Page 2 of 3
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2026 12:27 am
by Brian wolf
If someone had told me back in 1996 that the Cowboys would not make the SB again, I wouldnt have believed it. Especially with coaches like Parcells, Wade Phillips and Mike McCarthy coaching the team. Garrett could coach offense but seemed more of a Jerry's Kid. Maybe as a former fan I am being sour but I think had they never signed Terrell Owens, they would have at least won another NFC championship.
Getting back to the Vikings, who like the Lions, never seemed right in a domed stadium, its ironic that when Roger Staubach won both his championships with Dallas, he beat Viking's teams in championship games not quarterbacked by Kapp, Tarkenton or Kramer, but ... Bob Lee.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2026 7:12 am
by Citizen
The Vikings' failure to win a Super Bowl almost defies human understanding.
They've made the post-season 32 times since 1968. In that time span, only two teams (Dallas and Pittsburgh) have made the playoffs more times, and they’ve got 11 Lombardis between them. The two teams just below Minnesota (San Francisco and New England) also have won 11 Super Bowls between them.
What sets Minnesota apart is they're not chronic also-rans the way Cleveland and Detroit have been since the '60s; the Vikings have been a consistent contender for nearly six decades. You'd think that a la their downtown neighbors the Twins, they would've caught fire at the right time once or twice and gone home with the winnings.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2026 4:34 am
by SeahawkFever
Citizen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 7:12 am
The Vikings' failure to win a Super Bowl almost defies human understanding.
They've made the post-season 32 times since 1968. In that time span, only two teams (Dallas and Pittsburgh) have made the playoffs more times, and they’ve got 11 Lombardis between them. The two teams just below Minnesota (San Francisco and New England) also have won 11 Super Bowls between them.
What sets Minnesota apart is they're not chronic also-rans the way Cleveland and Detroit have been since the '60s; the Vikings have been a consistent contender for nearly six decades. You'd think that a la their downtown neighbors the Twins, they would've caught fire at the right time once or twice and gone home with the winnings.
Minnesota did make the playoffs 32 times, and from the looks of it they constantly retooled what they had and tried again.
But in hindsight there probably were a couple points where the Vikings would have been well served to tank for a couple years (possibly early 80’s, or mid 2000’s), maybe land an elite quarterback, and build around said quarterback better than they did in reality.
After the prime of Tommy Kramer in the late 80’s, the Vikings have been rather unstable at the quarterback position thereafter, and probably more unstable than the other teams in the top five. Shoutout where it’s due though to Daunte Culpepper and Kirk Cousins who both provided some stability for about half a decade apiece.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2026 10:01 pm
by Brian wolf
Getting back to the 80s Vikings, the team actually did tank with Les Steckel in 1984. Ironically, the Vikings could have drafted Randall Cunningham in 1985 but their first two draft picks were Chris Doleman, who made the HOF and Issiac Holt. Imagine had they taken Cunningham at the top of the second round? They also drafted Steve Bono in the 6th round but he took awhile to develop.
After another disapponting year in 1990 as Wade Wilson struggled with injuries, with Rich Gannon struggling to develop and the Walker trade taking away 1st round draft picks, the team had their chance to take Brett Favre in the 1991 draft, but the Falcons took him ahead of the Jets and Ron Wolf, who thought he had him in the second round.
Imagine Favre going to Minn and throwing to the Carters while handing off to Walker? The Vikings did get Brad Johnson in the 9th round of the 1992 draft who was a steal but like Bono in the 80s, he took awhile to develop. Warren Moon was their big free agent QB prize in 1994, but despite a still great arm, he was past his prime after taking a beating with the Oilers. Still, he had one of the fastest releases I have ever seen from any thrower and made Cris Carter an even better player. Dennis Green could coach an offense but didnt have a dynamic speedster till getting Moss.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2026 12:28 am
by JohnH19
The consistently competitive and often excellent Vikings clearly own the most unexplainable drought.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2026 9:00 am
by JuggernautJ
My good friend (and sandlot QB) is a lifelong Vikings fan.
His Motto is: If you're looking for a team to constantly disappoint you the Vikings will not disappoint.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2026 2:05 pm
by SeahawkFever
JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 9:00 am
My good friend (and sandlot QB) is a lifelong Vikings fan.
His Motto is: If you're looking for a team to constantly disappoint you the Vikings will not disappoint.
From a guy who grew up watching the Seattle Mariners more closely than any other team, I’d take the Vikings over that in a heartbeat.
At least they make the playoffs fairly often.
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2026 6:34 pm
by JuggernautJ
SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 2:05 pm
JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 9:00 am
My good friend (and sandlot QB) is a lifelong Vikings fan.
His Motto is: If you're looking for a team to constantly disappoint you the Vikings will not disappoint.
From a guy who grew up watching the Seattle Mariners more closely than any other team, I’d take the Vikings over that in a heartbeat.
At least they make the playoffs fairly often.
I think Les would say that only adds to the disappointment.
To be so close, so often...
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2026 12:40 am
by JohnH19
JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 6:34 pm
SeahawkFever wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 2:05 pm
JuggernautJ wrote: ↑Sun Aug 16, 2026 9:00 am
My good friend (and sandlot QB) is a lifelong Vikings fan.
His Motto is: If you're looking for a team to constantly disappoint you the Vikings will not disappoint.
From a guy who grew up watching the Seattle Mariners more closely than any other team, I’d take the Vikings over that in a heartbeat.
At least they make the playoffs fairly often.
I think Les would say that only adds to the disappointment.
To be so close, so often...
Exactly!
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2026 4:20 am
by Brian wolf
To never win a world championship or go to another SB since 1977 is tough for Vikings fans, but maybe karma just bit the franchise on the bottom? Jim Finks may be in the HOF but his saga with two Vikings legends was incredible to say the least.
First, he gets rid of Fran Tarkenton after Norm Van Brocklin leaves the team. Maybe he felt both needed a change of scenery which is understandable, so he brings in Joe Kapp. Kapp had a tough debut season with the Vikings but leads the team to the playoffs in his second season. So what does Finks and Vikings' management do? Well ... nothing. They let Kapp play out his option for 1969, where he has a great season, leading his team to an NFL championship and berth in the SB. Without a contract! Instead of renegotiating with him, they let him walk in 1970.
The team basically feels they can win with any QB, so they bring in Cuozzo, then Snead, before finally bringing back Tarkenton, who they should probably had never gotten rid of. With the draft pick from NE for Kapp, they probably could have put a package together to get Manning, Plunkett, Pastorini, Theismann, Anderson or even Lynn Dickey in 1971 but decided not to go with any of these young passers.