Can someone explain the 1987 Vikings?

[CSKreager]

This is a team that has perplexed me.

8-7, perfectly mediocre. Other than a Monday night win over Denver (moved from Sunday because the Twins were in the World Series), didn't beat anyone of significance all year (lost to the Bears/Redskins), basically fattned up their record against the Tampa Bays and Green Bays of the world for the most part.

Only got in because the St. Louis Cardinals lost at Dallas in the last week (although in retrospect, they'd have already clinched before Dallas had they not dropped a pass that would have completed a monster comeback against San Diego before the strike).

Face the red-hot Saints, fall behind 7-0. And then all of a sudden, Wade Wilson- an average QB- suddenly looked like 1998 Randall Cunningham for that game and the next.

Anthony Carter basically turned into a Cris Carter/Randy Moss hybrid as well- all he did was score touchdowns and gobble yards suddenly for a guy that really was a tease before and after those two games.

I always believed they were a big-time fluke of a team that just got momentum and somehow snuck their way into an undeserved SB spot only thanks to Dallas (and ironically, Herschel).

What say you of this regular season meh team that damn near fluked their way to San Diego and SB 22?

Also, had they somehow got all the way there, who wins a hypothetical Broncos/Vikings Super Bowl 22?

[lastcat3]

The '87 Vikings went 0-3 in their scab games. If there was no strike they very likely could have gone 11-5 or 12-4 and the game against the 49ers wouldn't be considered nearly as much of an upset as it is now. You also need to take into account that all but one of the games the '87 Vikings starters lost was by less than a touchdown.

[74_75_78_79_]

'87 Vikes were a good regular-season team in disguise of mediocrity (8-7 due to 0-3 scab record) that got real SB-caliber hot once the playoffs began, then went right back to being good again the next couple of years. This was Burnsie and Peters' (as a DC, that is) best shot at a Ring. If they get by Washington, which they almost did, I think they beat Denver - and not just because they did beat them regular-season in a non-scab game at home, 34-27. In fact I think they win convincingly although not exactly 42-10. Floyd's D led by Doleman & Browner would have been too much for Elway to handle and I see Anthony Carter having a heck of a game, likely winning MVP. How would a Super Bowl win that year affect the Vikes the following two years? Do they suffer a 'hangover' next season? In either event, they likely don't gun for Herschel in '89.

[BD Sullivan]

In that Broncos-Vikings regular season game, Denver was sloppy with 10 penalties for 128 yards (the real team's first game in five weeks) and lost Gerald Wilhite in the second quarter with a leg fracture after Joey Browne horse collared him. Wade Wilson stunk, throwing five interceptions.

[74_75_78_79_]

In that Broncos-Vikings regular season game, Denver was sloppy with 10 penalties for 128 yards (the real team's first game in five weeks) and lost Gerald Wilhite in the second quarter with a leg fracture after Joey Browne horse collared him. Wade Wilson stunk, throwing five interceptions.

Yes, and Vikes still won. Doubtful that Wade puts up the same performance in a hypo-SBXXII. And rookie DJ Dozier, fresh off a National Championship the year prior, putting on a '04 Bettis-like performance - 7 carries for 15 rushing yards, 3 TDs.

Slight change of subject, without critiquing Les Steckel himself, why did Vikes pick him over Burnsie in '84 when it appeared very much like Burns was the more sensible successor to Grant? And was Bud Grant 'behind the scenes' in further assuring Steckel's firing, more-or-less telling the front office he'll return next season if needed? I thought I read something somewhere about it. Excuse the what-if added here, but had Vikes hired Burns in '84, not only do they very likely not falter as they did, but Burnsie gets a two-year head-start on making them into the playoff team they'd become. Perhaps '87 wouldn't be his first post-season as HC.

[BD Sullivan]

In that Broncos-Vikings regular season game, Denver was sloppy with 10 penalties for 128 yards (the real team's first game in five weeks) and lost Gerald Wilhite in the second quarter with a leg fracture after Joey Browne horse collared him. Wade Wilson stunk, throwing five interceptions.

Slight change of subject, without critiquing Les Steckel himself, why did Vikes pick him over Burnsie in '84 when it appeared very much like Burns was the more sensible successor to Grant? And was Bud Grant 'behind the scenes' in further assuring Steckel's firing, more-or-less telling the front office he'll return next season if needed? I thought I read something somewhere about it. Excuse the what-if added here, but had Vikes hired Burns in '84, not only do they very likely not falter as they did, but Burnsie gets a two-year head-start on making them into the playoff team they'd become. Perhaps '87 wouldn't be his first post-season as HC.

From one article on the Steckel hiring:

"(Mike) Lynn said Steckel's 'depth of knowledge' of the game and of the Vikings were among the prime factors in his selection. His relative youth (37) was another factor, said Lynn."

Most of the assistants supposedly expected Burns to get the call and Burns himself sounded stunned when he was asked about it: "I was surprised about the appointment of Les, who I respect and like very much. I don't know what I'll do. I'll have to talk to a lot of my friends and then decide whether to remain with the Vikings."

Steckel went overboard about being a hard-ass at the press conference announcing his hiring: "I'm an intense guy. I'm not low key like Bud. I was a Marine in Vietnam and I led 250 men and 80 Vietnamese soldiers into combat and lived in rice paddies for 12 months. This challenge will match that."

[conace21]

'87 Vikes were a good regular-season team in disguise of mediocrity (8-7 due to 0-3 scab record) that got real SB-caliber hot once the playoffs began, then went right back to being good again the next couple of years. This was Burnsie and Peters' (as a DC, that is) best shot at a Ring. If they get by Washington, which they almost did, I think they beat Denver - and not just because they did beat them regular-season in a non-scab game at home, 34-27. In fact I think they win convincingly although not exactly 42-10. Floyd's D led by Doleman & Browner would have been too much for Elway to handle and I see Anthony Carter having a heck of a game, likely winning MVP. How would a Super Bowl win that year affect the Vikes the following two years? Do they suffer a 'hangover' next season? In either event, they likely don't gun for Herschel in '89.

Denver'a defense was so banged up in the playoffs; I think the Vikings would have put up enough points to win. Anthony Carter may have approached Ricky Sanders' 193 receiving yards, but I don't think Minnesota would have overpowered Denver to the extent Washington did. And defensively...well, you saw what they did against Joe Cool...and Elway was never known for delivering his top performances in the Super Bowl (until the final game of his career at least. )