1973 NFC Championship Game
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:59 pm
1973 NFC Championship game
#1 26554
Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:06 AM
I recently watched the highlight film for the 1973 Vikings. Would others here agree that this was the most impressive post season win for them from the Bud Grant era? Calvin Hill and Bob Lilly were both out with injuries and Roger Staubach didn't have a very good game (4 ints), but the biggest story was the success the Vikings had on the ground (203 yards) against the Dallas defense. They used a lot of misdirection and, in the process, were able to confuse/neutralize Lee Roy Jordan.
Jordan and co. did better during the second half of the game, but Staubach and the offense repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. The most fatal mistake came in the 4th quarter with the score 17-10, Vikings. A Chuck Foreman fumble was recovered by Dallas on the Minnesota 47 yard line. However, Staubach was then intercepted by Bobby Bryant, who returned the pick 63 yards for what would be the decisive score of the game.
So, even with some second half sloppiness by their offense, the fact the Vikings were forced (due to the HFA rules of the time) to go into Texas Stadium and came away with a 17-point win is pretty impressive to me. It's also a big reason why I think this was the most impressive of the Tarkenton/Foreman-era Viking teams, even if the '75 team had a little more explosive offense. Also makes the Dolphins demolition of them two weeks later in SB VIII look even more impressive.
Another note -
I think I've posted this before in other Vikings-related threads, but it can't be stated enough how much trading for John Gilliam and drafting Chuck Foreman helped them. Getting Tarkenton back was big, but no way do they get back to all those SBs without Foreman and Gilliam. Anyone know what went wrong for Gilliam after he went to the Falcons in '76? He didn't do much there, then spent the '77 season with the Saints and Bears and that was it for him in the NFL. Injuries?
#2 BD Sullivan
Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:51 AM
I think it was a combination of age starting to catch up to him (he was starting his 10th season in '76) and the large dropoff in the quality of the offenses of his teams. In Atlanta, three different QB's started games in '76 (Steve Bartkowski, Scott Hunter and Kim McQuilken) and all were pretty bad; in half the games, the passing offense didn't even break 100 yards; and the Falcons had a coaching change after just five games, which no doubt added to the havoc.
Leeman Bennett came in and released him late in the '77 training camp. The Bears picked him up, but they also had a limited passing offense due to the presence of Walter Payton, and ended up cutting him after a few weeks. Gilliam then came full circle, returning to the team with whom he started his career, on a kickoff return TD, the Saints. Archie Manning had a bad season, enough so that Bobby Scott and Bobby Douglass also started games for New Orleans. Gilliam only had 11 catches and after Hank Stram was let go after the season, Dick Nolan presumably decided to rebuild.
#3 Rupert Patrick
Posted 05 March 2011 - 12:46 PM
I also agree this was the most impressive post-season win for the Vikings of the Grant era. They were a four point underdog, playing in Dallas, and beat the Cowboys pretty solidly. Staubach had his worst postseason performance.
#4 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 08:54 AM
While this was an impressive victory, I would categorize it as second best, with first place going to their 27-7 defeat of Cleveland in the 1969 NFL Championship, a game that they dominated from beginning to end.
Also, just as a question, were the Vikings really 4 point underdogs to Dallas in '73? I find that a little hard to believe given that they tied for the best record in the NFL that year, and the Cowboys in 1973-74 were a team in transition. With all the box scores and stats that are now available, the oddsmakers' predictions for each game would be a great feature.
#5 Citizen
I can't vouch for its accuracy, but this website has NFL point spreads going back to the '30s. It's on the left-hand side of the page about a quarter of the way down. It has Dallas being favored by only a point in this game.
#6 Rupert Patrick
About 20 years ago I started compiling a database of postseason pointspreads which I got from newspapers the day of the game; I have about 90 percent of them from 1933 to present, but the few playoff games I don't have are mostly before 1950. One misconception most people have about pointspreads is that they are not a prediction of the oddsmakers as to the final score; the object of the oddsmaker is to create a margin that will encourage an equal number of people on both sides to bet on the game. This is why a pointspread often changes, because people are betting too heavily on one side. When you get an equal amount of money on both sides, the house always wins, as the losers have to pay the ten percent fee, also known as a vig.
#7 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:59 AM
Thanks for the link. It's an interesting site that I'll have to check out some more.
Rupert, your database also sounds interesting. I look forward to checking it out some day. I have often found that there is much to be learned in comparing the pre-game predictions to the actual results, particularly in looking back and analyzing comparative strengths and weaknesses of different teams. I definitely want to check this out some more.
#8 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:05 AM
I would add also that I'm still surprised to see that Dallas was in fact favored over Minnesota. I remember at the time having little doubt of the outcome since most of Dallas's key players were starting to show the wear and tear of being over the hill, and Minnesota, largely because of the ascendancy of Chuck Foreman and John Gilliam as well as the continued strength of its defense, was largely viewed as the team to beat in the NFC. But that's the kind of thing that makes researching these types of predictions so interesting, the question is not so much whether they prognosticators were right or wrong, but rather what was the basis for their predictions?
#9 Rupert Patrick
The link was very helpful; it helped me to fill in a number of gaps. The playoff games I need point spreads for now are the 1933-41 NFL playoff games, 1943 Eastern Division playoff game, and the 1948 AAFC Eastern Division playoff game. I am also trying to find over/unders for playoff games; I have them all for 1991 forward, and the Super Bowl games before that.
One interesting bit of trivia I have gotten from compiling the point spreads of over 460 playoff games is that the favorite won 54.9 percent of the time. Against the spread the favorite won 250, the underdog 204 and there were 13 pushes or ties. Against the over/under, the over was correct 127 times (52.4 percent), the under was correct 115 times and there have been four pushes.
If you want a copy of my excel spreadsheet, PM me with your email address and I will send it. I am not a bettor, but I find historical point spreads interesting as the oddsmakers back then knew a lot more about the relative strengths of the teams than I could possibly know today from looking at a line of statistics.
#10 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 12:25 PM
The link below provides the spread, over/under, the box score and PBP of each Super Bowl--except SB I. It might be tedious, but to get each Super Bowl, you only have to change the number in the address--(recap-super-bowl-2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc...)
http://www.sportsbet...uper-bowl-2.asp
#11 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 12:58 PM
Rupert Patrick, on 06 March 2011 - 10:48 AM, said: The playoff games I need point spreads for now are the 1933-41 NFL playoff games, 1943 Eastern Division playoff game, and the 1948 AAFC Eastern Division playoff game.
*According to a 12/12/48 UPI story published the day of the game: "The Buffalo Bills were established a one-touchdown favorite last night to defeat the Baltimore Colts today..."
Others:
*A 12/18/43 AP article made this observation, which likely only refers to odds and not pointspread: "And the betting boys think so well of the Giants' chances against the injury-riddled Redskins that they've installed the local bruisers favorites at 5 to 7..." Another article noted that the odds were three to one in favor of New York.
*The 1941 Bears-Packers playoff had this notation: "Late readings in the haunts of the speculative are inclined to make the Bears the favorites..." Another note prior to the Bears-Giants game states: "The supreme confidence of Bears' backers resulted in betting odds of 1-4 favoring the Chicagoans. A week ago, the Bears were listed at 9-20 over the Packers..."
*One headline prior to the 1940 Bears-Redskins championship described the Bears as slight favorites. I'm guessing that means it was less than 73.
#12 26554
Posted 06 March 2011 - 01:52 PM
I'm guessing that there were two primary reasons why the Cowboys were favored in the '73 NFCCG -
1) The game was at Texas Stadium
2) The Cowboys were coming off a pretty impressive win over the Rams (who, like the Dolphins and Vikings, had also finished the '73 regular season 12-2) in the divisional round.
The oddsmakers may have underestimated the effect that losing Calvin Hill would have on the Cowboys attack. Also, that incarnation of the Vikings, with Tarkenton, Foreman and Gilliam, was something of a post season unknown at the time. The game against the Redskins the previous week had been their first together. Hard to believe that it took until his 13th season in the NFL just for Tarkenton to appear in a playoff game and he then ended up playing in three of the next four Super Bowls.
#13 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 04:24 PM
A couple of reasons might be:
*The week before, the Vikings struggled at home against the Redskins before winning 27-20. Washington was leading 13-10 early in the fourth quarter until Tarkenton and Gilliam connected on a pair of TD passes. Even then, the Redskins fought back by scoring with 5:28 left, soon after they blocked a Minnesota punt. After Minnesota kicked a field goal with 1:40 to go, Kilmer got the Skins down to the Viking 42 before they turned it over on downs. In the first quarter, Minnesota was completely dominated, being outgained on offense, 125-9, and if I recall correctly, Carl Eller lost it in the halftime locker room by knocking over a chalkboard in an attempt to inspire his teammates. All this, plus the Vikings previous playoff struggles (they had lost at home to Dallas two years earlier) no doubt made oddsmakers wary.
*In '73, the Cowboys had pounded most of their opponents at Texas Stadium, going 7-1 (including the Rams playoff win), with their only loss coming on Thanksgiving against the Super Bowl champion Dolphins. In their six regular season victories at home, they outscored opponents 226-68. In the Rams playoff, they jumped out to a 17-0 lead, watched LA chop it to a one-point margin before they added 10 more points and a 27-16 win.
#14 Jay Z
Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:27 PM
It's interesting that the 1973 NFC Championship game was the only playoff game the Vikings played on the road from 1969-76. They played 10 at home, going 7-3 (losing in 70, 71, and 75.) For the period 1968-78 the Vikings went 7-3 at home and 2-3 on the road, also winning in 1977 on the road.
The Cowboys played 17 of 30 playoff games at home from 1966-83. For a long time they actually had a better record on the road in the playoffs than at home. They eventually wound up 11-6 at home (losing in 1966, 69, 73, 76, 79, 83) and 7-6 on the road (winning in 70, 71, 72, 75 twice, 78, and 80.)
The Rams played 6 of 13 playoff games at home from 1973-80, going 3-3 at home (losing in 75, 77, 78) and 3-4 on the road (winning in 76 and 79 twice.)
The 1970-74 Dolphins went 4-0 at home and 2-2 on the road (winning in 71 and 72.)
The 1972-79 Steelers went 8-1 at home (losing in 72) and 2-3 on the road (winning in 74 and 76.)
The 1967-77 Raiders went 9-2 at home (losing in 69 and 74) and 1-6 on the road (winning in 77.)
Over the eight year stretch from 1969-76, when they went to four Super Bowls, the Vikings played 10 of 11 playoffs games at home. During the Steelers 8 year playoff run from 1972-79, they only played 9 of 14 at home. Even if one includes only the Super Bowl period from 1974-79, it is still only 7 of 11 at home.
The Cowboys from 1970-78 went to 5 Super Bowls. They played only 8 of 15 playoff games at home.
#15 evan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 12:33 PM
I’ve heard many Viking beat writers and historians say the 1973 NFC Championship might have been Minnesota’s finest game ever, considering the caliber of the opponent, the setting, and the quality of play, even with all the turnovers. I could definitely agree with that, but there’s two other playoff games from the Bud Grant era that I remember watching specifically that I would mention.
1976 NFC Playoffs – Minnesota 35, Washington 20. The Redskins were not a great team that year, but had won their last four and were hot after beating Dallas in Dallas to make the playoffs in a game the Cowboys needed to win to clinch homefield throughout the playoffs. So the Redskins were a worthy opponent, but the Vikings just obliterated them. Among the highlights I remember:
= Brent McClanahan running 41 yards down the sideline on the first play from scrimmage.
- Sammie White’s Swann-esque juggling catch past Ken Houston for a TD
- Tarkenton running on to the field to tell the defense to take an offensive pass interference penalty instead of taking an interception that would have given Tarkenton the ball on his own 1. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen a defense decline a play that resulted in an interception. But Tarkenton had confidence in this defense to defend Kilmer on third-and-long, and then get the ball after a Redskin punt. It worked.
- Tarkenton calling a frantic audible that resulted in a handoff to Foreman, who popped through a big hole on his way to a long TD run.
- Foreman spinning and bursting through on one of the great short TD runs in NFL history.
- The Vikings rolling up a 35-6 lead before more or less calling off the dogs.
1977 NFC Playoffs – Minnesota 14, Los Angeles 7. The mud stifled most of the action, but lent quite a bit of drama. The memorable part for me here was how much I absolutely dreaded this game as a Vikings fan. The Rams had absolutely wiped out the Vikings on MNF earlier in the year in LA, and that was when the Vikes had Tarkenton.
Now Fran was gone, and the Vikings looked old, small and slow compared to a young, big, athletic Rams team bent on revenge for all the earlier losses to Minnesota. In the pre-game, with both teams waiting outside the tunnel. Youngblood gave Foreman an easy kick in the rear. I wonder what Youngblood said to Foreman there, might have been something along the lines of what devastation was about to happen to him. They were going to draw and quarter the Tark-less Vikes in any way imaginable, it would be a disgraceful end to the Vikings era as NFC champs … and then the rains came.
The Vikings played a picture-perfect game in the slop, throwing the ball early when the field wasn’t total muck yet. It was one of the great play-calling games in the elements. The Vikings stopping the Rams on a 4th-and-1 early in the game was a major momentum switch. Then late there was the drama of Namath warming up on the sideline, with everyone wondering if he would come in to work a miracle. Of course he never got into the game.
#16 26554
Posted 14 March 2011 - 02:38 PM
Always love to read your thoughts, Evan. You certainly know your Vikings very well. Would also love to read JohnH19's thoughts, too, if you're out there.
I considered the "Mud Bowl", too. I'd probably have it at #2 from the Bud Grant-era. The biggest difference to me is that the '73 Cowboys had Staubach at qb and the '77 Rams had Pat Haden. On the weather for that game, it had rained heavily in the L.A. area for 2-3 days prior, so I don't think that was much of a surprise for either team. The Vikings playcalling was good, but I think the main determining factor in the final outcome (as it usually was for those Rams teams in the playoffs) was the qb play. Haden was 14-32 for 130 yards and he was intercepted 3 times. His only TD (a 1 yard pass to Harold Jackson) came late in the game. Bob Lee's (5-10-57 yards and 0 ints) main responsibilities were not to make a big mistake and let Chuck Foreman and Robert Miller carry the load and he did a very nice job with both.
That game may have been the height of "what do we have to do to catch a break?" frustration for those Rams teams, though the '75 NFC Championship game is also a strong contender. The Cowboys were clearly head and shoulders above the others in the NFC that year, so I strongly suspect that the Rams would've lost the following week at Texas Stadium just as the Vikings did but, still, the Rams were a better team than the Vikings that season. When the Rams first found out they were going to being seeing their tormentors (one of them, anyway) again in the playoffs, they had to be thinking "we've got em' where we want em' now." The game was going to be in L.A. instead of usually frigid Bloomington, Tarkenton was out (and as you noted, Evan, the Rams had destroyed the Vikes with Tarkenton 35-3 earlier in the season on Monday Night Football) and the Rams seemed to have a clear advantage in team speed over the aging Vikings. I believe the Rams were installed early on as 10 point favorites, but then.....well, who says it never rains in southern California?
Going back to the '73 Vikings, I have to say I really enjoyed watching the footage of Gilliam. I know that he was an important cog for them for a couple years after, but he was really outstanding during his first two seasons with the team. Evan, what are your strongest recollections of that '73 NFCCG and the season as a whole and would you agree that that Vikings team was the best from the Tarkenton-era, or at least the best of the three that went to the Super Bowl?
#17 evan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 04:10 PM
Uggh, I think I need to take a Di-Gel (actually, is Di-Gel still even around?) just thinking about that 35-3 demolition by the Rams in 1977. What an awful night.
I was actually too young to have watched the 73 Vikes (I became football-aware at the end of the 1974 season), but over the years have watched every piece of film available. Basically from what I can tell, the 73 Vikings picked up defensively where the earlier 70s teams left off, with Page back to form after recovering from his 1972 injuries. On offense they used Foreman as much as Grant could stand (considering Bud hated to play rookies), while still giving Reed, Marinaro and Osborn reps too. In the NFC Championship, I’ve read a lot about how Tarkenton focused on trying to send Lee Roy Jordan the wrong way on lots of variations of sucker plays. That strategy opened up the Viking offense when it needed it. Tark executed a somewhat similar strategy by running a shift formation in an upset win in Dallas on Thursday Night Football in 1978.
As usual in the 1970s the Vikings didn’t have a tough schedule in 1973 because their division was so lukewarm, but they did beat the Raiders, Rams and Browns, who all had winning records. They beat everyone they needed to beat until the Super Bowl, so you have to give them credit. Of the Tarkenton Super Bowl teams, the 73 team could be considered the best, but for me I’m a little underwhelmed by their lack of a second receiver (a very over-the-hill Carroll Dale was the second WR), and Foreman not having the “do-everything” role he had later in his career.
For me, the best Tarkenton Super Bowl Viking team was the 1976 unit, despite advancing age and high mileage. The MNF win over Pittsburgh (thought to be playing for its season in that game) was possibly the best Viking regular-season win of the 1970s. Foreman and Sammie White were dynamic, exciting performers, Tarkenton still had enough ability to be an All-Pro quarterback, Page was dominant with somewhere close to 17 sacks, Siemon was at the top of what would be an all-too-short prime, and Nate Allen became one of the Vikings’ all-time role players. Allen, Blair and Page led the kick-blocking assault that was completely surreal. They just had so many ways they could win, and although they gave up a lot of rushing yardage, somehow they also had an incredible run of goalline stands all year – except in that game in Pasadena.
I agree Gilliam was a really talented player, hugely productive for the Vikings in that era. The frozen rope that Tarkenton threw to Gilliam for a 30-yard gain in Super Bowl VIII was the best Tarkenton throw in any of the Super Bowls in my opinion. And the TD bomb from Tarkenton to Gilliam in the 1972 regular season loss to Miami was a great Vike highlight against the Dolphins team destined to go unbeaten. Gilliam also got a 42-yard pass interference penalty go his way in Super Bowl IX, although it didn’t count in his personal stats. Two big could-have-beens that weren’t really Gilliam’s fault: If not for a clipping penalty Gilliam’s 65-yard kickoff return in Super Bowl VIII could have given the Vikings some spirit to start the second half, and if Gilliam holds on to the pass at the Steeler 5 despite Glen Edwards’ hit, the Vikings may have gone on to score and take control of Super Bowl IX.
I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
#18 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 04:11 PM
Bud Grant said after the 1977 Rams playoff game that the strategy was, "to throw early because a bad field gets worse as you play on it." Bob Lee had five completions for the game--all five came on the first quarter touchdown drive that ended with a Chuck Foreman five-yard run.
#19 97Den98
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:18 PM
I agree with the clipping call in Supe 8. If they didn't fumble the ball at the end of the first half, and if Gilliam's return stands, that could have been a different game. Also, in the second quarter, there was a pass from Fran to Kingsriter that should have been called a catch for a first down. It was called out incorrectly.
As for Supe 9, even if the Vikes go up 7-2 or 3-2 at half, I don't think they would have ever gotten control. However, that, and not fumbling the second half kickoff would have made winning easier, obviously.
#20 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:26 PM
Since SB IX was originally scheduled for the Superdome (which wasn't ready), I wonder if perfect weather conditions would have helped, as opposed to the chilly and windy conditions the teams played under.
#21 26554
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:37 PM
Foreman also missed a couple of games in '73 due to injury, otherwise he likely would've reached the 1,000 yard mark. Why do you think he declined as quickly as he did following the 1977 season? Overuse? '78 was an ok season for him, though certainly not at the level of the previous five. However, he was a shell of his former self by '79 and, after a forgettable season with the Patriots, out of the league after 1980.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: As usual in the 1970s the Vikings didn’t have a tough schedule in 1973 because their division was so lukewarm, but they did beat the Raiders, Rams and Browns, who all had winning records. They beat everyone they needed to beat until the Super Bowl, so you have to give them credit. Of the Tarkenton Super Bowl teams, the 73 team could be considered the best, but for me I’m a little underwhelmed by their lack of a second receiver (a very over-the-hill Carroll Dale was the second WR), and Foreman not having the “do-everything” role he had later in his career.
Good points, though, as mentioned above, Foreman was banged up at times during the '73 season, so that may have been part of the reason that Grant didn't use him more. I would add that their two regular season losses were both on the road against teams that finished 10-4 (Bengals) and 9-5 (Falcons, best season in the franchise's history to that point), respectively.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: For me, the best Tarkenton Super Bowl Viking team was the 1976 unit, despite advancing age and high mileage. The MNF win over Pittsburgh (thought to be playing for its season in that game) was possibly the best Viking regular-season win of the 1970s. Foreman and Sammie White were dynamic, exciting performers, Tarkenton still had enough ability to be an All-Pro quarterback, Page was dominant with somewhere close to 17 sacks, Siemon was at the top of what would be an all-too-short prime, and Nate Allen became one of the Vikings’ all-time role players. Allen, Blair and Page led the kick-blocking assault that was completely surreal. They just had so many ways they could win, and although they gave up a lot of rushing yardage, somehow they also had an incredible run of goalline stands all year – except in that game in Pasadena.
Interesting. I know there isn't a huge amount of separation between those 1973-76 teams, but I see the '76 team as being a little 'smoke and mirrors', though I can understand how they could also be seen as 'finding a way to win'. They were still very good overall on both sides of the ball and there were some outstanding individual performances (Foreman, Page, Sammy White), but the run D was a pretty glaring weakness. I think their schedule was softer in '76 than it was in '73, too. Neither of their losses were bad (both on the road against the 7-7 Bears and 8-6 49ers), but they only had three regular season games against teams that finished over .500 and two of them were in Bloomington.
-In the 10-10 tie game against the Rams in week 2 (which Chuck Knox said afterward was the best game he'd ever seen), the Rams rolled up a whopping 261 yards on the ground, with McCutheon and Cappelletti both going over the 100 yard mark. However, unsurprisingly, the Rams qb (in this case Pat Haden) didn't play well and Tom Dempsey had a chip shot game-winning FG attempt blocked late in regulation and the game ended in a tie after the Rams made a stand of their own with a goal line int late in overtime. I could be wrong, but I think that, assuming the rest of the '76 regular season had unfolded the way it did, the Rams would've had HFA in the '76 playoffs if they had won that game. With their luck, there probably would've been a freak blizzard in L.A. or something, so maybe it's just as well.
-The Steelers finished with 173 on the ground in that Monday night game, but Bradshaw threw 4 interceptions and the Steelers also lost 2 fumbles.
-Walter Payton and the Bears had considerable success on the ground in both of their game against the Vikings that year. The Vikings were able to escape the first meeting with a victory (thanks largely to one blocked extra point and one that Bob Thomas sailed wide right), but lost the rematch at Soldier Field by the same one point margin. The Vikings caught a similar break in a 10-9 win over the Lions in week 3 when the Lions mishandled the snap on the game-tying extra point attempt.
-The Rams again gouged the Vikings on the ground in the NFC Championship game (193 yards) but Foreman, Nate Allen and Bobby Bryant (some would add a bad call by the refs on what appeared to be a TD by Ron Jessie prior to the blocked FG return) saved the day. Tarkenton didn't have the greatest of games but, per usual, the Rams qb was worse.
Finally, in SB XI, they ran into a team whose success on the ground wasn't negated by poor qb play and they were unable to capitalize on an early special teams break.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
That would've been around the time that Page and Carl Eller were let go by the Vikings, so I guess Bud Grant/VIkings management wasn't in a very sentimental mood. They definitely made a mistake in thinking that Page was done, however.
#22 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 06:27 PM
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
Four, to be exact, with one of them being Gilliam. The other three were Charlie West, Ed Marinaro and TE Doug Kingsriter. After being turned down by Grant, West played two seasons with Denver; Marinaro signed with the Bears, but was released and was out of football and into acting; Kingsriter hadn't played since 1975--he was released by the Vikes in the last '76 cut, then was cut by the Bears the following year. What appears to be his final shot was in '78 when he got a tryout with the Steelers (along with Jim Mandich) after Bennie Cunningham ripped up his knee. Mandich beat him out and presumably got another Super Bowl ring for his efforts.
Marinaro might have lost his football skills, but he was obviously in pretty good shape according to one story from September 1980. Marinaro was playing racquetball with Chuck Barris (of "Gong Show" fame) when Barris ran head-on into him. Barris spent six days in the hospital (in a body cast covering his lower torso) with a sprained back and cracked ribs, while Marinaro was unhurt.
#23 evan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:24 AM
As for Foreman's decline, I would think that the overuse had to catch up to him. The guy played in 12 post-season games from 73-77, so that's almost a whole extra season, and obviously a lot of his games were in harsh conditions. He didn't have too many runs or catches where he avoided contact either. I would like to think his awful situation regarding his salary and the Vikings refusal to renegotiate didn't affect his play, but Foreman was an emotional guy and I'm sure it didn't help. Also in 1979 Foreman dropped something like 20 pounds before the season in order to try to last longer, but didn't have the same burst anymore. That and the Vikings thought rookie Ted Brown could give them some breakaway speed so they got him into the mix after a few games, although Brown was never really that kind of back. The thing I never understood was why Foreman didn't turn into a third-down back like Preston Pearson or Calvin Hill who could catch a 10-yard pass on 3rd-and-8, since he had terrific hands, knew how to get open, and thus could have prolonged his career. But it didn't happen.
I've read some Viking players defend their run defense in the mid-70s as noting that teams just got a lot of yardage because they ran the ball 40 times a game. I don't know if that's because teams ran more on the Vikings because they felt confident about it, or if they ran because they couldn't pass on them. In ‘76 the Vikings were No. 1 in the NFL in fewest passing yards allowed and fewest TD passes allowed. For teams like the Bears, they obviously ran more than they passed on the Vikings because Payton was amazing, and their passing was atrocious against everyone. But even with all the rushing yards the 76 Vikings gave up, it rarely translated into points for the opposition.
That's mostly because the goal-line stands that year were amazing. Some came in nationally televised games against the Rams in week 2, the Steelers (it wasn't a true goal-line stand, but Bradshaw brought the Steelers to the line on a fourth-down short-yardage play, then got spooked by the snorting Viking D and backed off without running the play), and the Dolphins in week 14. Also I seem to recall they had goalline stands against the Lions as well.
The 76 Vikings were also lit emotionally after the Hail Mary fiasco the previous year. They wanted to make everyone they played pay for that perceived injustice. That extra emotion got them probably a little farther than they would have gotten otherwise. If not for some awful wind-blown Neil Clabo punts against Chicago and a few odd plays against S.F., the 76 Vikings might have run the table. They had the week 2 game against the Rams won in OT but Tarkenton didn't want to risk a FG and threw a dopey pass into the end zone intercepted by Rick Kay. It was one of the most awful throws of Tark's career. But I don't want to sound too pie-in-the-sky here, the 76 Vikes wound up with the record they probably should have had.
Thanks for your comments, I enjoy reading your observations on this memorable and compelling era in history. You might get a kick out of recent interviews with Foreman, Krause, Marshall, Page, Grant, Blair, Tingelhoff and others as part of the 50th anniversary celebration at http://www.kare11.co...storyid=893902. And thanks B.D. for once again shining the light of discovery on some of the most obscure chapters of football history.
#24 Citizen
Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:44 AM
26554, on 14 March 2011 - 04:37 PM, said: The Vikings were able to escape the first meeting with a victory (thanks largely to one blocked extra point and one that Bob Thomas sailed wide right), but lost the rematch at Soldier Field by the same one point margin. The Vikings caught a similar break in a 10-9 win over the Lions in week 3 when the Lions mishandled the snap on the game-tying extra point attempt.
The Vikings seemed to be the beneficiary of at least one or two scenarios like this each year under Grant; there was a reason that reporters who covered the team called him "Horseshoe Harry" under their breath.
Of course, it helped that Minnesota's special teams were unusually talented and disciplined, but it seems there were a bizarre number of occasions in the Grant era when the opponent goofed up a PAT (or something similar), and presto -- the Vikes happened to win by a point. The point is, you could say that with even more breaks the Vikings might have finished undefeated in 1976; but it's far more likely that if so many bounces hadn't gone their way that year, they would have been a 10-win club at best.
#25 BD Sullivan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:57 AM
Citizen, on 15 March 2011 - 11:44 AM, said: The point is, you could say that with even more breaks the Vikings might have finished undefeated in 1976; but it's far more likely that if so many bounces hadn't gone their way that year, they would have been a 10-win club at best.
Here was their 1976 regular season schedule:
*9/12: Blowout win (40-9) against New Orleans
*9/19: 10-10 tie against Los Angeles
*9/26: 10-9 win over Detroit; Lions miss PAT with two minutes left
*10/4: 17-6 win over Pittsburgh; Steelers have one PAT blocked and FG attempts of 32 and 23 blocked; bad snap by Mike Webster on punt puts ball at Steeler 7 and leads to TD; Nate Allen intercepts on 3rd-and-17 at the Steeler 34
*10/10: 20-19 win over Chicago; Bears' Bob Thomas had one PAT blocked and missed another.
*10/17: 24-7 win over the Giants, who dropped to 0-6
*10/24: 31-12 win over Philadelphia; 2-4 Eagles took 9-0 lead into second quarter before Vikes woke up. Chuck Foreman ran for 200 yards.
*10/31: 14-13 loss to Chicago; Viking punter Neil Clabo (kicking into 17 MPH wind) shanks two punts giving Bears the ball inside the Minnesota 40. Both lead to Chicago touchdowns.
*11/7: 31-23 win over Detroit; Sammy White (who had 200 yards receiving on the day) caught a 37-yard TD pass with 1:53 left to clinch it. It would have been clinched earlier in the quarter, but at the Lions three-yard-line, White decided to hot dog it by raising the ball in the air. Lem Barney knocked it out of the end zone for a touchback.
*11/14: 27-21 win over expansion Seattle; Seahawks led 21-20 with 11:37 left, but Vikings retook the lead with 4:52 left. Seattle connected on a 58-yard pass play to the Minnesota eight, then had fourth-and-goal at the one. Jim Zorn threw behind an open Jon McMakin in the end zone.
*11/21: 17-10 win over Green Bay; Vikes broke 10-10 deadlock early in the fourth quarter. Packers had Carlos Brown starting at QB in place of the injured Lynn Dickey.
*11/29: 20-16 loss to San Francisco; Vikes missed second quarter PAT and had two late chances to win it. Their rushing defense was terrible: Delvin Williams and Wilbur Jackson each ran for over 150 yards.
*12/5: 20-9 win over Green Bay; Game was tied 6-6 entering the fourth quarter (Vikes had blocked PAT of Packers); On the Vikings first touchdown in the final quarter, the Packers' Mike McCoy was flagged for a late hit on Tarkenton and Steve Luke was flagged for a face mask. In addition, Chuck Foreman fumbled, but the refs ruled he was down. On the subsequent Packer drive, Rich McGeorge dropped a pass in the end zone.
*12/11: 29-7 win over Miami; Late in the first quarter, a fumbled punt by Autry Beamon gave Dolphins the ball at the Minnesota 34. Miami got a first down to the Viking seven, then another at the two after pass interference by Nate Allen. However, the Vikings put up a goal-line stand and drove down the field for their first touchdown.
#26 JohnH19
Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:32 PM
Been away on vacation for the last week and this is my first chance to check in. Great thread, guys!!!
While I agree that all of the games mentioned are worthy of consideration, I still think the greatest playoff game the Grant era Vikings ever played and won was the '69 Western Conference Final against the Rams. A true classic. This is a game that deserves the NFL's Greatest Games treatment from the crew at Films. I get shivers just thinking about it. That win accompanied by the rout of Cleveland the next week just makes SB IV all the more painful and difficult to comprehend.
#27 Gabe
Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:55 PM
Agreed. I was about to post my memory (and I was a Rams fan first and then a Vikings fan so I have painful memories on both counts) of the '69 Vikings post-season. Both the playoff win against LA and the Championship win against Cleveland were amazing for different reasons. First the '69 playoff game with a sky-high Rams team up 17-7 at the half and showing no sign of letting up at the start of the second half. Kapp throws an interception and gets mad; then throws another interception leading to a Rams FG and gets even madder. The Rams meanwhile lose defensive captain Maxie Baughan to a knee injury and are unable to hold off the Vikings led by a determined Kapp (a little noted, but nevertheless significant factor is Ron Yary's handling of Deacon Jones in the game). I agree with John that I would love to see this game in the NFL Greatest Games collection (even if it is the LA Rams equivalent of the 1978 Yankees-Red Sox playoff - great game, wrong outcome).
My consolation in '69 was the following week watching Kapp pick and rip apart (literally) the Browns defense. First he turned a broken play and collision with Bill Brown into a touchdown where he dragged Walter Johnson over the goalline. And then there was Kapp's ferocious collision with Jim Houston, the only time I can recall a linebacker and quarterback running into each other with the QB jumping back to his feet and the LB lying unconscious - one of the most surreal sights I've seen in a game. Because of the outcome of Super Bowl IV and then the Vikings futility in the 1970 and 1971 post-seasons, it is easy to forget the ferocity with which they played in the '69 post-season and why many felt going into the Super Bowl that it would be no contest for the Vikings - as it actually was in the 1970 opener vs. the Chiefs.
In short, watching the Rams lose to Minnesota was partially offset by the fun of watching Kapp, Osborn, Eller, Page, and company do their thing, and I could at least live with the Rams losing to the best team in pro football. But Super Bowl IV took that consolation away.
I should add that in 1976, there was a similar consolation in the Rams losing to Minnesota in NFC Championship. At that time, it seemed that Vikings were a team of destiny and running on an emotional high that showed them as being much more confident going into Super Bowl XI as compared to previous years. That confidence and the sense of destiny seemed to reach fruition in the opening minutes when Minnesota blocked a Ray Guy punt (the first blocked punt of Guy's NFL career) and recovered near the Oakland goalline. At long last, it appeared, Minnesota was going to score early and first in the Super Bowl, and break the pattern of past Super Bowl experiences. But then McClanahan fumbled, Hall recovered and ....you could feel the air just leave the Vikings. If is the biggest word in the English language, and if I stop and dwell on it, I wonder if McClanahan holds on to the ball, and Vikings score a TD, maybe the Vikings sustain their momentum and the team that defeated Pittsburgh earlier in the season....like I said, the biggest word (if) in the English language.
#28 Teo
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:34 PM
I've always been intrigued by Gilliam. I don't remember seeing him play, as I was 6 years old in his last season, but clearly he was one of the most underrated WRs of the 70's, I'm amazed when I look at NFL Films clips. It's interesting that many fans remember better Ahmad Rashad and Sammy White, who both came to Minnesota the same year that Gilliam went to Atlanta. I was wondering why the Vikings traded/waived him, he was a Pro Bowler the year before, and that's while coming from the WFL.
#29 Gabe
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:39 PM
As I seem to recall, Gilliam asked to be traded to a team in a warmer climate and the Vikings accommodated by sending him to Atlanta. At that time, Gilliam was 31 or 32 years old and starting to look at the downside of his career.
#30 BD Sullivan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:46 PM
Because the free agency rules were in limbo due to litigation, Gilliam was able to sign with Atlanta without the Falcons owing any compensation. Gilliam's basis for his decision was that his family and business interests were in the Atlanta area, and, to a lesser extent, he wasn't crazy about playing in Minnesota--due to the weather, not because of fan problems.
The fact that Ahmad Rashad is still prominent in the media is the reason he's more remembered than Gilliam. Sammy White is still prominent for probably another reason: he's likely best remembered for holding onto a pass in Super Bowl IX after getting his helmet ripped off during a Jack Tatum hit--something that presumably gets replayed every year.
#31 Rupert Patrick
Posted 15 March 2011 - 07:46 PM
That Tatum hit on White and Willie Brown's interception for a TD are the two most memorable moments of the game, although you could include seeing John Madden being hoisted by his teammates at the end.
#32 26554
Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:00 PM
Foreman's a great example of a player who looked to be well on his way to Canton after his first five years and then basically just fell off a cliff. When I think of him, I usually can't help but think of Lydell Mitchell, too. Both were great all-purpose back during the same time period and both also fell off around the same time. Wonder how things would've turned out for Foreman if the Metrodome had opened four or five years earlier than it did?
evan, on 15 March 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:Thanks for your comments, I enjoy reading your observations on this memorable and compelling era in history. You might get a kick out of recent interviews with Foreman, Krause, Marshall, Page, Grant, Blair, Tingelhoff and others as part of the 50th anniversary celebration at http://www.kare11.co...storyid=893902. And thanks B.D. for once again shining the light of discovery on some of the most obscure chapters of football history.
Thanks very much, both for the compliment and the link. Speaking of links, I was just reading through Sports Illustrated's preview of SB XI, which was done by Dan Jenkins and Robert F. Jones. A couple observations/predictions that caught my attention -
Dan Jenkins: "I have to root for a guy who never had any receivers until this year, Francis Tarkenton, over a guy the TV people keep telling me is the best "pure passer" they have ever seen." Strange. I guess Dan didn't think much of John Gilliam.
Another one, also from Dan: "I don't think Nate Allen can block a Ray Guy punt unless he rents a helicopter." Well, he was right. It was Fred McNeill who got to Guy.
Here's the link - http://cnnsi.printth...2F1%2Findex.htm
[EDIT] And here's a link to SI's preview of SB VIII, done by Tex Maule. Maule, I'm guessing, was in the minority in the media in picking the Vikings to win (by four). It seems that a good portion of that prediction was based on Maule's belief that the Vikings would be able to do to Nick Buoniconti what they had done to Lee Roy Jordan in the NFCCG. The unpredictability of Tarkenton was also a factor.
http://cnnsi.printth...2F1%2Findex.htm
#33 evan
Posted 17 March 2011 - 08:33 AM
I have a couple of theories on the Minnesota kick blocking in the 1970s, as I agree it was weird how consistent they were. One thought goes along with why Duke's men's basketball team typically is near the top of the NCAA every year in lowest opponent's free throw percentage. How does a team play good defense on the free throw line? They can't, right? True, but some think that many Duke opponents feel so much pressure to make their free throws because it's always hard to get points on Duke, they know Duke will score plenty, and Duke doesn't foul (or at least get called for fouls) very often. So when Duke opponents have a chance for free points from the free throw line, they feel extra pressure to make the shot and choke. (And I'm a Maryland alum, so giving Duke any credit is hard for me, but I think this is interesting).
So that kind of psychology also may have been felt by the teams lining up to punt or kick against Minnesota in the 1970s. They knew the Vikings had a great rep for disrupting kicks, and so maybe that extra pressure led them to screw up the snap or the catch or the hold or the kick or the blocking assignments -- there's lots of things that can go wrong.
Add to that yes, the Vikings made this into a science and actually had different position names (like Scrummer or Grappler and such) for each man's assignment in kick-blocking. There was a great issue of Bob Lurtsema's Viking Report around 1979 that broke it all down as to each man's job. Some were there just to turn offensive linemen at an angle so Blair, Page, Eller, Mullaney, Holloway (the tall guys) could get an extra couple feet closer to jump. Others were there to occupy linemen on the edge to create gaps so the outside guys like Nate Allen could get a full run from the flank.
To me, the blocked kicks were one of the things that made it so much fun to be a Viking fan in the 1970s. Even during the 1977 NFC Championship at Dallas, which I knew they really didn't have much chance in, after Golden Richards scored that first TD I was ticked off, but I remember getting up out of my chair to the kitchen knowing it would only be 6-0, because there was just no way the Cowboys would make that extra point. I had that feeling a bunch of other times throughout the late 70s too. It was something that gave that team a unique feeling, I think many people associate some unique quality with the team they root for, and for me as a Viking fan this was it.
Biographical note: Thought I'd share that I became such a fan of the Vikings' punt-blocking as a kid, I used to practice it in my living room with a buddy and a balloon. I would take off from a corner of the living room and dive at him as soon as he started to punt a balloon. It was a lot of fun until I took a foot in the jaw, and I think I may have capsized a lamp at some point. But all that did was make us move outside and do the same thing with a Nerf football. It was tremendous fun, I would recommend it to anyone who wants to covet one of the purest joys of football, and especially if you have a good orthodontist on call.
#34 Gabe
Nice biographical note, Evan. I used to do punt-blocking too as a kid with my brother until one time he missed the ball completely and kicked me flush in the stomach. After that, I preferred to play Bobby Bryant to someone else's Nate Allen. That is, I would go after the loose ball after letting someone else blocked the punt.
#35 26554
Posted 17 March 2011 - 07:52 PM
Follow up question - In the SB XI preview, Robert Jones mentions Tarkenton bruising his ribs earlier in the season. In which game did that occur?
#36 evan
I think that was during the first Lions game in Detroit, I'm thinking Paul Naumoff had something to do with it, but I might be wrong. The injury forced Tark to miss the next game against Pittsburgh, although he did warm up on the sideline at one point in that game.
#37 BD Sullivan
Posted 18 March 2011 - 10:16 AM
Correct on all accounts. It happened in the first quarter of the 9/26 Lions game when Tarkenton had problems with a snap, ran back 10-12 yards to fall on the ball, and had Naumoff land on him. His absence against the Steelers was the first time he had missed a game due to injury in his 16 seasons. Of course, the following season, he missed the second half of the year after suffering a broken leg against the Bengals.
In the game against the Steelers, they could have had Bud Grant at quarterback and still won, since they pretty much stayed on the ground offensively. Bob Lee was 4-11 for 41 yards, while Foreman ran for 148 yards. However, it was the defensive unit and special teams that really won this game--they forced six (four ints, two fumbles) Pittsburgh turnovers, and blocked two field goals and an extra point.
#1 26554
Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:06 AM
I recently watched the highlight film for the 1973 Vikings. Would others here agree that this was the most impressive post season win for them from the Bud Grant era? Calvin Hill and Bob Lilly were both out with injuries and Roger Staubach didn't have a very good game (4 ints), but the biggest story was the success the Vikings had on the ground (203 yards) against the Dallas defense. They used a lot of misdirection and, in the process, were able to confuse/neutralize Lee Roy Jordan.
Jordan and co. did better during the second half of the game, but Staubach and the offense repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. The most fatal mistake came in the 4th quarter with the score 17-10, Vikings. A Chuck Foreman fumble was recovered by Dallas on the Minnesota 47 yard line. However, Staubach was then intercepted by Bobby Bryant, who returned the pick 63 yards for what would be the decisive score of the game.
So, even with some second half sloppiness by their offense, the fact the Vikings were forced (due to the HFA rules of the time) to go into Texas Stadium and came away with a 17-point win is pretty impressive to me. It's also a big reason why I think this was the most impressive of the Tarkenton/Foreman-era Viking teams, even if the '75 team had a little more explosive offense. Also makes the Dolphins demolition of them two weeks later in SB VIII look even more impressive.
Another note -
I think I've posted this before in other Vikings-related threads, but it can't be stated enough how much trading for John Gilliam and drafting Chuck Foreman helped them. Getting Tarkenton back was big, but no way do they get back to all those SBs without Foreman and Gilliam. Anyone know what went wrong for Gilliam after he went to the Falcons in '76? He didn't do much there, then spent the '77 season with the Saints and Bears and that was it for him in the NFL. Injuries?
#2 BD Sullivan
Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:51 AM
I think it was a combination of age starting to catch up to him (he was starting his 10th season in '76) and the large dropoff in the quality of the offenses of his teams. In Atlanta, three different QB's started games in '76 (Steve Bartkowski, Scott Hunter and Kim McQuilken) and all were pretty bad; in half the games, the passing offense didn't even break 100 yards; and the Falcons had a coaching change after just five games, which no doubt added to the havoc.
Leeman Bennett came in and released him late in the '77 training camp. The Bears picked him up, but they also had a limited passing offense due to the presence of Walter Payton, and ended up cutting him after a few weeks. Gilliam then came full circle, returning to the team with whom he started his career, on a kickoff return TD, the Saints. Archie Manning had a bad season, enough so that Bobby Scott and Bobby Douglass also started games for New Orleans. Gilliam only had 11 catches and after Hank Stram was let go after the season, Dick Nolan presumably decided to rebuild.
#3 Rupert Patrick
Posted 05 March 2011 - 12:46 PM
I also agree this was the most impressive post-season win for the Vikings of the Grant era. They were a four point underdog, playing in Dallas, and beat the Cowboys pretty solidly. Staubach had his worst postseason performance.
#4 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 08:54 AM
While this was an impressive victory, I would categorize it as second best, with first place going to their 27-7 defeat of Cleveland in the 1969 NFL Championship, a game that they dominated from beginning to end.
Also, just as a question, were the Vikings really 4 point underdogs to Dallas in '73? I find that a little hard to believe given that they tied for the best record in the NFL that year, and the Cowboys in 1973-74 were a team in transition. With all the box scores and stats that are now available, the oddsmakers' predictions for each game would be a great feature.
#5 Citizen
I can't vouch for its accuracy, but this website has NFL point spreads going back to the '30s. It's on the left-hand side of the page about a quarter of the way down. It has Dallas being favored by only a point in this game.
#6 Rupert Patrick
About 20 years ago I started compiling a database of postseason pointspreads which I got from newspapers the day of the game; I have about 90 percent of them from 1933 to present, but the few playoff games I don't have are mostly before 1950. One misconception most people have about pointspreads is that they are not a prediction of the oddsmakers as to the final score; the object of the oddsmaker is to create a margin that will encourage an equal number of people on both sides to bet on the game. This is why a pointspread often changes, because people are betting too heavily on one side. When you get an equal amount of money on both sides, the house always wins, as the losers have to pay the ten percent fee, also known as a vig.
#7 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:59 AM
Thanks for the link. It's an interesting site that I'll have to check out some more.
Rupert, your database also sounds interesting. I look forward to checking it out some day. I have often found that there is much to be learned in comparing the pre-game predictions to the actual results, particularly in looking back and analyzing comparative strengths and weaknesses of different teams. I definitely want to check this out some more.
#8 Gabe
Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:05 AM
I would add also that I'm still surprised to see that Dallas was in fact favored over Minnesota. I remember at the time having little doubt of the outcome since most of Dallas's key players were starting to show the wear and tear of being over the hill, and Minnesota, largely because of the ascendancy of Chuck Foreman and John Gilliam as well as the continued strength of its defense, was largely viewed as the team to beat in the NFC. But that's the kind of thing that makes researching these types of predictions so interesting, the question is not so much whether they prognosticators were right or wrong, but rather what was the basis for their predictions?
#9 Rupert Patrick
The link was very helpful; it helped me to fill in a number of gaps. The playoff games I need point spreads for now are the 1933-41 NFL playoff games, 1943 Eastern Division playoff game, and the 1948 AAFC Eastern Division playoff game. I am also trying to find over/unders for playoff games; I have them all for 1991 forward, and the Super Bowl games before that.
One interesting bit of trivia I have gotten from compiling the point spreads of over 460 playoff games is that the favorite won 54.9 percent of the time. Against the spread the favorite won 250, the underdog 204 and there were 13 pushes or ties. Against the over/under, the over was correct 127 times (52.4 percent), the under was correct 115 times and there have been four pushes.
If you want a copy of my excel spreadsheet, PM me with your email address and I will send it. I am not a bettor, but I find historical point spreads interesting as the oddsmakers back then knew a lot more about the relative strengths of the teams than I could possibly know today from looking at a line of statistics.
#10 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 12:25 PM
The link below provides the spread, over/under, the box score and PBP of each Super Bowl--except SB I. It might be tedious, but to get each Super Bowl, you only have to change the number in the address--(recap-super-bowl-2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc...)
http://www.sportsbet...uper-bowl-2.asp
#11 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 12:58 PM
Rupert Patrick, on 06 March 2011 - 10:48 AM, said: The playoff games I need point spreads for now are the 1933-41 NFL playoff games, 1943 Eastern Division playoff game, and the 1948 AAFC Eastern Division playoff game.
*According to a 12/12/48 UPI story published the day of the game: "The Buffalo Bills were established a one-touchdown favorite last night to defeat the Baltimore Colts today..."
Others:
*A 12/18/43 AP article made this observation, which likely only refers to odds and not pointspread: "And the betting boys think so well of the Giants' chances against the injury-riddled Redskins that they've installed the local bruisers favorites at 5 to 7..." Another article noted that the odds were three to one in favor of New York.
*The 1941 Bears-Packers playoff had this notation: "Late readings in the haunts of the speculative are inclined to make the Bears the favorites..." Another note prior to the Bears-Giants game states: "The supreme confidence of Bears' backers resulted in betting odds of 1-4 favoring the Chicagoans. A week ago, the Bears were listed at 9-20 over the Packers..."
*One headline prior to the 1940 Bears-Redskins championship described the Bears as slight favorites. I'm guessing that means it was less than 73.
#12 26554
Posted 06 March 2011 - 01:52 PM
I'm guessing that there were two primary reasons why the Cowboys were favored in the '73 NFCCG -
1) The game was at Texas Stadium
2) The Cowboys were coming off a pretty impressive win over the Rams (who, like the Dolphins and Vikings, had also finished the '73 regular season 12-2) in the divisional round.
The oddsmakers may have underestimated the effect that losing Calvin Hill would have on the Cowboys attack. Also, that incarnation of the Vikings, with Tarkenton, Foreman and Gilliam, was something of a post season unknown at the time. The game against the Redskins the previous week had been their first together. Hard to believe that it took until his 13th season in the NFL just for Tarkenton to appear in a playoff game and he then ended up playing in three of the next four Super Bowls.
#13 BD Sullivan
Posted 06 March 2011 - 04:24 PM
A couple of reasons might be:
*The week before, the Vikings struggled at home against the Redskins before winning 27-20. Washington was leading 13-10 early in the fourth quarter until Tarkenton and Gilliam connected on a pair of TD passes. Even then, the Redskins fought back by scoring with 5:28 left, soon after they blocked a Minnesota punt. After Minnesota kicked a field goal with 1:40 to go, Kilmer got the Skins down to the Viking 42 before they turned it over on downs. In the first quarter, Minnesota was completely dominated, being outgained on offense, 125-9, and if I recall correctly, Carl Eller lost it in the halftime locker room by knocking over a chalkboard in an attempt to inspire his teammates. All this, plus the Vikings previous playoff struggles (they had lost at home to Dallas two years earlier) no doubt made oddsmakers wary.
*In '73, the Cowboys had pounded most of their opponents at Texas Stadium, going 7-1 (including the Rams playoff win), with their only loss coming on Thanksgiving against the Super Bowl champion Dolphins. In their six regular season victories at home, they outscored opponents 226-68. In the Rams playoff, they jumped out to a 17-0 lead, watched LA chop it to a one-point margin before they added 10 more points and a 27-16 win.
#14 Jay Z
Posted 07 March 2011 - 11:27 PM
It's interesting that the 1973 NFC Championship game was the only playoff game the Vikings played on the road from 1969-76. They played 10 at home, going 7-3 (losing in 70, 71, and 75.) For the period 1968-78 the Vikings went 7-3 at home and 2-3 on the road, also winning in 1977 on the road.
The Cowboys played 17 of 30 playoff games at home from 1966-83. For a long time they actually had a better record on the road in the playoffs than at home. They eventually wound up 11-6 at home (losing in 1966, 69, 73, 76, 79, 83) and 7-6 on the road (winning in 70, 71, 72, 75 twice, 78, and 80.)
The Rams played 6 of 13 playoff games at home from 1973-80, going 3-3 at home (losing in 75, 77, 78) and 3-4 on the road (winning in 76 and 79 twice.)
The 1970-74 Dolphins went 4-0 at home and 2-2 on the road (winning in 71 and 72.)
The 1972-79 Steelers went 8-1 at home (losing in 72) and 2-3 on the road (winning in 74 and 76.)
The 1967-77 Raiders went 9-2 at home (losing in 69 and 74) and 1-6 on the road (winning in 77.)
Over the eight year stretch from 1969-76, when they went to four Super Bowls, the Vikings played 10 of 11 playoffs games at home. During the Steelers 8 year playoff run from 1972-79, they only played 9 of 14 at home. Even if one includes only the Super Bowl period from 1974-79, it is still only 7 of 11 at home.
The Cowboys from 1970-78 went to 5 Super Bowls. They played only 8 of 15 playoff games at home.
#15 evan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 12:33 PM
I’ve heard many Viking beat writers and historians say the 1973 NFC Championship might have been Minnesota’s finest game ever, considering the caliber of the opponent, the setting, and the quality of play, even with all the turnovers. I could definitely agree with that, but there’s two other playoff games from the Bud Grant era that I remember watching specifically that I would mention.
1976 NFC Playoffs – Minnesota 35, Washington 20. The Redskins were not a great team that year, but had won their last four and were hot after beating Dallas in Dallas to make the playoffs in a game the Cowboys needed to win to clinch homefield throughout the playoffs. So the Redskins were a worthy opponent, but the Vikings just obliterated them. Among the highlights I remember:
= Brent McClanahan running 41 yards down the sideline on the first play from scrimmage.
- Sammie White’s Swann-esque juggling catch past Ken Houston for a TD
- Tarkenton running on to the field to tell the defense to take an offensive pass interference penalty instead of taking an interception that would have given Tarkenton the ball on his own 1. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen a defense decline a play that resulted in an interception. But Tarkenton had confidence in this defense to defend Kilmer on third-and-long, and then get the ball after a Redskin punt. It worked.
- Tarkenton calling a frantic audible that resulted in a handoff to Foreman, who popped through a big hole on his way to a long TD run.
- Foreman spinning and bursting through on one of the great short TD runs in NFL history.
- The Vikings rolling up a 35-6 lead before more or less calling off the dogs.
1977 NFC Playoffs – Minnesota 14, Los Angeles 7. The mud stifled most of the action, but lent quite a bit of drama. The memorable part for me here was how much I absolutely dreaded this game as a Vikings fan. The Rams had absolutely wiped out the Vikings on MNF earlier in the year in LA, and that was when the Vikes had Tarkenton.
Now Fran was gone, and the Vikings looked old, small and slow compared to a young, big, athletic Rams team bent on revenge for all the earlier losses to Minnesota. In the pre-game, with both teams waiting outside the tunnel. Youngblood gave Foreman an easy kick in the rear. I wonder what Youngblood said to Foreman there, might have been something along the lines of what devastation was about to happen to him. They were going to draw and quarter the Tark-less Vikes in any way imaginable, it would be a disgraceful end to the Vikings era as NFC champs … and then the rains came.
The Vikings played a picture-perfect game in the slop, throwing the ball early when the field wasn’t total muck yet. It was one of the great play-calling games in the elements. The Vikings stopping the Rams on a 4th-and-1 early in the game was a major momentum switch. Then late there was the drama of Namath warming up on the sideline, with everyone wondering if he would come in to work a miracle. Of course he never got into the game.
#16 26554
Posted 14 March 2011 - 02:38 PM
Always love to read your thoughts, Evan. You certainly know your Vikings very well. Would also love to read JohnH19's thoughts, too, if you're out there.
I considered the "Mud Bowl", too. I'd probably have it at #2 from the Bud Grant-era. The biggest difference to me is that the '73 Cowboys had Staubach at qb and the '77 Rams had Pat Haden. On the weather for that game, it had rained heavily in the L.A. area for 2-3 days prior, so I don't think that was much of a surprise for either team. The Vikings playcalling was good, but I think the main determining factor in the final outcome (as it usually was for those Rams teams in the playoffs) was the qb play. Haden was 14-32 for 130 yards and he was intercepted 3 times. His only TD (a 1 yard pass to Harold Jackson) came late in the game. Bob Lee's (5-10-57 yards and 0 ints) main responsibilities were not to make a big mistake and let Chuck Foreman and Robert Miller carry the load and he did a very nice job with both.
That game may have been the height of "what do we have to do to catch a break?" frustration for those Rams teams, though the '75 NFC Championship game is also a strong contender. The Cowboys were clearly head and shoulders above the others in the NFC that year, so I strongly suspect that the Rams would've lost the following week at Texas Stadium just as the Vikings did but, still, the Rams were a better team than the Vikings that season. When the Rams first found out they were going to being seeing their tormentors (one of them, anyway) again in the playoffs, they had to be thinking "we've got em' where we want em' now." The game was going to be in L.A. instead of usually frigid Bloomington, Tarkenton was out (and as you noted, Evan, the Rams had destroyed the Vikes with Tarkenton 35-3 earlier in the season on Monday Night Football) and the Rams seemed to have a clear advantage in team speed over the aging Vikings. I believe the Rams were installed early on as 10 point favorites, but then.....well, who says it never rains in southern California?
Going back to the '73 Vikings, I have to say I really enjoyed watching the footage of Gilliam. I know that he was an important cog for them for a couple years after, but he was really outstanding during his first two seasons with the team. Evan, what are your strongest recollections of that '73 NFCCG and the season as a whole and would you agree that that Vikings team was the best from the Tarkenton-era, or at least the best of the three that went to the Super Bowl?
#17 evan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 04:10 PM
Uggh, I think I need to take a Di-Gel (actually, is Di-Gel still even around?) just thinking about that 35-3 demolition by the Rams in 1977. What an awful night.
I was actually too young to have watched the 73 Vikes (I became football-aware at the end of the 1974 season), but over the years have watched every piece of film available. Basically from what I can tell, the 73 Vikings picked up defensively where the earlier 70s teams left off, with Page back to form after recovering from his 1972 injuries. On offense they used Foreman as much as Grant could stand (considering Bud hated to play rookies), while still giving Reed, Marinaro and Osborn reps too. In the NFC Championship, I’ve read a lot about how Tarkenton focused on trying to send Lee Roy Jordan the wrong way on lots of variations of sucker plays. That strategy opened up the Viking offense when it needed it. Tark executed a somewhat similar strategy by running a shift formation in an upset win in Dallas on Thursday Night Football in 1978.
As usual in the 1970s the Vikings didn’t have a tough schedule in 1973 because their division was so lukewarm, but they did beat the Raiders, Rams and Browns, who all had winning records. They beat everyone they needed to beat until the Super Bowl, so you have to give them credit. Of the Tarkenton Super Bowl teams, the 73 team could be considered the best, but for me I’m a little underwhelmed by their lack of a second receiver (a very over-the-hill Carroll Dale was the second WR), and Foreman not having the “do-everything” role he had later in his career.
For me, the best Tarkenton Super Bowl Viking team was the 1976 unit, despite advancing age and high mileage. The MNF win over Pittsburgh (thought to be playing for its season in that game) was possibly the best Viking regular-season win of the 1970s. Foreman and Sammie White were dynamic, exciting performers, Tarkenton still had enough ability to be an All-Pro quarterback, Page was dominant with somewhere close to 17 sacks, Siemon was at the top of what would be an all-too-short prime, and Nate Allen became one of the Vikings’ all-time role players. Allen, Blair and Page led the kick-blocking assault that was completely surreal. They just had so many ways they could win, and although they gave up a lot of rushing yardage, somehow they also had an incredible run of goalline stands all year – except in that game in Pasadena.
I agree Gilliam was a really talented player, hugely productive for the Vikings in that era. The frozen rope that Tarkenton threw to Gilliam for a 30-yard gain in Super Bowl VIII was the best Tarkenton throw in any of the Super Bowls in my opinion. And the TD bomb from Tarkenton to Gilliam in the 1972 regular season loss to Miami was a great Vike highlight against the Dolphins team destined to go unbeaten. Gilliam also got a 42-yard pass interference penalty go his way in Super Bowl IX, although it didn’t count in his personal stats. Two big could-have-beens that weren’t really Gilliam’s fault: If not for a clipping penalty Gilliam’s 65-yard kickoff return in Super Bowl VIII could have given the Vikings some spirit to start the second half, and if Gilliam holds on to the pass at the Steeler 5 despite Glen Edwards’ hit, the Vikings may have gone on to score and take control of Super Bowl IX.
I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
#18 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 04:11 PM
Bud Grant said after the 1977 Rams playoff game that the strategy was, "to throw early because a bad field gets worse as you play on it." Bob Lee had five completions for the game--all five came on the first quarter touchdown drive that ended with a Chuck Foreman five-yard run.
#19 97Den98
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:18 PM
I agree with the clipping call in Supe 8. If they didn't fumble the ball at the end of the first half, and if Gilliam's return stands, that could have been a different game. Also, in the second quarter, there was a pass from Fran to Kingsriter that should have been called a catch for a first down. It was called out incorrectly.
As for Supe 9, even if the Vikes go up 7-2 or 3-2 at half, I don't think they would have ever gotten control. However, that, and not fumbling the second half kickoff would have made winning easier, obviously.
#20 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:26 PM
Since SB IX was originally scheduled for the Superdome (which wasn't ready), I wonder if perfect weather conditions would have helped, as opposed to the chilly and windy conditions the teams played under.
#21 26554
Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:37 PM
Foreman also missed a couple of games in '73 due to injury, otherwise he likely would've reached the 1,000 yard mark. Why do you think he declined as quickly as he did following the 1977 season? Overuse? '78 was an ok season for him, though certainly not at the level of the previous five. However, he was a shell of his former self by '79 and, after a forgettable season with the Patriots, out of the league after 1980.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: As usual in the 1970s the Vikings didn’t have a tough schedule in 1973 because their division was so lukewarm, but they did beat the Raiders, Rams and Browns, who all had winning records. They beat everyone they needed to beat until the Super Bowl, so you have to give them credit. Of the Tarkenton Super Bowl teams, the 73 team could be considered the best, but for me I’m a little underwhelmed by their lack of a second receiver (a very over-the-hill Carroll Dale was the second WR), and Foreman not having the “do-everything” role he had later in his career.
Good points, though, as mentioned above, Foreman was banged up at times during the '73 season, so that may have been part of the reason that Grant didn't use him more. I would add that their two regular season losses were both on the road against teams that finished 10-4 (Bengals) and 9-5 (Falcons, best season in the franchise's history to that point), respectively.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: For me, the best Tarkenton Super Bowl Viking team was the 1976 unit, despite advancing age and high mileage. The MNF win over Pittsburgh (thought to be playing for its season in that game) was possibly the best Viking regular-season win of the 1970s. Foreman and Sammie White were dynamic, exciting performers, Tarkenton still had enough ability to be an All-Pro quarterback, Page was dominant with somewhere close to 17 sacks, Siemon was at the top of what would be an all-too-short prime, and Nate Allen became one of the Vikings’ all-time role players. Allen, Blair and Page led the kick-blocking assault that was completely surreal. They just had so many ways they could win, and although they gave up a lot of rushing yardage, somehow they also had an incredible run of goalline stands all year – except in that game in Pasadena.
Interesting. I know there isn't a huge amount of separation between those 1973-76 teams, but I see the '76 team as being a little 'smoke and mirrors', though I can understand how they could also be seen as 'finding a way to win'. They were still very good overall on both sides of the ball and there were some outstanding individual performances (Foreman, Page, Sammy White), but the run D was a pretty glaring weakness. I think their schedule was softer in '76 than it was in '73, too. Neither of their losses were bad (both on the road against the 7-7 Bears and 8-6 49ers), but they only had three regular season games against teams that finished over .500 and two of them were in Bloomington.
-In the 10-10 tie game against the Rams in week 2 (which Chuck Knox said afterward was the best game he'd ever seen), the Rams rolled up a whopping 261 yards on the ground, with McCutheon and Cappelletti both going over the 100 yard mark. However, unsurprisingly, the Rams qb (in this case Pat Haden) didn't play well and Tom Dempsey had a chip shot game-winning FG attempt blocked late in regulation and the game ended in a tie after the Rams made a stand of their own with a goal line int late in overtime. I could be wrong, but I think that, assuming the rest of the '76 regular season had unfolded the way it did, the Rams would've had HFA in the '76 playoffs if they had won that game. With their luck, there probably would've been a freak blizzard in L.A. or something, so maybe it's just as well.
-The Steelers finished with 173 on the ground in that Monday night game, but Bradshaw threw 4 interceptions and the Steelers also lost 2 fumbles.
-Walter Payton and the Bears had considerable success on the ground in both of their game against the Vikings that year. The Vikings were able to escape the first meeting with a victory (thanks largely to one blocked extra point and one that Bob Thomas sailed wide right), but lost the rematch at Soldier Field by the same one point margin. The Vikings caught a similar break in a 10-9 win over the Lions in week 3 when the Lions mishandled the snap on the game-tying extra point attempt.
-The Rams again gouged the Vikings on the ground in the NFC Championship game (193 yards) but Foreman, Nate Allen and Bobby Bryant (some would add a bad call by the refs on what appeared to be a TD by Ron Jessie prior to the blocked FG return) saved the day. Tarkenton didn't have the greatest of games but, per usual, the Rams qb was worse.
Finally, in SB XI, they ran into a team whose success on the ground wasn't negated by poor qb play and they were unable to capitalize on an early special teams break.
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
That would've been around the time that Page and Carl Eller were let go by the Vikings, so I guess Bud Grant/VIkings management wasn't in a very sentimental mood. They definitely made a mistake in thinking that Page was done, however.
#22 BD Sullivan
Posted 14 March 2011 - 06:27 PM
evan, on 14 March 2011 - 05:10 PM, said: I bet BD would know more about this one, but I recall that at some point after Gilliam ran out of teams to try out for in 1978 or 1979, he asked Grant if he could come back to the Vikings. In fact I think there were a few other former Vikings who banded together with Gilliam to try to join the Viking ship again. But it didn't happen.
Four, to be exact, with one of them being Gilliam. The other three were Charlie West, Ed Marinaro and TE Doug Kingsriter. After being turned down by Grant, West played two seasons with Denver; Marinaro signed with the Bears, but was released and was out of football and into acting; Kingsriter hadn't played since 1975--he was released by the Vikes in the last '76 cut, then was cut by the Bears the following year. What appears to be his final shot was in '78 when he got a tryout with the Steelers (along with Jim Mandich) after Bennie Cunningham ripped up his knee. Mandich beat him out and presumably got another Super Bowl ring for his efforts.
Marinaro might have lost his football skills, but he was obviously in pretty good shape according to one story from September 1980. Marinaro was playing racquetball with Chuck Barris (of "Gong Show" fame) when Barris ran head-on into him. Barris spent six days in the hospital (in a body cast covering his lower torso) with a sprained back and cracked ribs, while Marinaro was unhurt.
#23 evan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:24 AM
As for Foreman's decline, I would think that the overuse had to catch up to him. The guy played in 12 post-season games from 73-77, so that's almost a whole extra season, and obviously a lot of his games were in harsh conditions. He didn't have too many runs or catches where he avoided contact either. I would like to think his awful situation regarding his salary and the Vikings refusal to renegotiate didn't affect his play, but Foreman was an emotional guy and I'm sure it didn't help. Also in 1979 Foreman dropped something like 20 pounds before the season in order to try to last longer, but didn't have the same burst anymore. That and the Vikings thought rookie Ted Brown could give them some breakaway speed so they got him into the mix after a few games, although Brown was never really that kind of back. The thing I never understood was why Foreman didn't turn into a third-down back like Preston Pearson or Calvin Hill who could catch a 10-yard pass on 3rd-and-8, since he had terrific hands, knew how to get open, and thus could have prolonged his career. But it didn't happen.
I've read some Viking players defend their run defense in the mid-70s as noting that teams just got a lot of yardage because they ran the ball 40 times a game. I don't know if that's because teams ran more on the Vikings because they felt confident about it, or if they ran because they couldn't pass on them. In ‘76 the Vikings were No. 1 in the NFL in fewest passing yards allowed and fewest TD passes allowed. For teams like the Bears, they obviously ran more than they passed on the Vikings because Payton was amazing, and their passing was atrocious against everyone. But even with all the rushing yards the 76 Vikings gave up, it rarely translated into points for the opposition.
That's mostly because the goal-line stands that year were amazing. Some came in nationally televised games against the Rams in week 2, the Steelers (it wasn't a true goal-line stand, but Bradshaw brought the Steelers to the line on a fourth-down short-yardage play, then got spooked by the snorting Viking D and backed off without running the play), and the Dolphins in week 14. Also I seem to recall they had goalline stands against the Lions as well.
The 76 Vikings were also lit emotionally after the Hail Mary fiasco the previous year. They wanted to make everyone they played pay for that perceived injustice. That extra emotion got them probably a little farther than they would have gotten otherwise. If not for some awful wind-blown Neil Clabo punts against Chicago and a few odd plays against S.F., the 76 Vikings might have run the table. They had the week 2 game against the Rams won in OT but Tarkenton didn't want to risk a FG and threw a dopey pass into the end zone intercepted by Rick Kay. It was one of the most awful throws of Tark's career. But I don't want to sound too pie-in-the-sky here, the 76 Vikes wound up with the record they probably should have had.
Thanks for your comments, I enjoy reading your observations on this memorable and compelling era in history. You might get a kick out of recent interviews with Foreman, Krause, Marshall, Page, Grant, Blair, Tingelhoff and others as part of the 50th anniversary celebration at http://www.kare11.co...storyid=893902. And thanks B.D. for once again shining the light of discovery on some of the most obscure chapters of football history.
#24 Citizen
Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:44 AM
26554, on 14 March 2011 - 04:37 PM, said: The Vikings were able to escape the first meeting with a victory (thanks largely to one blocked extra point and one that Bob Thomas sailed wide right), but lost the rematch at Soldier Field by the same one point margin. The Vikings caught a similar break in a 10-9 win over the Lions in week 3 when the Lions mishandled the snap on the game-tying extra point attempt.
The Vikings seemed to be the beneficiary of at least one or two scenarios like this each year under Grant; there was a reason that reporters who covered the team called him "Horseshoe Harry" under their breath.
Of course, it helped that Minnesota's special teams were unusually talented and disciplined, but it seems there were a bizarre number of occasions in the Grant era when the opponent goofed up a PAT (or something similar), and presto -- the Vikes happened to win by a point. The point is, you could say that with even more breaks the Vikings might have finished undefeated in 1976; but it's far more likely that if so many bounces hadn't gone their way that year, they would have been a 10-win club at best.
#25 BD Sullivan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:57 AM
Citizen, on 15 March 2011 - 11:44 AM, said: The point is, you could say that with even more breaks the Vikings might have finished undefeated in 1976; but it's far more likely that if so many bounces hadn't gone their way that year, they would have been a 10-win club at best.
Here was their 1976 regular season schedule:
*9/12: Blowout win (40-9) against New Orleans
*9/19: 10-10 tie against Los Angeles
*9/26: 10-9 win over Detroit; Lions miss PAT with two minutes left
*10/4: 17-6 win over Pittsburgh; Steelers have one PAT blocked and FG attempts of 32 and 23 blocked; bad snap by Mike Webster on punt puts ball at Steeler 7 and leads to TD; Nate Allen intercepts on 3rd-and-17 at the Steeler 34
*10/10: 20-19 win over Chicago; Bears' Bob Thomas had one PAT blocked and missed another.
*10/17: 24-7 win over the Giants, who dropped to 0-6
*10/24: 31-12 win over Philadelphia; 2-4 Eagles took 9-0 lead into second quarter before Vikes woke up. Chuck Foreman ran for 200 yards.
*10/31: 14-13 loss to Chicago; Viking punter Neil Clabo (kicking into 17 MPH wind) shanks two punts giving Bears the ball inside the Minnesota 40. Both lead to Chicago touchdowns.
*11/7: 31-23 win over Detroit; Sammy White (who had 200 yards receiving on the day) caught a 37-yard TD pass with 1:53 left to clinch it. It would have been clinched earlier in the quarter, but at the Lions three-yard-line, White decided to hot dog it by raising the ball in the air. Lem Barney knocked it out of the end zone for a touchback.
*11/14: 27-21 win over expansion Seattle; Seahawks led 21-20 with 11:37 left, but Vikings retook the lead with 4:52 left. Seattle connected on a 58-yard pass play to the Minnesota eight, then had fourth-and-goal at the one. Jim Zorn threw behind an open Jon McMakin in the end zone.
*11/21: 17-10 win over Green Bay; Vikes broke 10-10 deadlock early in the fourth quarter. Packers had Carlos Brown starting at QB in place of the injured Lynn Dickey.
*11/29: 20-16 loss to San Francisco; Vikes missed second quarter PAT and had two late chances to win it. Their rushing defense was terrible: Delvin Williams and Wilbur Jackson each ran for over 150 yards.
*12/5: 20-9 win over Green Bay; Game was tied 6-6 entering the fourth quarter (Vikes had blocked PAT of Packers); On the Vikings first touchdown in the final quarter, the Packers' Mike McCoy was flagged for a late hit on Tarkenton and Steve Luke was flagged for a face mask. In addition, Chuck Foreman fumbled, but the refs ruled he was down. On the subsequent Packer drive, Rich McGeorge dropped a pass in the end zone.
*12/11: 29-7 win over Miami; Late in the first quarter, a fumbled punt by Autry Beamon gave Dolphins the ball at the Minnesota 34. Miami got a first down to the Viking seven, then another at the two after pass interference by Nate Allen. However, the Vikings put up a goal-line stand and drove down the field for their first touchdown.
#26 JohnH19
Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:32 PM
Been away on vacation for the last week and this is my first chance to check in. Great thread, guys!!!
While I agree that all of the games mentioned are worthy of consideration, I still think the greatest playoff game the Grant era Vikings ever played and won was the '69 Western Conference Final against the Rams. A true classic. This is a game that deserves the NFL's Greatest Games treatment from the crew at Films. I get shivers just thinking about it. That win accompanied by the rout of Cleveland the next week just makes SB IV all the more painful and difficult to comprehend.
#27 Gabe
Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:55 PM
Agreed. I was about to post my memory (and I was a Rams fan first and then a Vikings fan so I have painful memories on both counts) of the '69 Vikings post-season. Both the playoff win against LA and the Championship win against Cleveland were amazing for different reasons. First the '69 playoff game with a sky-high Rams team up 17-7 at the half and showing no sign of letting up at the start of the second half. Kapp throws an interception and gets mad; then throws another interception leading to a Rams FG and gets even madder. The Rams meanwhile lose defensive captain Maxie Baughan to a knee injury and are unable to hold off the Vikings led by a determined Kapp (a little noted, but nevertheless significant factor is Ron Yary's handling of Deacon Jones in the game). I agree with John that I would love to see this game in the NFL Greatest Games collection (even if it is the LA Rams equivalent of the 1978 Yankees-Red Sox playoff - great game, wrong outcome).
My consolation in '69 was the following week watching Kapp pick and rip apart (literally) the Browns defense. First he turned a broken play and collision with Bill Brown into a touchdown where he dragged Walter Johnson over the goalline. And then there was Kapp's ferocious collision with Jim Houston, the only time I can recall a linebacker and quarterback running into each other with the QB jumping back to his feet and the LB lying unconscious - one of the most surreal sights I've seen in a game. Because of the outcome of Super Bowl IV and then the Vikings futility in the 1970 and 1971 post-seasons, it is easy to forget the ferocity with which they played in the '69 post-season and why many felt going into the Super Bowl that it would be no contest for the Vikings - as it actually was in the 1970 opener vs. the Chiefs.
In short, watching the Rams lose to Minnesota was partially offset by the fun of watching Kapp, Osborn, Eller, Page, and company do their thing, and I could at least live with the Rams losing to the best team in pro football. But Super Bowl IV took that consolation away.
I should add that in 1976, there was a similar consolation in the Rams losing to Minnesota in NFC Championship. At that time, it seemed that Vikings were a team of destiny and running on an emotional high that showed them as being much more confident going into Super Bowl XI as compared to previous years. That confidence and the sense of destiny seemed to reach fruition in the opening minutes when Minnesota blocked a Ray Guy punt (the first blocked punt of Guy's NFL career) and recovered near the Oakland goalline. At long last, it appeared, Minnesota was going to score early and first in the Super Bowl, and break the pattern of past Super Bowl experiences. But then McClanahan fumbled, Hall recovered and ....you could feel the air just leave the Vikings. If is the biggest word in the English language, and if I stop and dwell on it, I wonder if McClanahan holds on to the ball, and Vikings score a TD, maybe the Vikings sustain their momentum and the team that defeated Pittsburgh earlier in the season....like I said, the biggest word (if) in the English language.
#28 Teo
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:34 PM
I've always been intrigued by Gilliam. I don't remember seeing him play, as I was 6 years old in his last season, but clearly he was one of the most underrated WRs of the 70's, I'm amazed when I look at NFL Films clips. It's interesting that many fans remember better Ahmad Rashad and Sammy White, who both came to Minnesota the same year that Gilliam went to Atlanta. I was wondering why the Vikings traded/waived him, he was a Pro Bowler the year before, and that's while coming from the WFL.
#29 Gabe
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:39 PM
As I seem to recall, Gilliam asked to be traded to a team in a warmer climate and the Vikings accommodated by sending him to Atlanta. At that time, Gilliam was 31 or 32 years old and starting to look at the downside of his career.
#30 BD Sullivan
Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:46 PM
Because the free agency rules were in limbo due to litigation, Gilliam was able to sign with Atlanta without the Falcons owing any compensation. Gilliam's basis for his decision was that his family and business interests were in the Atlanta area, and, to a lesser extent, he wasn't crazy about playing in Minnesota--due to the weather, not because of fan problems.
The fact that Ahmad Rashad is still prominent in the media is the reason he's more remembered than Gilliam. Sammy White is still prominent for probably another reason: he's likely best remembered for holding onto a pass in Super Bowl IX after getting his helmet ripped off during a Jack Tatum hit--something that presumably gets replayed every year.
#31 Rupert Patrick
Posted 15 March 2011 - 07:46 PM
That Tatum hit on White and Willie Brown's interception for a TD are the two most memorable moments of the game, although you could include seeing John Madden being hoisted by his teammates at the end.
#32 26554
Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:00 PM
Foreman's a great example of a player who looked to be well on his way to Canton after his first five years and then basically just fell off a cliff. When I think of him, I usually can't help but think of Lydell Mitchell, too. Both were great all-purpose back during the same time period and both also fell off around the same time. Wonder how things would've turned out for Foreman if the Metrodome had opened four or five years earlier than it did?
evan, on 15 March 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:Thanks for your comments, I enjoy reading your observations on this memorable and compelling era in history. You might get a kick out of recent interviews with Foreman, Krause, Marshall, Page, Grant, Blair, Tingelhoff and others as part of the 50th anniversary celebration at http://www.kare11.co...storyid=893902. And thanks B.D. for once again shining the light of discovery on some of the most obscure chapters of football history.
Thanks very much, both for the compliment and the link. Speaking of links, I was just reading through Sports Illustrated's preview of SB XI, which was done by Dan Jenkins and Robert F. Jones. A couple observations/predictions that caught my attention -
Dan Jenkins: "I have to root for a guy who never had any receivers until this year, Francis Tarkenton, over a guy the TV people keep telling me is the best "pure passer" they have ever seen." Strange. I guess Dan didn't think much of John Gilliam.
Another one, also from Dan: "I don't think Nate Allen can block a Ray Guy punt unless he rents a helicopter." Well, he was right. It was Fred McNeill who got to Guy.
Here's the link - http://cnnsi.printth...2F1%2Findex.htm
[EDIT] And here's a link to SI's preview of SB VIII, done by Tex Maule. Maule, I'm guessing, was in the minority in the media in picking the Vikings to win (by four). It seems that a good portion of that prediction was based on Maule's belief that the Vikings would be able to do to Nick Buoniconti what they had done to Lee Roy Jordan in the NFCCG. The unpredictability of Tarkenton was also a factor.
http://cnnsi.printth...2F1%2Findex.htm
#33 evan
Posted 17 March 2011 - 08:33 AM
I have a couple of theories on the Minnesota kick blocking in the 1970s, as I agree it was weird how consistent they were. One thought goes along with why Duke's men's basketball team typically is near the top of the NCAA every year in lowest opponent's free throw percentage. How does a team play good defense on the free throw line? They can't, right? True, but some think that many Duke opponents feel so much pressure to make their free throws because it's always hard to get points on Duke, they know Duke will score plenty, and Duke doesn't foul (or at least get called for fouls) very often. So when Duke opponents have a chance for free points from the free throw line, they feel extra pressure to make the shot and choke. (And I'm a Maryland alum, so giving Duke any credit is hard for me, but I think this is interesting).
So that kind of psychology also may have been felt by the teams lining up to punt or kick against Minnesota in the 1970s. They knew the Vikings had a great rep for disrupting kicks, and so maybe that extra pressure led them to screw up the snap or the catch or the hold or the kick or the blocking assignments -- there's lots of things that can go wrong.
Add to that yes, the Vikings made this into a science and actually had different position names (like Scrummer or Grappler and such) for each man's assignment in kick-blocking. There was a great issue of Bob Lurtsema's Viking Report around 1979 that broke it all down as to each man's job. Some were there just to turn offensive linemen at an angle so Blair, Page, Eller, Mullaney, Holloway (the tall guys) could get an extra couple feet closer to jump. Others were there to occupy linemen on the edge to create gaps so the outside guys like Nate Allen could get a full run from the flank.
To me, the blocked kicks were one of the things that made it so much fun to be a Viking fan in the 1970s. Even during the 1977 NFC Championship at Dallas, which I knew they really didn't have much chance in, after Golden Richards scored that first TD I was ticked off, but I remember getting up out of my chair to the kitchen knowing it would only be 6-0, because there was just no way the Cowboys would make that extra point. I had that feeling a bunch of other times throughout the late 70s too. It was something that gave that team a unique feeling, I think many people associate some unique quality with the team they root for, and for me as a Viking fan this was it.
Biographical note: Thought I'd share that I became such a fan of the Vikings' punt-blocking as a kid, I used to practice it in my living room with a buddy and a balloon. I would take off from a corner of the living room and dive at him as soon as he started to punt a balloon. It was a lot of fun until I took a foot in the jaw, and I think I may have capsized a lamp at some point. But all that did was make us move outside and do the same thing with a Nerf football. It was tremendous fun, I would recommend it to anyone who wants to covet one of the purest joys of football, and especially if you have a good orthodontist on call.
#34 Gabe
Nice biographical note, Evan. I used to do punt-blocking too as a kid with my brother until one time he missed the ball completely and kicked me flush in the stomach. After that, I preferred to play Bobby Bryant to someone else's Nate Allen. That is, I would go after the loose ball after letting someone else blocked the punt.
#35 26554
Posted 17 March 2011 - 07:52 PM
Follow up question - In the SB XI preview, Robert Jones mentions Tarkenton bruising his ribs earlier in the season. In which game did that occur?
#36 evan
I think that was during the first Lions game in Detroit, I'm thinking Paul Naumoff had something to do with it, but I might be wrong. The injury forced Tark to miss the next game against Pittsburgh, although he did warm up on the sideline at one point in that game.
#37 BD Sullivan
Posted 18 March 2011 - 10:16 AM
Correct on all accounts. It happened in the first quarter of the 9/26 Lions game when Tarkenton had problems with a snap, ran back 10-12 yards to fall on the ball, and had Naumoff land on him. His absence against the Steelers was the first time he had missed a game due to injury in his 16 seasons. Of course, the following season, he missed the second half of the year after suffering a broken leg against the Bengals.
In the game against the Steelers, they could have had Bud Grant at quarterback and still won, since they pretty much stayed on the ground offensively. Bob Lee was 4-11 for 41 yards, while Foreman ran for 148 yards. However, it was the defensive unit and special teams that really won this game--they forced six (four ints, two fumbles) Pittsburgh turnovers, and blocked two field goals and an extra point.