If someone had told me back in 1996 that the Cowboys would not make the SB again, I wouldnt have believed it. Especially with coaches like Parcells, Wade Phillips and Mike McCarthy coaching the team. Garrett could coach offense but seemed more of a Jerry's Kid. Maybe as a former fan I am being sour but I think had they never signed Terrell Owens, they would have at least won another NFC championship.
Getting back to the Vikings, who like the Lions, never seemed right in a domed stadium, its ironic that when Roger Staubach won both his championships with Dallas, he beat Viking's teams in championship games not quarterbacked by Kapp, Tarkenton or Kramer, but ... Bob Lee.
Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
-
Brian wolf
- Posts: 4678
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
The Vikings' failure to win a Super Bowl almost defies human understanding.
They've made the post-season 32 times since 1968. In that time span, only two teams (Dallas and Pittsburgh) have made the playoffs more times, and they’ve got 11 Lombardis between them. The two teams just below Minnesota (San Francisco and New England) also have won 11 Super Bowls between them.
What sets Minnesota apart is they're not chronic also-rans the way Cleveland and Detroit have been since the '60s; the Vikings have been a consistent contender for nearly six decades. You'd think that a la their downtown neighbors the Twins, they would've caught fire at the right time once or twice and gone home with the winnings.
They've made the post-season 32 times since 1968. In that time span, only two teams (Dallas and Pittsburgh) have made the playoffs more times, and they’ve got 11 Lombardis between them. The two teams just below Minnesota (San Francisco and New England) also have won 11 Super Bowls between them.
What sets Minnesota apart is they're not chronic also-rans the way Cleveland and Detroit have been since the '60s; the Vikings have been a consistent contender for nearly six decades. You'd think that a la their downtown neighbors the Twins, they would've caught fire at the right time once or twice and gone home with the winnings.
-
SeahawkFever
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2024 4:18 am
Re: Which Super Bowl drought do you find the most surprising?
Minnesota did make the playoffs 32 times, and from the looks of it they constantly retooled what they had and tried again.Citizen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 7:12 am The Vikings' failure to win a Super Bowl almost defies human understanding.
They've made the post-season 32 times since 1968. In that time span, only two teams (Dallas and Pittsburgh) have made the playoffs more times, and they’ve got 11 Lombardis between them. The two teams just below Minnesota (San Francisco and New England) also have won 11 Super Bowls between them.
What sets Minnesota apart is they're not chronic also-rans the way Cleveland and Detroit have been since the '60s; the Vikings have been a consistent contender for nearly six decades. You'd think that a la their downtown neighbors the Twins, they would've caught fire at the right time once or twice and gone home with the winnings.
But in hindsight there probably were a couple points where the Vikings would have been well served to tank for a couple years (possibly early 80’s, or mid 2000’s), maybe land an elite quarterback, and build around said quarterback better than they did in reality.
After the prime of Tommy Kramer in the late 80’s, the Vikings have been rather unstable at the quarterback position thereafter, and probably more unstable than the other teams in the top five. Shoutout where it’s due though to Daunte Culpepper and Kirk Cousins who both provided some stability for about half a decade apiece.