1976: PATRIOTS vs Vikings in Super Bowl XI?

[74_75_78_79_]

Let's just say that NE turns that infamous (depending on point-of-view) real close controversial divisional defeat into an actual WIN, successfully take advantage of Harris/Bleier not being in the backfield at Three Rivers the following week, and its THEY - instead of the Raiders - who square off against Bud Grant's Minnesota Vikings at the Rose Bowl for all the marbles, 1/9/77?

This particular Super Bowl opponent for MInnesota would be different than their IRL opponent in Oakland as well as Miami, Pittsburgh, and KC. The Steelers were Minny's only such opponent who was playing in their first SB going in, but at least they had a couple years of playoff-experience previously.

In New England's case - it would be this very core of players/coaches' first playoff year period (second in franchise history, '63 being the other). I'm going to guess that Minny would be installed as the favorites because of that. Yes, beating the Raiders at Alameda coupled with that 48-17 rout they put on them at the Schaef earlier that season in Wk#4 would have been seen as an impressive feat! But it would have been looked at as, though again still impressive, being against a team still ISO winning the Big One. Beating the back-to-back World Champion Steelers "because they didn't have Franco & Rocky" may have taken some luster off their achievement, especially if the Pats would have won a close game.

"Vikings more-experienced. They've been knocking on the door long enough; they're DUE. NE's 'house money' now runs out, the clock strikes Midnight, "lucky" they avoided that Steelers backfield. Yes, they beat Pittsburgh early on, but that was when they were in a slump, then the Steelers woke back up, etc," sure-enough would have been the general banter among the masses outside New England.

The last great Viking team under Bud Grant, that 11-2-1 squad was. The '76 Pats not too great statistically. They were just #8 on offense and just #11 on D. It's nothing too special for an 11-3 team. But #2 in points scored they were, and with that frighteningly superior RUN-game (Grogan a runner as well) that averaged the same as the Esteemed 1973 Miami Dolphins at...5.0!

The good news would have been that those wiser, yet now older, Purple People Eaters wouldn't have had to face Shell & Upshaw. The BAD news...they 'only' have to face Gray & Hannah now (still an "ouch")!

I'm going to guess that the Vikings would have been installed as a 4-pt favorite. Me? I'm betting the PATS even without the points. But, yeah, why not take them anyway? Sure-enough the game is closer than the actual result. Much would be because of the Pats simply grinding the clock, taking longer to score thus not scoring 32 pts as Oakland did. Their time-of-possession would have been similar to the Giants against the Bills. MInny likely gets a nice special-teams play that leads to a TD, and sure-enough Tark, Foreman, & Co at least score just enough to make it not a lopsided affair. Pats maybe win by as much as 10, two TDs at the most. But most-likely, IMO, a single-digit margin the final score would be.

Sure many of you here would pick NE as well, but quite a few of you picking MInny. I simply think (and maybe I'm wrong) that the Super Bowl being Bud Grant's 'Kryptonite' overrides the 'new-ness' of the Pats being a sudden, surprising playoff team in '76. They would have handled SB-pressure just as well as that very NE squad did (and against an already-Champ from two years back, mind you) a quarter-of-a-century later! Speaking of...after that astounding 3-1 start in '76 that NE had, beating the Dolphins who no one yet knew would struggle that season (Miami was 10-4 the year prior), beating Pittsburgh on the road and then...48-17, their next game was at Detroit in Wk#5 in which the Lions brought them back down-to-earth if only for a minute. And just who WAS one of the ASSISTANTS of that very Lions team? Yes, he - in addition to praising Bert Jones as the best QB he's ever seen - has such a high opinion of that 1976 New England Patriots team!

So who, IYOs, gets carried off the field instead of Madden under the Pasadena sun in that very last Super Bowl that ended during the day? Bud Grant? Or Chuck Fairbanks?

How do the Pats handle such success had they won in the immediate years to follow? How about the Raiders? That likely would have been their last shot with Madden/Stabler, sadly, and the two - even more sadly (don't want to think of it) - don't make it to Canton. If the Vikings win, at least the 'monkey' would have been off their back. But exactly how much so? Not quite like Steve Young! He, at least, beat Big D en route! Would such talk like, "Pats knocked Raiders out for them; and when if Franco & Rocky play?" have, maybe (maybe not) have..."tainted" such a Title in public opinion outside the Land of 10,000 Lakes?

Thoughts?

[Jay Z]

The 1976 Patriots were more one dimensional than I'd like. Grogan would have been a below average QB for a SB winner, too many INTs for how much he was asked to throw and to who. He helped the running game. So if he has to throw at all the Vikings might get a pick or two.

Based on every other SB the Vikings played in, I'm assuming the Patriots are going to be able to run the ball on the defense. The Rams did in the NFC Championship. In the real SB against the Raiders the Vikings did have a strategy of getting the ball to Foreman and Sammy White. They tried, their offense here wasn't any better than any of the other SBs. In theory, they should have been able to move the ball some against the Patriots, I don't know that I trust the Vikings to actually do that, especially when they were outgained by the Rams. I think the Vikings best chance was to hope for a blocked kick return for a TD which is something that might have happened. But I'd probably pick the Patriots.

[Brian wolf]

Like Jay Z said ... the Patriots would have been running, and like the Snake, Grogan wouldnt have thrown much. I think the Pats with Francis, Gray and Hannah clearing the way, would have had over 200 yrds rushing themselves. The Vikes would have needed redzone turnovers to keep it closer. Haynes on White or Rashad, would have been fun to watch.

[Jay Z]

Like Jay Z said ... the Patriots would have been running, and like the Snake, Grogan wouldnt have thrown much. I think the Pats with Francis, Gray and Hannah clearing the way, would have had over 200 yrds rushing themselves. The Vikes would have needed redzone turnovers to keep it closer. Haynes on White or Rashad, would have been fun to watch.

The Vikings tried to take advantage of Sammy White on Skip Thomas and they really didn't. White got a TD but Thomas was out of the game at the time because he banged a knee. That was against Neal Colzie who wasn't great at corner.

Bob Howard was in the league for 13 years, so he must have been pretty solid, even if he never made the Pro Bowl. So I don't know if going after Howard would have worked any better than it did with Skip Thomas.

[7DnBrnc53]

As far as who would have been favored, it's a tough one to call.

On one hand, the Vikes have the experience. However, on the other, the Pats beat the Raiders and Steelers (without Franco and Rocky, but they still had the great defense) on the road (while the Vikes got lucky against the Rams). So, I would have to install NE as 5-point favorites.

As for the game, the start is important. Remember, the Vikes blocked a punt early on against the Raiders only to be deflated after the McClanahan fumble that thwarted a critical early scoring opportunity. They would had to get off to a better start in this game than they did in their three SB defeats up to that point.

For the Pats, how healthy would Mike Haynes be? He was hurt against the Raiders. If he isn't out there, Vikings can possibly take advantage with White and Rashad.

At the end of the day, if Haynes is healthy, I like the Patriots in a 24-14 game.

[CSKreager]

New England was an inexperienced one trick pony

Vikings in a blowout