NFL's 20 Best teams without a Ring. The Vikings

[Mothman]

But just like the 1968 Colts, the '69 Vikings will forever be stained by a Super Bowl loss to a seemingly inferior team (Kansas City) from a supposed second-class league (AFL); and while the Chiefs get full props for taking down the Vikings when it mattered most -- 65 Toss Power Trap, anyone? -- it's important to include one gut-wrenching footnote:

In Week 1 of the 1970 campaign -- roughly eight months after the Super Bowl debacle and the inaugural season of the NFL-AFL merger -- Minnesota exacted some revenge on Kansas City, rolling to an emotionally charged 27-10 win in Bloomington (Minneapolis).

That is a gut-wrenching footnote. Even though I was still a kid at the time, I vividly remember thinking "WHY couldn't they have done that in the Super Bowl?!"

[Mothman]

Personally I think the other 2 Vikings teams not to win the Bowl game should have been on this list also.

I agree and I'd put either one of them on the list ahead of the '09 team.

[losperros]

I agree and I'd put either one of them on the list ahead of the '09 team.

So would I.

As for the 2009 team, the so-called 2010 collapse actually began in December of 2009. Starting with December and through the playoffs, the Vikings went 3-4, with Favre beginning to make his signature errors.

[Eli]

I completely disagree about the relative strengths of the 1969 Vikings compared to the Chiefs. That was the widely held opinion going into the game, but in retrospect the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs were superior at almost every position. Bigger, faster, and better coached. The biggest differences were at QB, their offensive line, which manhandled the Vikings vaunted defensive line, and their incredibly underrated defensive line and linebackers, many of whom are now in the Hall of Fame.

[VikingPaul73]

thanks for posting....do you have a link to the entire article?

[PacificNorseWest]

Without looking at the first post, my question was seriously..."Which one?"

So many times with great teams to not have a ring.

[Eli]

Well that was a depressing read.

At times I question why I am still a Vikings fan hahaha.

Hahaha. Yeah, hahaha. Hahaha, indeed. A joke, right?

I've been questioning it myself for the past few years. I don't live in Minnesota, so being a Viking fan is not a requirement. I honestly wonder why I persist. The current bunch of owners and managers of the franchise give me very little confidence.

[frosted]

Hahaha. Yeah, hahaha. Hahaha, indeed. A joke, right?

I've been questioning it myself for the past few years. I don't live in Minnesota, so being a Viking fan is not a requirement. I honestly wonder why I persist. The current bunch of owners and managers of the franchise give me very little confidence.

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine. That's the nature of being a sports fan. It ain't always easy. That's why we're called 'fan[atics]'.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[Eli]

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine. That's the nature of being a sports fan. It ain't always easy. That's why we're called 'fan[atics]'.

I'm sure many fans change the teams they root for over the years. Certainly not a yearly thing. You're not a fan if you root for the Cowboys, then the Packers, then the Patriots. I used to be a big Orioles fan when I was younger. Not so much any more.

After more than 45 years I haven't completely given up on the Vikings yet. It still gives me a thrill to see those purple helmets with the white horns all lined up on the line of scrimmage.

[im4mnvikes]

[quote="Jeffbleedspurple"]I'm glad that's something I never had to worry about, 50 years and I have never questioned my fan hood to the Vikings, I know why I been a Vikings fan all this time, some people might call it a sickness or something, but this is my team to the end my friends, nothing but the team leaving Minnesota could change that glad I don't have to worry about that for the rest of my life.[/qu


My thoughts exactly!!!!

[JellyBean2144]

It is so frustrating to know that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Rams have a super bowwlbowl ringbut we do not....

[JellyBean2144]

It is so frustrating to know that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Rams have a super bowwlbowl ringbut we do not....

[PurpleMustReign]

It is so frustrating to know that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Rams have a super bowwlbowl ringbut we do not....

Don't forget the Saints. And the Cardinals were within seconds.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

[VikeMike]

It's been 42 years as a fan of the purple for me. And, the rational side of me wonders why I still care so much as I do. The past 37 years without a Super Bowl visit has been frustrating, to say the least. And, still, I care. Somedays, I wish I didn't -- I really do -- because I know it's emotional energy given up to something that's merely a distraction to what really matters. But at the beginning of each season, there I am, hoping for the best and watching every freaking game.

By the way, I know I'm in the minority on this, but I think the Vikings had a better change of winning the Super Bowl with the 2009 team than the 1998, had they gotten that far. The offense was as nearly as explosive (although it was pretty damn good), but the defense was better, overall (plus the injuries the 1998 defense suffered in the NFC Championship Game). And, finally, I think we should have matched up better against the 2009 Colts then the defending champion 1998 Broncos.

Then again, it's neither here nor there because either team failed to reach the SB. *sigh*

[VikingPaul73]

ooh yes! Sorry, guess I should have included that, here it is.


http://msn.foxsports.com/south/story/nf ... -20-012714

Thanks!!!!!