Best Vikings team? In my Book, It's These Guys! - All Hail the 1973 Minnesota Vikings!

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEjwlhFFpeA&t=713s

This was the first team Tarkenton took to the Super Bowl.  The offense was loaded with great players...Foreman, Brown, Reed, Gilliam, Voight, Tinglehoff, Alderson, White and Yary.  They were fun to watch.  But, the defense was just plain nasty!  I contend that the Vikings have never played defense as well as they did in 1973 (except for the Super Bowl against the Dolphins).  The corners were Bobby Bryant and Nate Wright.  Krause was his normal stellar self, the linebackers of Hilgenberg, Sieman and Winston were terrific...and of course the d-line of Marshall, Page, Larsen and Eller were never better than they were that year. 

[JDBrocks]

I think the 2017 Vikings had the best defense in team history, especially when you account for era. 

[swede700]

14 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

I think the 2017 Vikings had the best defense in team history, especially when you account for era. 

Statistically, the 1988 and 1989 Vikings defenses were far superior to the 2017 Vikings.  And it's not even close.  Now, I can't compare that to the 73 defense, considering I was an infant then, but still, while the 2017 Vikings defense was elite, I can't say it was the best Vikings defense I've ever seen.  

[JDBrocks]

When you consider what the league was like back then compared to what it is now, what the 2017 Vikings defense did is remarkable. What statistics are you using to say "far" superior?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Statistically, the 1988 and 1989 Vikings defenses were far superior to the 2017 Vikings.  And it's not even close.  Now, I can't compare that to the 73 defense, considering I was an infant then, but still, while the 2017 Vikings defense was elite, I can't say it was the best Vikings defense I've ever seen.  

Statistics can be deceiving. The players on the 1973 team were usually 3 and 4 down players.  They didn't have as many "specialists" as they do today, with the constant shuffling players in and out of the lineup due to situation.  I would argue that the starters on the '73 team had to be able to do it all with minimal substitutions.  They, simply were, better football players.

[SemperFeist]

I’m still saying that it was the 1998 team. No, the defense wasn’t what anyone would call top notch, but the level in which that team dominated their opponents is a level that we’ve never seen in Minnesota. 

12 games, 13 if you include the playoffs, the Vikings won by double digits. 

[JDBrocks]

6 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

They, simply were, better football players.

Why? I will never understand this take. They were doing what they were supposed to do, just as the players do now. The rules were different, the athletic threshold was much lower, and offensive schemes were not nearly as complex as they are now. They didn't have Tyreek Hills or Alvin Kamaras to deal with. When offenses evolved, the defenses did too. 

I have a ton of respect for players from the early years of the NFL, but I wholly disagree that being 3/4 down players in the 70s makes them better.

[swede700]

20 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

When you consider what the league was like back then compared to what it is now, what the 2017 Vikings defense did is remarkable. What statistics are you using to say "far" superior?

Using FootballOutsiders.com, the DVOA of the 1988 defense was -26.5, while the 2017 defense was -13.9.  Even if you go into individual stats, there were 7 players on the '88 defense that had 3 more interceptions...on the 2017 team, there was 1 (Harrison Smith).  The 2017 defense had more prolific sackers in Everson and Danielle, but the '88 team had Doleman, Millard and Thomas all with 6 or more sacks.  Also, the '88 team had 19 defensive fumble recoveries...the '17 team only had 5.  

Either way, you can say that the rules were tougher in 2017...that's certainly true, but I think you take those defensive players in '88 and put them on the '17 team with all the advantages they'd get in training and workouts, I think they likely would be just as good, if not better than that '17 defense.  They may not have had the sexiest names with guys like Najee Mustafaa, Carl Lee, Doug Martin, Jesse Solomon and David Howard (to go with Doleman, Millard and Studwell), but they were an elite defensive team.  Now, their offense left a lot to be desired, which is why they made that god awful trade a year later (which we won't speak of), but that defense is often underrated in the pantheon of Vikings history.  

Edited May 24, 2019 by swede700

[swede700]

9 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

Why? I will never understand this take. They were doing what they were supposed to do, just as the players do now. The rules were different, the athletic threshold was much lower, and offensive schemes were not nearly as complex as they are now. They didn't have Tyreek Hills or Alvin Kamaras to deal with. When offenses evolved, the defenses did too. 

I have a ton of respect for players from the early years of the NFL, but I wholly disagree that being 3/4 down players in the 70s makes them better.

The offensive schemes today aren't really all that complex as you seem to believe they are.  In fact, they aren't different than they were 45 years ago...they just use different terminology and there's a different focus because of the rules changes (you see more passing because the rules make it easier to pass), but the schemes are pretty much the same schemes that were being run by Paul Brown in the 1950s.

Edited May 24, 2019 by swede700

[JDBrocks]

4 minutes ago, swede700 said:

The offensive schemes today aren't really all that complex as you seem to believe they are.  In fact, they aren't different than they were 45 years ago...they just use different terminology and there's a different focus because of the rules changes (you see more passing because the rules make it easier to pass), but the schemes are pretty much the same schemes that were being run by Paul Brown in the 1950s.

That wasn't the main point of my argument, but I would suggest that the spread offense, and the types of athletes that we see at the QB, TE, and WR position have certainly changed the way that teams run their offenses. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JDBrocks said:

Why? I will never understand this take. They were doing what they were supposed to do, just as the players do now. The rules were different, the athletic threshold was much lower, and offensive schemes were not nearly as complex as they are now. They didn't have Tyreek Hills or Alvin Kamaras to deal with. When offenses evolved, the defenses did too. 

I have a ton of respect for players from the early years of the NFL, but I wholly disagree that being 3/4 down players in the 70s makes them better.

True, but they did have to contend with some players you may have heard of that were pretty good...Bob Hayes, Lance Alworth, Mercury Morris, O.J Simpson, Paul Warfield, Otis Taylor, Charlie Taylor, John Mack, Jackie Smith, Cliff Branch, Dave Casper, Larry Czonka, Franco Harris, Calvin Hill, Mel Farr, Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Charlie Joiner, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, Steve Largent.....

Edited May 24, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JDBrocks said:

That wasn't the main point of my argument, but I would suggest that the spread offense, and the types of athletes that we see at the QB, TE, and WR position have certainly changed the way that teams run their offenses. 

I would argue that a version of the spread offense was being run by Dallas in the '70's.  They had multiple receivers and no one in the backfield quite often when Staubach went into the shotgun formation.  This was the beginning of the multiple substitutions according to the situation on the field that I despise crap...and one of many reasons I can't stand the Cowboys and Tom Landry.  Frankly, and I've said it before, I find todays spread, pass happy, fast break offenses boring, boring, boring.

[Guest]

I will also add this as to why I think the football of the 60's and 70's was better than todays...there were true characters back then...today, we just have prima donnas.  I think about Otis Sistrunk, Ted Hendricks, Mike "Mad Man" Curtis, Ben Davidson, Conrad Dobler, Joe Namath, Terry Bradshaw, Sonny Jurgenson, Ray Nietzsche, Alex Karras, **** Butkus, Art Donovan, Mean Joe Green, Karl Kassulke,  even straight laced Jim Marshall was a thrill seeker off the field!  Who today could keep up with them on the field, in the barroom, on the open highway, or simply telling great stories?  Either everyone is sanitized like Kurt Cousins or Tom Brady, or obnoxious like Terrell Owens or Antonio Brown...although, I have high hope for Baker Mayfield.  He just might be a throw back to a more interesting era.

[swede700]

1 hour ago, JDBrocks said:

That wasn't the main point of my argument, but I would suggest that the spread offense, and the types of athletes that we see at the QB, TE, and WR position have certainly changed the way that teams run their offenses. 

The athletes at the QB and TE position, yes, I can agree with that.  But the spread offense (especially at the collegiate level), as far as I'm concerned, has diminished offensive play.  The teams have had to tailor their offenses at the NFL level because the offensive linemen aren't prepared to play "pro-style" offenses coming into the league.  It's led to a worse product.  The schemes haven't really changed though, but they've sort of been melded together.   

[JDBrocks]

They’ve changed. Significantly. Your post says as much. You might not like the product as much, but they are different and require a different caliber of athlete.