PDA

View Full Version : 98 Vikings - Third Best Team ever?



NodakPaul
06-25-2007, 04:45 PM
OK, so when talking about the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, many people, myself included, praise the offense and slam the defense.
Is this really justified?
I always knew that the 98 Vikings still hold the record for points scored in a single season.
But where did they rank defensively that year?
I looked it, and we were sixth in total points allowed.

So I started thinking, "Number one offense and number six defense?
That is a pretty damn good team.
Probably one of the best in the modern era."
I figured I had nothing better to do in the offseason, so I did a little research.

I took the points scored and points allowed for every team in the past 20 years.
I calculated the points differential (scored - allowed) and ranked them.
As it turns out, the 98 Vikings came in third overall!
Here are the top ten.

TeamPoints Scored
Points AllowedDifferential
1999 St. Louis Rams526242284
1991 Washington Redskins485224261
1998 Minnesota Vikings556296260
1996 Green Bay Packers456210246
2001 St. Louis Rams503273230
1994 San Francisco 49ers505296209
1987 San Francisco 49ers459253206
1995 San Francisco 49ers457258199
1992 San Francisco 49ers431236195
2005 Indianapolis Colts439247192


I was also able to identify some real stinkers in the past 20 years.
I give you the bottom ten:

TeamPoints Scored
Points AllowedDifferential
2004 San Francisco 49ers259452-193
1999 Cleveland Browns217437-220
2003 Arizona Cardinals225452-227
1987 Atlanta Falcons205436-231
2000 Arizona Cardinals210443-233
1990 Cleveland Browns228462-234
1986 Tampa Bay Buccaneers239473-234
1991 Indianapolis Colts143381-238
2000 Cleveland Browns161419-258
1990 New England Patriots181446-265


And I know everyone is curious as to where the 2006 Minnesota Vikings fell.
Unfortunately we were in the bottom third of the past 20 years.
With a differential of -45, we ranked 416 out of 626 teams.
I expect the 2007 Vikings to be much higher!

Mr Anderson
06-25-2007, 04:50 PM
That just pisses me off even more that we didnt win the Super Bowl.

Mr Anderson
06-25-2007, 04:51 PM
That just pisses me off even more that we didnt win the Super Bowl.

NodakPaul
06-25-2007, 04:52 PM
FYI: The (statistically) worst team to ever win the superbowl: The 2006 Indianapolis Colts.

RankYearTeamPoints ScoredPoints AllowedDifference
1642006Indianapolis Colts42736067

For anyone who wants to look at the data I put together, it is attached.
Maybe later this week I will get a wild hair and finish up with the data from 1967-1985.


http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/team rankings.txt

vikingivan
06-25-2007, 05:26 PM
"Mr" wrote:


That just pisses me off even more that we didnt win the Super Bowl.


Thanks Paul for the data.
I have to agree with Mr. Anderson.
9 years has not healed the wounds from losing to the Falcons in the NFC Championship game.
If only we would have just run the clock out before halftime.
Oh well, maybe this year.
I wonder where the 75 Vikes ranked.
Another gut wrenching loss, although we got
hosed on that pass interference call in 75.

Billy Boy
06-25-2007, 05:53 PM
Good stuff Nodak.
I remember a lot of blow out games that year.


I also remember a lot of intereceptions by the Viking D that year.
Teams would panic once they got behind and I think that helped the D a bit.

scottishvike
06-25-2007, 05:57 PM
Nice work Paul interesting reading, I don't think you can judge teams on stats alone but I do think they were the best team never to win the SB.

BadlandsVikings
06-25-2007, 06:03 PM
Good Stuff NP

Stupid Fat Denny, why did you run out the last 30 seconds of regualtion?

My fists still hurt from pounding on the floor after that loss.

singersp
06-25-2007, 06:31 PM
1998 Minnesota Vikings > 1996 Green Bay Packers.
;)

cogitans
06-25-2007, 06:34 PM
"singersp" wrote:


1998 Minnesota Vikings > 1996 Green Bay Packers.
;)



Hell yeah.

But what about. Vikings 2007-2012, the beginning of a dynasty ;)

Zeus
06-26-2007, 08:40 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


OK, so when talking about the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, many people, myself included, praise the offense and slam the defense.  Is this really justified?  I always knew that the 98 Vikings still hold the record for points scored in a single season.  But where did they rank defensively that year?  I looked it, and we were sixth in total points allowed.

So I started thinking, "Number one offense and number six defense?  That is a pretty damn good team.  Probably one of the best in the modern era."  I figured I had nothing better to do in the offseason, so I did a little research.

I took the points scored and points allowed for every team in the past 20 years.  I calculated the points differential (scored - allowed) and ranked them.  As it turns out, the 98 Vikings came in third overall!  Here are the top ten.



TeamPoints Scored
Points AllowedDifferential
1999 St. Louis Rams526242284  Super Bowl winner
1991 Washington Redskins485224261  Super Bowl winner
1998 Minnesota Vikings556296260  DNQ Super Bowl
1996 Green Bay Packers456210246  Super Bowl winner
2001 St. Louis Rams503273230  Super Bowl loser
1994 San Francisco 49ers505296209  Super Bowl winner
1987 San Francisco 49ers459253206  DNQ Super Bowl
1995 San Francisco 49ers457258199  DNQ Super Bowl
1992 San Francisco 49ers431236195  DNQ Super Bowl
2005 Indianapolis Colts439247192  DNQ Super Bowl

Too bad they don't give out the Lombardi Trophy for scoring differential.

So, no, the '98 Vikings were not the Third Best Team ever.  They failed to capture the big prize, so they are no better than the Forty-Second Best Team ever.

=Z=

SKOL
06-26-2007, 08:53 AM
A number of key defensemen were injured during the NFC Championship game (Ed McDaniel and John Randle).
After the injuries Atlanta scored most of their points, and that's why we lost the game late.
I would put the '98 squad up against anyone, if healthy.

jmcdon00
06-26-2007, 09:30 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


OK, so when talking about the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, many people, myself included, praise the offense and slam the defense.
Is this really justified?
I always knew that the 98 Vikings still hold the record for points scored in a single season.
But where did they rank defensively that year?
I looked it, and we were sixth in total points allowed.

So I started thinking, "Number one offense and number six defense?
That is a pretty damn good team.
Probably one of the best in the modern era."
I figured I had nothing better to do in the offseason, so I did a little research.

I took the points scored and points allowed for every team in the past 20 years.
I calculated the points differential (scored - allowed) and ranked them.
As it turns out, the 98 Vikings came in third overall!
Here are the top ten.



TeamPoints Scored
Points AllowedDifferential
1999 St. Louis Rams526242284
Super Bowl winner
1991 Washington Redskins485224261
Super Bowl winner
1998 Minnesota Vikings556296260
DNQ Super Bowl
1996 Green Bay Packers456210246
Super Bowl winner
2001 St. Louis Rams503273230
Super Bowl loser
1994 San Francisco 49ers505296209
Super Bowl winner
1987 San Francisco 49ers459253206
DNQ Super Bowl
1995 San Francisco 49ers457258199
DNQ Super Bowl
1992 San Francisco 49ers431236195
DNQ Super Bowl
2005 Indianapolis Colts439247192
DNQ Super Bowl

Too bad they don't give out the Lombardi Trophy for scoring differential.

So, no, the '98 Vikings were not the Third Best Team ever.
They failed to capture the big prize, so they are no better than the Forty-Second Best Team ever.

=Z=

If we are basing this on stats from the last 20 years the thread should be, best team in the last 20 years. I would argue that since 20 teams have won the superbowl in the last 20 years that the 98 vikings are at least 21. The injury card just doesn't work. Every team has injuries, the great teams find a way to win anyway.

BloodyHorns82
06-26-2007, 10:08 AM
Great teams have a bad game every once in a while too.
If just won play would have went differently, we could have just as easily been Superbowl champions.
So one play can make the difference of being one of the greatest ever, or just relatively run of the mill as far as history goes.

LongtimeVikesfan
06-26-2007, 10:24 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


OK, so when talking about the 1998 Minnesota Vikings, many people, myself included, praise the offense and slam the defense.
Is this really justified?
I always knew that the 98 Vikings still hold the record for points scored in a single season.
But where did they rank defensively that year?
I looked it, and we were sixth in total points allowed.

So I started thinking, "Number one offense and number six defense?
That is a pretty damn good team.
Probably one of the best in the modern era."
I figured I had nothing better to do in the offseason, so I did a little research.

I took the points scored and points allowed for every team in the past 20 years.
I calculated the points differential (scored - allowed) and ranked them.
As it turns out, the 98 Vikings came in third overall!
Here are the top ten.



TeamPoints Scored
Points AllowedDifferential
1999 St. Louis Rams526242284
Super Bowl winner
1991 Washington Redskins485224261
Super Bowl winner
1998 Minnesota Vikings556296260
DNQ Super Bowl
1996 Green Bay Packers456210246
Super Bowl winner
2001 St. Louis Rams503273230
Super Bowl loser
1994 San Francisco 49ers505296209
Super Bowl winner
1987 San Francisco 49ers459253206
DNQ Super Bowl
1995 San Francisco 49ers457258199
DNQ Super Bowl
1992 San Francisco 49ers431236195
DNQ Super Bowl
2005 Indianapolis Colts439247192
DNQ Super Bowl

Too bad they don't give out the Lombardi Trophy for scoring differential.

So, no, the '98 Vikings were not the Third Best Team ever.
They failed to capture the big prize, so they are no better than the Forty-Second Best Team ever.

=Z=


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."

Zeus
06-26-2007, 10:30 AM
"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."


Always glad when people agree with me!

Point differential, yards gained, points allowed, etc. etc. etc.

There's only one stat which matters:
Wins and Losses.
Sure, the Vikings were 16-2 in '98, but they needed to be 18-1.

The '98 team was awesome - I won multiple fantasy and pick-'em leagues because of that team.
But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.

=Z=

Prophet
06-26-2007, 10:31 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


...But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.

=Z=


True, but, they were also the highest scoring team in the NFL.
Ever.

cajunvike
06-26-2007, 10:43 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."


Always glad when people agree with me!

Point differential, yards gained, points allowed, etc. etc. etc.

There's only one stat which matters:
Wins and Losses.
Sure, the Vikings were 16-2 in '98, but they needed to be 18-1.

The '98 team was awesome - I won multiple fantasy and pick-'em leagues because of that team.
But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.

=Z=


Nothing else matters but a Super Bowl trophy....sad but true!

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 10:49 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


Too bad they don't give out the Lombardi Trophy for scoring differential.

So, no, the '98 Vikings were not the Third Best Team ever.
They failed to capture the big prize, so they are no better than the Forty-Second Best Team ever.

=Z=


Well pfffbbbbbt to you then! ;)

I would maintain that the Lombardi Trophy isn't given to the best team each season.
It is given to the team who wins the Super Bowl.
Sometimes that is the best team, sometimes it isn't.
Saying that the 2006 Colts were better than the Chargers, or the Saints, or even the Patriots is a tough sell.
Saying that the Bears were the Best team in the NFC makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

That is one of the tings that makes football fun to watch.
Any team can win on any given Sunday, they don't necessarily have to be the best.

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 10:51 AM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


If we are basing this on stats from the last 20 years the thread should be, best team in the last 20 years.


OK, fair enough.
I have changed the title.
Next week when work slows down again enough for me to compile the stats from the first 21 year, I will be able to say definitively where the 98 Vikes rank statistically. Until then...

Mr Anderson
06-26-2007, 10:51 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."


Always glad when people agree with me!

Point differential, yards gained, points allowed, etc. etc. etc.

There's only one stat which matters:
Wins and Losses.
Sure, the Vikings were 16-2 in '98, but they needed to be 18-1.

The '98 team was awesome - I won multiple fantasy and pick-'em leagues because of that team.
But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.

=Z=



They aren't? If wins and losses are all that matter, and they were 16-2, doesn't that make them better than all of the other Vikings teams that have lost in the NFC championship game?

WinonaVike
06-26-2007, 10:53 AM
Theres no way you can put a team who didnt win the Super Bowl in the Top 10 even. Granted the best team each year doesnt always win the Super Bowl, but to be one of the greatest teams ever that should certainly be on your resume. And according to that list such greats as the 85 Bears and 72 Dolphins wouldnt be in the top 10. Nice stat, but in no way an indication of best teams ever.

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 11:06 AM
"WinonaVike" wrote:


Theres no way you can put a team who didnt win the Super Bowl in the Top 10 even. Granted the best team each year doesnt always win the Super Bowl, but to be one of the greatest teams ever that should certainly be on your resume. And according to that list such greats as the 85 Bears and 72 Dolphins wouldnt be in the top 10. Nice stat, but in no way an indication of best teams ever.


The list only went back 20 seasons.
SO the 85 Bears and 72 Dolphins weren't included.


OK, OK, I have taken enough flack for not going back further! ;D
I will get the rest of the years put on today or tomorrow.

Zeus
06-26-2007, 11:12 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


...But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.


True, but, they were also the highest scoring team in the NFL.
Ever.


Cool.
Do they get to hang a banner at the MetroDome for that?
Did the team get fancy rings?
Did each player get to carry around the "We're the Highest Scoring Team Ever!" trophy for a day and drink beer out of it?

=Z=

Zeus
06-26-2007, 11:18 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Too bad they don't give out the Lombardi Trophy for scoring differential.

So, no, the '98 Vikings were not the Third Best Team ever.
They failed to capture the big prize, so they are no better than the Forty-Second Best Team ever.


Well pfffbbbbbt to you then! ;)

I would maintain that the Lombardi Trophy isn't given to the best team each season.
It is given to the team who wins the Super Bowl.
Sometimes that is the best team, sometimes it isn't.
Saying that the 2006 Colts were better than the Chargers, or the Saints, or even the Patriots is a tough sell.
Saying that the Bears were the Best team in the NFC makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

That is one of the tings that makes football fun to watch.
Any team can win on any given Sunday, they don't necessarily have to be the best.


I guess we have a different definition of what the "Best Team Ever" is.
You hang your hat on one particular stat.
I hang my hat on winning the big prize.

By your measure, the '85 Bears aren't in the running for Best Team Ever.
You do realize that's patently ridiculous, right?

=Z=

Zeus
06-26-2007, 11:22 AM
"Mr" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."


Always glad when people agree with me!

Point differential, yards gained, points allowed, etc. etc. etc.

There's only one stat which matters:
Wins and Losses.
Sure, the Vikings were 16-2 in '98, but they needed to be 18-1.

The '98 team was awesome - I won multiple fantasy and pick-'em leagues because of that team.
But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.


They aren't? If wins and losses are all that matter, and they were 16-2, doesn't that make them better than all of the other Vikings teams that have lost in the NFC championship game?


Sure!
So the '98 Vikings are the 5th-best Minnesota Vikings team in their 46 years of playing football.
I'm fine with that.

=Z=

LongtimeVikesfan
06-26-2007, 11:35 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


I would have to agree with Zeus on this one.

Our 1969 team IMHO would rank higher. We lost the superbowl that year to the Chiefs, but we were a feared team back in the day. We sent 9 players to the pro bowl including our entire defensive line (a.k.a. purple people eaters). Our point differential that year was 246, not as prolific as the 98 team but a better all around team.

"In 1969 the Vikings went 12-2, the best record in the NFL. The team had 12 straight victories, the longest single-season winning streak in 35 years. The Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns, 27-7, in the NFL Championship Game on Jan. 4, 1970, at Metropolitan Stadium. Minnesota became the first modern NFL expansion team to win an NFL Championship Game, and earned a berth in Super Bowl IV. The heavily favored Vikings lost that game to the Kansas City Chiefs 23-7."


Always glad when people agree with me!

Point differential, yards gained, points allowed, etc. etc. etc.

There's only one stat which matters:
Wins and Losses.
Sure, the Vikings were 16-2 in '98, but they needed to be 18-1.

The '98 team was awesome - I won multiple fantasy and pick-'em leagues because of that team.
But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.


They aren't? If wins and losses are all that matter, and they were 16-2, doesn't that make them better than all of the other Vikings teams that have lost in the NFC championship game?


Sure!
So the '98 Vikings are the 5th-best Minnesota Vikings team in their 46 years of playing football.
I'm fine with that.

=Z=


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.

sleepagent
06-26-2007, 11:55 AM
"Best" and "Greatest" are all subjective to the information in which they are being judged.

In the NFL, we are loaded with statistics . . . that's what makes this game so great.
We can debate and no matter what team you pull for . . . there's always light at the end of the tunnel . . . because of the statistics.

For this discussion, assuming the statistics are correct, we are the third best team ever!

=Z= is introducing a different standard to judge the "best" or "greatest" from, that does not apply to this model.
And it's not that I disagree with them . . . because it's all about the "Wins & Losses" and NOT losing in the most important game (which we did 4 times).

Obviously, hard work & skill needs a certain degree of luck for it all to work.
Our luck ran out in 1998.
I think . . . no, I know . . . if we had to play that Atlanta game all over again . . . we would have advanced to the Super Bowl and won it all (finally).

But such is life as a Viking fan . . . a ton of talent, but just can't get the job done when it matters the most!
There is hope . . . look at the Boston Red Sox!

Zeus
06-26-2007, 12:02 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


"Best" and "Greatest" are all subjective to the information in which they are being judged.

In the NFL, we are loaded with statistics . . . that's what makes this game so great.
We can debate and no matter what team you pull for . . . there's always light at the end of the tunnel . . . because of the statistics.

For this discussion, assuming the statistics are correct, we are the third best team ever!


The '98 Vikings are the third best team in terms of scoring differential ever.


Nothing more.

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 12:05 PM
"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.


The points differential for our 1969 team is 246, which would place them just under the 1998 team.

Again, I don't think that winning the Superbowl is the only requirement for being deemed one of the best teams.
In fact, I think that it is very possible for
team that is not one of the best to make it to and even win the superbowl.
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.

Marrdro
06-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Third best, second best, best best, who cares, the only team (not to disagree with NP) that counts is the one that won us the SB.

Ohhh wait, that hasn't happened yet.
Sorry let me get out of this conversation.
::)

Zeus
06-26-2007, 12:16 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.


The points differential for our 1969 team is 246, which would place them just under the 1998 team.

Again, I don't think that winning the Superbowl is the only requirement for being deemed one of the best teams.
In fact, I think that it is very possible for
team that is not one of the best to make it to and even win the superbowl.
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.


Should have been there?
I'm sorry, did either of those teams beat the Colts in the playoffs last year and I didn't see it?

Two teams take the field.
The best team leaves as the winner.
The worst team leaves as the loser.
Clean and simple.

=Z=

sleepagent
06-26-2007, 12:22 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.


The points differential for our 1969 team is 246, which would place them just under the 1998 team.

Again, I don't think that winning the Superbowl is the only requirement for being deemed one of the best teams.
In fact, I think that it is very possible for
team that is not one of the best to make it to and even win the superbowl.
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.


I totally agree with that point.
That's where the "luck factor" can enter.
We all have played sports, or watched a game where the truly better team lost.
Sometimes the trophy doesn't go to the "best" team . . . it goes to the one that had it better together on that "Any Given Sunday"!

vikingivan
06-26-2007, 12:27 PM
"scottishvike" wrote:


Nice work Paul interesting reading, I don't think you can judge teams on stats alone but I do think they were the best team never to win the SB.


They could be the best team not to win a SB.
I am leaning towards the 87/88 49ers as that team.
They had names like Montana, Craig, Rice, Taylor, Lott, and many others.
They went 13-2 that year.
Our beloved Vikes went 8-7.
We got hot in the playoffs though and defeated the Saints, and the 49ers, before losing to the Redskins when Nelson could not catch the ball on the goaline.
My point is we kept the Niners from going to the SB, and the Redskins beat the Broncos 42-10.
The 49ers did win the next two Bowls.
If we would not have knocked out the Niners they very well could have won three in a row.

mr.woo
06-26-2007, 12:27 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.


The points differential for our 1969 team is 246, which would place them just under the 1998 team.

Again, I don't think that winning the Superbowl is the only requirement for being deemed one of the best teams.
In fact, I think that it is very possible for
team that is not one of the best to make it to and even win the superbowl.
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.


Should have been there?
I'm sorry, did either of those teams beat the Colts in the playoffs last year and I didn't see it?

Two teams take the field.
The best team leaves as the winner.
The worst team leaves as the loser.
Clean and simple.

=Z=


best team? or luckiest? sometime the ball just dosnt bounc your way. what if two even teams play and one star player gets injured? then what? ur sure as hell arent the best team out there anymore. but maybe that team has more pride and drive and wants it more. andin the end they pull it out.

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 12:28 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


Two teams take the field.
The best team leaves as the winner.
The worst team leaves as the loser.
Clean and simple.

=Z=


I don't buy it.
The team that scores the most points leaves as the winner.
But does that really mean that they are the best?
What about inter division games where the two teams split?
Does that mean that one was the best the first time, and one was the best the second time?

If the best team was guaranteed to win every time, why do we even play the games, especially late in the year?
When the Packers beat the Bears in the last week of regular season, were they better than the Bears?
If so, why didn't the Packers go to the superbowl instead?

In the end, the only true measure of success is the win/loss record and the Lombardi Trophy.
But that is not the only measure of greatness.

Zeus
06-26-2007, 12:29 PM
"sleepagent" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:


How true!
Our 1969 team ranked #1 on both Offensive and Defense that year. Without that World Championship trophy we will never be mentioned as one of the greatest.
Some of our players will go down in history as the best but never as a team.
I think by winning the Superbowl that year we would have been in the top 10 or 20.


The points differential for our 1969 team is 246, which would place them just under the 1998 team.

Again, I don't think that winning the Superbowl is the only requirement for being deemed one of the best teams.
In fact, I think that it is very possible for
team that is not one of the best to make it to and even win the superbowl.
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.


I totally agree with that point.
That's where the "luck factor" can enter.
We all have played sports, or watched a game where the truly better team lost.
Sometimes the trophy doesn't go to the "best" team . . . it goes to the one that had it better together on that "Any Given Sunday"!



Isn't that part of what makes a team The Best?
They can steam-roll people all they want, but catching those breaks (making your own luck?) are part of the overall picture.

The Colts were down THREE TOUCHDOWNS to the Patriots and came back to beat them.

My point is (and will always be) you can't be called one of the Best if you failed to win when you had to win.
No matter what the circumstances.

=Z=

Zeus
06-26-2007, 12:33 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Two teams take the field.
The best team leaves as the winner.
The worst team leaves as the loser.
Clean and simple.


I don't buy it.
The team that scores the most points leaves as the winner.
But does that really mean that they are the best?
What about inter division games where the two teams split?
Does that mean that one was the best the first time, and one was the best the second time?

Yes.
Clean and simple.


If the best team was guaranteed to win every time, why do we even play the games, especially late in the year?
When the Packers beat the Bears in the last week of regular season, were they better than the Bears?
If so, why didn't the Packers go to the superbowl instead?

On that day, the Packers were the best team of the two.
Clean and simple.


In the end, the only true measure of success is the win/loss record and the Lombardi Trophy.
But that is not the only measure of greatness.


Sorry, NP, but this all smacks of Purple-Glass-Wearing Vikings fans trying to spin the stats to make the '98 team out to be something other than an amazing offensive specimen with a pretty good defense who failed to win the most important game of the season.

The 2000 Vikings team was pretty damn good, too.
Why aren't you promoting them for this list?

=Z=

vikingivan
06-26-2007, 12:41 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"LongtimeVikesfan" wrote:
[quote]
The Colts are a good example.
Either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there instead of them.

But sleepagent is right, the term "best" is entirely subjective.
My point is posting this data wasn't to crown any team the best ever, but more as some fun stats to look at in a long offseason. ;)
Consume them as you see fit.


Sorry Paul.
The Colts went 12-4 last year after going 14-2 the previous year.
How can you say that either the Chargers or the Pats should have been there before them.
The Colts were down 21-3 in the 2nd quarter to the Pats, and still came back and won it.
I think that proved how good of a team they really were.

vikingivan
06-26-2007, 12:42 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Two teams take the field.
The best team leaves as the winner.
The worst team leaves as the loser.
Clean and simple.


I don't buy it.
The team that scores the most points leaves as the winner.
But does that really mean that they are the best?
What about inter division games where the two teams split?
Does that mean that one was the best the first time, and one was the best the second time?

Yes.
Clean and simple.


If the best team was guaranteed to win every time, why do we even play the games, especially late in the year?
When the Packers beat the Bears in the last week of regular season, were they better than the Bears?
If so, why didn't the Packers go to the superbowl instead?

On that day, the Packers were the best team of the two.
Clean and simple.


In the end, the only true measure of success is the win/loss record and the Lombardi Trophy.
But that is not the only measure of greatness.


Sorry, NP, but this all smacks of Purple-Glass-Wearing Vikings fans trying to spin the stats to make the '98 team out to be something other than an amazing offensive specimen with a pretty good defense who failed to win the most important game of the season.

The 2000 Vikings team was pretty gol 'darnit good, too.
Why aren't you promoting them for this list?

=Z=


Because they lost 41-0

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 12:48 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


Sorry, NP, but this all smacks of Purple-Glass-Wearing Vikings fans trying to spin the stats to make the '98 team out to be something other than an amazing offensive specimen with a pretty good defense who failed to win the most important game of the season.

The 2000 Vikings team was pretty gol 'darnit good, too.
Why aren't you promoting them for this list?

=Z=


The 2000 team was barely average in terms of points differential - their differential was 26.
The 1998, 1988, 1992, 1986, 1989, 1999, 2003, 1994, and 1995 Vikings all had better differentials than them.
Yet they went 11-5 and made the NFC championship.

So in your mind, since both teams went just as far in the playoffs, does that mean that they are equally great?
I would say that the 98 team was better, but that is just MHO. ;)

vikingivan
06-26-2007, 01:00 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


Sorry, NP, but this all smacks of Purple-Glass-Wearing Vikings fans trying to spin the stats to make the '98 team out to be something other than an amazing offensive specimen with a pretty good defense who failed to win the most important game of the season.

The 2000 Vikings team was pretty gol 'darnit good, too.
Why aren't you promoting them for this list?

=Z=


The 2000 team was barely average in terms of points differential - their differential was 26.
The 1998, 1988, 1992, 1986, 1989, 1999, 2003, 1994, and 1995 Vikings all had better differentials than them.
Yet they went 11-5 and made the NFC championship.

So in your mind, since both teams went just as far in the playoffs, does that mean that they are equally great?
I would say that the 98 team was better, but that is just MHO. ;)

Yes, the 98 team was better than than the 2000 team.
But, the Purple People Eaters were better than the 98 team.
Defense is supposed to win Championships, not in our case, but it got us to the big game 4 times.

Prophet
06-26-2007, 01:23 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


...But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.


True, but, they were also the highest scoring team in the NFL.
Ever.


Cool.
Do they get to hang a banner at the MetroDome for that?
Did the team get fancy rings?
Did each player get to carry around the "We're the Highest Scoring Team Ever!" trophy for a day and drink beer out of it?

=Z=


I bet they have drank beers a time or two celebrating the fact that they are still the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL.
That's no small feat.

Personally, I didn't like the '98 squad.
They were fun to watch, but the defense caused me great deals of personal pain.
I prefer the perceived path the team is heading down now.
Smash mouth football.
Now, if the home games were only played outside.

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 02:42 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


...But, in a list of "best", they are no greater than other Vikings teams which have lost in the NFC Championship.


True, but, they were also the highest scoring team in the NFL.
Ever.


Cool.
Do they get to hang a banner at the MetroDome for that?
Did the team get fancy rings?
Did each player get to carry around the "We're the Highest Scoring Team Ever!" trophy for a day and drink beer out of it?

=Z=


I bet they have drank beers a time or two celebrating the fact that they are still the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL.
That's no small feat.

Personally, I didn't like the '98 squad.
They were fun to watch, but the defense caused me great deals of personal pain.
I prefer the perceived path the team is heading down now.
Smash mouth football.
Now, if the home games were only played outside.


I like the path we are heading down now too.
I have always been a defense fan, probably because the Vikings D was dominant when I became a fan

Zeus
06-26-2007, 02:45 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I like the path we are heading down now too.
I have always been a defense fan, probably because the Vikings D was dominant when I became a fan


Hey - I'm as big of a homer as any of you, but, I don't get where you think the Vikings are going down the path to becoming a defensive powerhouse.....

Now - if you'd said "I like the path the Vikings are going down to becoming a smash-mouth running team!" I'd be right with you.
But one season of the Tampa 2 where they were next-to-last in the NFL in passing defense (but top-10 in the MUCH more important category of scoring defense) does not denote defensive juggernaut.

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 03:11 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I like the path we are heading down now too.
I have always been a defense fan, probably because the Vikings D was dominant when I became a fan


Hey - I'm as big of a homer as any of you, but, I don't get where you think the Vikings are going down the path to becoming a defensive powerhouse.....

Now - if you'd said "I like the path the Vikings are going down to becoming a smash-mouth running team!" I'd be right with you.
But one season of the Tampa 2 where they were next-to-last in the NFL in passing defense (but top-10 in the MUCH more important category of scoring defense) does not denote defensive juggernaut.

=Z=


Never said that they were a defensive juggernaut... yet. :)
I see the Vikings implementing a defensive scheme that is proven successful and inserting young talent whose strengths complement that scheme.
Griffin, Blue, Greenway (I hope) are examples of where we are going defensively.
Smoot, Napo, etc are good players in their own respects, but not suited for our scheme.

Billy Boy
06-26-2007, 03:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I like the path we are heading down now too.
I have always been a defense fan, probably because the Vikings D was dominant when I became a fan


Hey - I'm as big of a homer as any of you, but, I don't get where you think the Vikings are going down the path to becoming a defensive powerhouse.....

Now - if you'd said "I like the path the Vikings are going down to becoming a smash-mouth running team!" I'd be right with you.
But one season of the Tampa 2 where they were next-to-last in the NFL in passing defense (but top-10 in the MUCH more important category of scoring defense) does not denote defensive juggernaut.

=Z=


Never said that they were a defensive juggernaut... yet. :)
I see the Vikings implementing a defensive scheme that is proven successful and inserting young talent whose strengths complement that scheme.
Griffin, Blue, Greenway (I hope) are examples of where we are going defensively.
Smoot, Napo, etc are good players in their own respects, but not suited for our scheme.


Amen.
Lets hope the coaches can develop these guys to their fullest.

Zeus
06-26-2007, 03:53 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Never said that they were a defensive juggernaut... yet. :)
I see the Vikings implementing a defensive scheme that is proven successful and inserting young talent whose strengths complement that scheme.
Griffin, Blue, Greenway (I hope) are examples of where we are going defensively.
Smoot, Napo, etc are good players in their own respects, but not suited for our scheme.


No evidence that they believe Greg Blue to be anything.
He's buried on the depth chart behind Sharper, Smith, Doss & Tank.
Which is a shame, because I like him.

The D-Line is aging, even if KWill is an All-Pro.
The ends are poo, which, I suppose, is room for optimism, since they can't get any worse, right?
The LBs are scary, because they're putting a once-failed guy back at the MLB position.
And, after Antoine, our CBs are shaky, even if I believe in Cedric and Devonte (and maybe McCauley, once we see him play).

Now, if we were to speak about the bone-crushing running attack.....

=Z=

NodakPaul
06-26-2007, 03:58 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Never said that they were a defensive juggernaut... yet. :)
I see the Vikings implementing a defensive scheme that is proven successful and inserting young talent whose strengths complement that scheme.
Griffin, Blue, Greenway (I hope) are examples of where we are going defensively.
Smoot, Napo, etc are good players in their own respects, but not suited for our scheme.


No evidence that they believe Greg Blue to be anything.
He's buried on the depth chart behind Sharper, Smith, Doss & Tank.
Which is a shame, because I like him.

The D-Line is aging, even if KWill is an All-Pro.
The ends are poo, which, I suppose, is room for optimism, since they can't get any worse, right?
The LBs are scary, because they're putting a once-failed guy back at the MLB position.
And, after Antoine, our CBs are shaky, even if I believe in Cedric and Devonte (and maybe McCauley, once we see him play).

Now, if we were to speak about the bone-crushing running attack.....

=Z=


Ah pffbbbbt.
You sure are gloomy today.
You been talking stadium plans with Singer again? ;)

Zeus
06-26-2007, 04:02 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Never said that they were a defensive juggernaut... yet. :)
I see the Vikings implementing a defensive scheme that is proven successful and inserting young talent whose strengths complement that scheme.
Griffin, Blue, Greenway (I hope) are examples of where we are going defensively.
Smoot, Napo, etc are good players in their own respects, but not suited for our scheme.


No evidence that they believe Greg Blue to be anything.
He's buried on the depth chart behind Sharper, Smith, Doss & Tank.
Which is a shame, because I like him.

The D-Line is aging, even if KWill is an All-Pro.
The ends are poo, which, I suppose, is room for optimism, since they can't get any worse, right?
The LBs are scary, because they're putting a once-failed guy back at the MLB position.
And, after Antoine, our CBs are shaky, even if I believe in Cedric and Devonte (and maybe McCauley, once we see him play).

Now, if we were to speak about the bone-crushing running attack.....


Ah pffbbbbt.
You sure are gloomy today.
You been talking stadium plans with Singer again? ;)


One of the things I pride myself on as a football fan is that I am a realist.
I call things as they really are (from my perception, of course) rather from the best-case scenario or from wearing Purple-Tinted Glasses.
I hope that Ced Griffen is the real deal, as he appeared to be at times last year and not the second coming of Corey Fuller.

PPO Reality Assurance at work, bubi!

=Z=

Billy Boy
06-26-2007, 04:29 PM
"Zeus" wrote:



No evidence that they believe Greg Blue to be anything.
He's buried on the depth chart behind Sharper, Smith, Doss & Tank.
Which is a shame, because I like him.

The D-Line is aging, even if KWill is an All-Pro.
The ends are poo, which, I suppose, is room for optimism, since they can't get any worse, right?
The LBs are scary, because they're putting a once-failed guy back at the MLB position.
And, after Antoine, our CBs are shaky, even if I believe in Cedric and Devonte (and maybe McCauley, once we see him play).


=Z=


It definitely takes optimism while looking at any position on the team.


With Chilli being reserved about the depth chart it is all opinion.
I would not consider Blue "buried".
At SS Doss and Tank or coming off injuries, and Smith had the incident last year.
Blue is my guess, I believe Smith saw most time with the 1st team opposite Sharper though.
There is alot of options in the secondary especially as versatile Smith is.

RK.
06-26-2007, 05:26 PM
The problem with these kinds of stats is that the opposition that a team faces is not equal to that
another team faces in a different season.
I think to be called one of the best teams you have to repeat over a few seasons like the Montana 49ers or the Cowboys or the Lombardi Packers.
I think the Brady Pats are on the verge of being maybe the best team ever.
They have been to the Super bowl 3 times in the last six years and won every time.
If they make it this year it will be 4 out of seven years.
Win or lose that is a hell of a record.
To just have one great season means your team was a good team, but one of the best ever?
No.
You have to be in the the big dance at least 3 out of like 5 yrs.
We are not there yet but I think we will be someday.

BloodyHorns82
06-26-2007, 05:57 PM
"RK." wrote:


The problem with these kinds of stats is that the opposition that a team faces is not equal to that
another team faces in a different season.
I think to be called one of the best teams you have to repeat over a few seasons like the Montana 49ers or the Cowboys or the Lombardi Packers.
I think the Brady Pats are on the verge of being maybe the best team ever.
They have been to the Super bowl 3 times in the last six years and won every time.
If they make it this year it will be 4 out of seven years.
Win or lose that is a hell of a record.
To just have one great season means your team was a good team, but one of the best ever?
No.
You have to be in the the big dance at least 3 out of like 5 yrs.
We are not there yet but I think we will be someday.


I think that is a pretty fair outlook.
Recurring SBs is what seperates the best from the rest.

acman1
06-26-2007, 06:01 PM
kinda off topic, but does anyone know where i can get video from that game online?
youtube took down a lot of their old nfl highlights (looking for that game and the nate poole catch).

Billy Boy
06-26-2007, 06:50 PM
"acman1" wrote:


kinda off topic, but does anyone know where i can get video from that game online?
youtube took down a lot of their old nfl highlights (looking for that game and the nate poole catch).



Things get off topic around here all the time.

Turn on to Hennepin Ave and you will see the Brass Rail after 4th St.
Go in there and ask around, they will hook you up with a buncha videos.