Best defense with a double-digit lead?

[Evan]

Among the many things that haunt myself and other Viking fans about the four Super Bowl losses is a quote I heard from Paul Krause a while back. I don't have it verbatim, but the gist of it was that the Vikings defense played more of an attacking style when the offense staked it to a lead, and thus the fact that the Vikings never had a lead in any of the four Super Bowls hurt the defense's performance. I don't think Krause was throwing all the blame on the offense, he was just making an observation about aspects that made the team successful or unsuccessful.

I've wondered about Krause's conclusions often, and finally decided to look into some numbers. I found that starting from 1968 through 1979, the Vikings lost just four games and tied one in which they had a double-digit lead at any point in the game. I didn't total the number of wins they had once they led by 10 points, but it must have been a lot as they won many times by that margin or greater during that era.

So it appears that Krause's point was borne out to some extent: when the Vikings got a two-possession lead, they almost never gave it up. There's lot of reasons for that I'm sure that had to do with matchups with those opponents, so it can't be said that it was just the defense that deserved the credit for maintaining the lead, but I think it's kind of interesting.

My questions to the Forum are:

1. Do you think this factoid is interesting at all, or rather obvious (as in, they were a good team, so obviously they didn't blow leads)?
2. Are there any other teams that over an 11-year span had four or fewer losses after going ahead by 10 points or more?

FYI, the four losses were:
1969 - Vikes were ahead of Giants 23-10 in 4th quarter, lost 23-24.
1971 - Vikes were ahead of Bears 17-3 in 4th quarter, lost 17-20.
1972 - Vikes were ahead of 49ers 17-6 in 4th quarter, lost 17-20.
1974 - Vikes were ahead of Rams 17-6 in 4th quarter, lost 17-20.

And there was a tie too:
1976 - Vikes were ahead of Rams 10-0 in 4th quarter, tied 10-10.

[74_75_78_79_]

If they actually won a whole lot of these games, which I'm sure is the case, then it certainly would be a big deal. Of course I haven't researched this, but I wouldn't be surprised if this same thing applies to the '00 Colts being their defenses were built to not shut-down opposing offenses but (complementing Peyton) simply to 'preserve' a lead? Steelers jumping out to a 14-0 lead in that classic '05 divisional rounder comes to mind.

[Veeshik_ya]

I found that starting from 1968 through 1979, the Vikings lost just four games and tied one in which they had a double-digit lead at any point in the game. I didn't total the number of wins they had once they led by 10 points, but it must have been a lot as they won many times by that margin or greater during that era.

So it appears that Krause's point was borne out to some extent: when the Vikings got a two-possession lead, they almost never gave it up.

Interesting, but before concluding how meaningful this is we'd need to know if it's better/(worse) than other teams' records that had double digit leads in the same years (your point # 2).

It wouldn't necessarily undermine Krause's argument in terms of attacking strategy without a lead, but it would negate the inference that the Vikings were better than other defenses that held big leads.

[JohnH19]

I found that starting from 1968 through 1979, the Vikings lost just four games and tied one in which they had a double-digit lead at any point in the game. I didn't total the number of wins they had once they led by 10 points, but it must have been a lot as they won many times by that margin or greater during that era.

So it appears that Krause's point was borne out to some extent: when the Vikings got a two-possession lead, they almost never gave it up.

Interesting, but before concluding how meaningful this is we'd need to know if it's better/(worse) than other teams' records that had double digit leads in the same years (your point # 2).

It wouldn't necessarily undermine Krause's argument in terms of attacking strategy without a lead, but it would negate the inference that the Vikings were better than other defenses that held big leads.

But it would not negate the fact that the Vikings defense only gave up an average of 12-13 points per game during the period 1969 to 1976, when they won 87 games overall and tied one that they lost a 10 point lead in, so it would figure that they blew fewer double digit leads than other teams on a percentage basis.

[Veeshik_ya]

Possibly, but not certainly. Might have to research it.

[JohnH19]

Go for it.

[Reaser]

1. Do you think this factoid is interesting at all, or rather obvious (as in, they were a good team, so obviously they didn't blow leads)?
2. Are there any other teams that over an 11-year span had four or fewer losses after going ahead by 10 points or more?

1. Definitely interesting, nice work.

2. Hopefully someone puts a list together so we have something to compare to. I'd be interested in seeing that, either (x)-year span or year to year totals.

[JohnH19]

1. Do you think this factoid is interesting at all, or rather obvious (as in, they were a good team, so obviously they didn't blow leads)?
2. Are there any other teams that over an 11-year span had four or fewer losses after going ahead by 10 points or more?

1. Definitely interesting, nice work.

2. Hopefully someone puts a list together so we have something to compare to. I'd be interested in seeing that, either (x)-year span or year to year totals.

I would be interested in knowing how the other super powers of the 1968-79 period did. The only other teams with comparable records were probably the Raiders, Cowboys and Rams. Teams with fewer blown double digit leads probably didn't win nearly as many games as the Vikings so it wouldn't be apples to apples.

[Reaser]

I would be interested in knowing how the other super powers of the 1968-79 period did. The only other teams with comparable records were probably the Raiders, Cowboys and Rams. Teams with fewer blown double digit leads probably didn't win nearly as many games as the Vikings so it wouldn't be apples to apples.

I was thinking a wider scope. How many 10-point leads (i.e. opportunities to blow double digit leads) then how many blown double digit leads. Would have raw numbers plus the percentage.

Though of course that's a lot of work . . . for someone else to do, ha.

So the quick/short version, for sure, other good teams from same era and how many blown leads. More a rough look as opposed to a complete one.

[Evan]

Okay so here is what I found:

1968-1979 (Paul Krause's era with the Vikings)
Records in games where at any point they held a lead of 10 points or more (including post-season):

Minnesota Vikings
1968 - 6-0
1969 - 11-1
1970 - 9-0
1971 - 8-1
1972 - 6-1
1973 - 12-0
1974 - 11-1
1975 - 11-0
1976 - 9-0-1
1977 - 6-0
1978 - 6-0
1979 - 3-0
Total from 1968-79 - 98-4-1, .956 winning percentage

Los Angeles Rams
1968 - 6-0
1969 - 8-1
1970 - 9-0
1971 - 6-0-1
1972 - 6-1-1
1973 - 12-1
1974 - 8-1
1975 - 10-1
1976 - 8-1
1977 - 7-1
1978 - 12-1
1979 - 6-2
Total 1968-79 - 98-10-2, .900 winning percentage

Dallas Cowboys
1968 - 12-1
1969 - 10-0
1970 - 10-1
1971 - 12-0
1972 - 9-1
1973 - 11-0
1974 - 5-0
1975 - 10-1
1976 - 9-1
1977 - 11-1
1978 - 10-0
1979 - 7-1
Total from 1968-79: 116-7, .943 winning percentage

So, we're talking about very little to pick from between these three great teams. The Vikings were a little more reliable with a 10-point lead, but the sample sizes of the "blown lead" games are still very small, so the difference between the Vikings' 4 losses, the Cowboys' 7 losses and the Rams' 10 losses could be attributable to any number of things. That's my two cents at least.