive when the Vikings played in those Super Bowls?

Let me guess, since I wasn't alive during the Bud Grant era I wouldn't understand how great of a coach he is right? Before you even go that route, I have game film of all four super bowls during the bud grant era. Bought it from ebay some years ago. I may be younger, but I watched all four of those games from start to finish.

I have plenty of Vikings game tapes from the past. I do this with every other team I root for like the Boston Celtics and Atlanta Braves.

The fact is that when it comes to Bud Grant, many younger fans, like myself are only being told the positives about him. Like his winning percentage, division titles, and super bowl appearances. What they do not tell us is that how many times his team choked during the big games.

Now all of this stimulated over a comment I made earlier about Bug Grant not being the only good coach we had. I said Denny Green was also a good coach. He wasn't as good as Grant but I think he deserves to be credited for some of the success this team had. Denny Green's problem was similar. We couldn't get to the super bowl. However, we still finished first in the division a lot.

Cliff wrote: So it takes great players to help other players win a super bowl … but it doesn’t take great players to help a great coach win a super bowl?

How can great players help the coach when the coach isn't helping the players in the super bowl? If the coach fails then the team will fail in the super bowl no matter how much great players help their less talented teammates. When I said it takes a team to win championships, that includes coaches since they are part of the team. It's not just about the players.

Cliff wrote: So it takes great players to help other players win a super bowl … but it doesn’t take great players to help a great coach win a super bowl?

I get a headache trying to follow his logic.

King James wrote: How can great players help the coach when the coach isn't helping the players in the super bowl? If the coach fails then the team will fail in the super bowl no matter how much great players help their less talented teammates. When I said it takes a team to win championships, that includes coaches since they are part of the team. It's not just about the players.

It’s simple; a great player can help the coaches by making great plays even if what the coach called wasn’t the optimal play. A great quarterback can audible out of a bad play call … a great MLB can adjust the defense properly if they see something in the offense.

No, it’s not just about the players … but great players can make up for average coaches. If you have enough great players on a team, they can even make the super bowl with only average coaching. However, with the talent level in the NFL I don’t think a team full of average players can get to the Super Bowl regardless of coaching.

It’s not like in Madden where it doesn’t matter how good the players on each side of the ball are as long as Player 1 is better than Player 2 (Or Coach 1 and Coach 2) the better player/coach wins.

I do agree with you about Green … I think he deserves about as much credit as Grant. He kept the Vikings competitive for a decade. Since him … zero consistency.

King James wrote:Let me guess, since I wasn't alive during the Bud Grant era I wouldn't understand how great of a coach he is right?

Hey, I just asked if you were alive when those games were played.

Before you even go that route, I have game film of all four super bowls during the bud grant era. Bought it from ebay some years ago. I may be younger, but I watched all four of those games from start to finish.

That's good but you didn't grasp where I was going with the question or why I asked it. I asked because I wondered how much you might have seen of the teams that defeated the Vikings in those Super Bowls. They were all terrific. Simply watching those games and concluding that Grant was out-coached and that's why the Vikings lost is way too simplistic. As I said, I do think he was out-coached in the Chiefs game but the fact is, every coach Grant lost a Super Bowl to is in the Hall of Fame too. The Miami team that beat the Vikings was following up the only perfect season in NFL history with a second Super Bowl. The Steelers team that beat them went on to win 3 more Super Bowls in the next 5 years. The Raiders were a 13-1 powerhouse in 1976. They had the best record in the NFL and they were the best team in the NFL. The Vikes were overmatched.

In other words, those '70s Vikings teams lost to the cream of the crop, teams that became legendary.

The fact is that when it comes to Bud Grant, many younger fans, like myself are only being told the positives about him. Like his winning percentage, division titles, and super bowl appearances. What they do not tell us is that how many times his team choked during the big games.

Just out of curiosity, in your view, does a team ever simply lose because the other team is better or is losing always about "choking" or "being outcoached"?

Cliff wrote: It’s simple; a great player can help the coaches by making great plays even if what the coach called wasn’t the optimal play. A great quarterback can audible out of a bad play call … a great MLB can adjust the defense properly if they see something in the offense.

No, it’s not just about the players … but great players can make up for average coaches. If you have enough great players on a team, they can even make the super bowl with only average coaching. However, with the talent level in the NFL I don’t think a team full of average players can get to the Super Bowl regardless of coaching.

It’s not like in Madden where it doesn’t matter how good the players on each side of the ball are as long as Player 1 is better than Player 2 (Or Coach 1 and Coach 2) the better player/coach wins.

I do agree with you about Green … I think he deserves about as much credit as Grant. He kept the Vikings competitive for a decade. Since him … zero consistency.

My problem is that the Vikings looked/played like an elite team most of those years in the Bud Grant Era. How do you go from playing like an elite team to playing like below .500 team at the super bowl? We lost every super bowl the EXACT same way. Not scoring until the game is almost over and the opponent is well ahead. Now if we would have gotten blown out just one super bowl, then I would say we probably lost to the better team. A lot like how the Broncos lost to the Seahawks at this year's super bowl. But to lose all four super bowls by blowouts and failure to get anything going in the 1st half. I have a lot of blame on the "great" Bud Grant. We had a championship built caliber team all of those super bowls. I find it hard to believe that we lost to "better" teams when the Vikings won just as many games to get to those bowls.

Mothman wrote: Just out of curiosity, in your view, does a team ever simply lose because the other team is better or is losing always about "choking" or "being outcoached"?

When you lose all your super bowl games by blowouts, against teams with just about the same record as yours, then yes it's about being outcoached. Oakland is the only team I considered better than us, but only slightly. Not even that is a good excuse to get blown out in a super bowl.

The only thing those teams were better than us at was coaching. Bud Grant couldn't use the cold Met stadium as a weapon like he usually did and was forced to actually coach his team to a super bowl victory. He couldn't get it done. That's what his legacy will be. Great up until the big moments. Had he won atleast one super bowl, I'd considered him as great. When you lose a big game, there's nothing great about that.

King James wrote:When you lose all your super bowl games by blowouts, against teams with just about the same record as yours, then yes it's about being outcoached.

You keep repeating that like a mantra but you're not providing any basis for that conviction. How were they out-coached? Why are you convinced they were out-coached and not just out-played (or a mix of both). You're putting it on Grant and giving the players a pass. Why?

The only thing those teams were better than us at was coaching. Bud Grant couldn't use the cold Met stadium as a weapon like he usually did and was forced to actually coach his team to a super bowl victory. He couldn't get it done. That's what his legacy will be. Great up until the big moments.

Again, winning the conference is a big moment too. Getting to the Super Bowl 4 times in less than a decade is a major accomplishment. Grant and his teams did well in a number of "big moments". You seem determined to be negative.

Had he won atleast one super bowl, I'd considered him as great. When you lose a big game, there's nothing great about that.

King James wrote:When you lose all your super bowl games by blowouts, against teams with just about the same record as yours, then yes it's about being outcoached.

What if Team A had a 12-4 record against opponents with a winning record of .300 and Team B had a 12-4 record against opponents with a winning record of .650? By your logic, Team A should be evenly matched with Team B, even though Team B faced better competition to get to the Super Bowl and is likely the better team.

Additionally, to be considered "Great" in your book, you need to have won a Super Bowl, yes? Then the following players are not great:

Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Tony Gonzalez, Dick Butkus, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, OJ Simpson, Alan Page, Junior Seau, Deacon Jones, LaDanian Tomlinson, Earl Campbell, Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, Randy Moss, Eric Dickerson, Cris Carter, Steve Largent

dead_poet wrote: What if Team A had a 12-4 record against opponents with a winning record of .300 and Team B had a 12-4 record against opponents with a winning record of .650? By your logic, Team A should be evenly matched with Team B, even though Team B faced better competition to get to the Super Bowl and is likely the better team.

Additionally, to be considered "Great" in your book, you need to have won a Super Bowl, yes? Then the following players are not great:

Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, Tony Gonzalez, Dick Butkus, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, OJ Simpson, Alan Page, Junior Seau, Deacon Jones, LaDanian Tomlinson, Earl Campbell, Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, Randy Moss, Eric Dickerson, Cris Carter, Steve Largent

Once again I'm referring to great coaching, not players. Read the entire thread before you jump into conversation.

Mothman wrote: You keep repeating that like a mantra but you're not providing any basis for that conviction. How were they out-coached? Why are you convinced they were out-coached and not just out-played (or a mix of both). You're putting it on Grant and giving the players a pass. Why?

Yet you're giving Bud Grant a pass and saying that the opposing teams players were just better than ours. You've provide no basis on why Bud Grant shouldn't be at fault.

Again, winning the conference is a big moment too. Getting to the Super Bowl 4 times in less than a decade is a major accomplishment. Grant and his teams did well in a number of "big moments". You seem determined to be negative.

I see why many fans of other teams make fun us. That's all we have to be excited about, division and conference titles. Those aren't big enough moments for me to get happy about. Super Bowls are real big moments. What's the excitement of winning the division and conference all those types but suck at the super bowl?

Yes roll your eyes. lol I do the same when people praise Bud Grant as one of the GREATEST NFL coaches of all time, despite his team's underachievement in super bowls.

King James wrote: Once again I'm referring to great coaching, not players. Read the entire thread before you jump into conversation.

Ignoring the part about the players (though I still fail to see why they are somehow treated differently). Focus on the scenario I mentioned. Curious as to your thoughts.

King James wrote:Yet you're giving Bud Grant a pass and saying that the opposing teams players were just better than ours. You've provide no basis on why Bud Grant shouldn't be at fault

Nice try but re-directing at me doesn't answer the question. How were they out-coached?

As for giving Grant a pass, I've done no such thing. I said I think he was out-coached in Super Bowl IV. Stram used innovative formations, trap plays designed to take advantage of the Vikings aggressive front 4, a 3-4 defense with big defenders in the middle to create a mismatch against Vikings center Mick Tingelhoff, etc. I think the Vikings were overmatched on the field but Stram also out-prepared and out-coached Grant in that game.

The Dolphins defeated the Vikes on the field, winning mis-matches and simply playing better football. I don't know what Grant could have done strategically to change the outcome of that one. His team committed a few penalties and turnovers that nullified opportunities for them and the Dolphisn superb front line and power running game just outplayed and dominated the Vikings defense. when a team is physically whipping an opponent like that, there's very a little a coach can do about it.

The Vikings were very competitive in Super Bowl IX, which wasn't a blowout at all. Again, some mistakes by players on the field cost them dearly. A coach can't prevent turnovers. The Vikings defense shut Pittsburgh out in the first half and the Steelers only points came on a safety. Both teams had excellent defenses and both defenses played well. the Vikes fumbled the opening kickoff of the second half 9again, not a coaching issue) and the Steelers recovered. that led to a short 30 yard TD drive. Turnovers killed good scoring opportunities for the Vikings in the second half and once again, a big, superb o-line proved too much for the Vikings aggressive-but-smaller defense and the steelers were able to control the ball on the ground and pu together one more scoring drive, which sealed the deal. How was Grant at fault strategically in the loss?

I won't even bother getting into details about the Raiders game. Oakland was clearly the superior team that year and similar issues dogged the Vikings. Their offense proved extremely turnover-prione in Super Bowls and that's always costly. However, I don't think that's on the coach. It's on the players.

I see why many fans of other teams make fun us. That's all we have to be excited about, division and conference titles. Those aren't big enough moments for me to get happy about. Super Bowls are real big moments. What's the excitement of winning the division and conference all those types but suck at the super bowl?

So you've never experienced any real excitement over a division win or a playoff victory? You've never been happy about anything they've accomplished because none of those moments are "enough"?

It troubles and saddens me that so many people view sports the way you seem to view them. It's a cynical, unappreciative viewpoint that, to me, runs counter to the spirit of sports. For too many people, nothing matters but the title. An Olympian who wins the silver medal is just another loser. That's not an accomplishment to be excited about because they didn't win the gold.

First prize is great. Watching a team you like win a championship is a marvelous feeling but I think it's sad when that's the only accomplishment some fans feel is worthwhile.

Look at it this way Mothman. Look at every season ever played in the NFL. Out of those seasons, what do you think the average fan will remember the most. Will they remember who all finish first in the division and the conference, or will they remember who won the super bowl? I think think it's the latter.

Only fans of a specific team will remember or care about that teams accolades outside of super bowl victories. Unless you're an NFL fanatic, analyst, or Vikings fan, I doubt the average NFL fans can recall much about the Vikings of old other than the Purple People Eaters.

All you hear is how great we were in the old Met stadium and how we sucked after we moved to the dome. Had we won a super bowl or two, we'd actually have something worth talking about in the NFL history books.

Outside of the Vikings fanbase, you will rarely hear the name Bud Grant like you hear all the other great coaches like Lombardi, Madden, and etc. Why????????? Because he is not great like these men. These men knew how to win and get a super bowl victory.
Bud Grant was an underachiever. The only reason most Vikings fans praise him is because he's the closest thing to a super bowl we ever got. What else do we have to cheer for?