If Gary Anderson didn't choke on that routine FG (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

So I'm checking out the 1998 standings. I was shocked to see Atlanta was 14-2 in the regular season.

Everyone remembers Minnesota being 15-1. We remember the offensive machine the Vikes had, with Randall Cunningham, Robert Smith, Randy Moss and Cris Carter. They set a record for points scored in a single season. Gary Anderson was perfect on all kicks that year before he gagged on the chip shot which would have almost certainly sent them to the Super Bowl.

Most everyone remembers defending-champion Denver being 14-2. The Broncos were 2nd in points-scored in '98.

But over the last decade, with so many people referring to the Falcons as "the worst Super Bowl team ever" (along with the '94 Chargers), I had completely forgotten that the Falcons were so good. They came into the big game against Denver on an 11-game winning streak, and their running attack with Jamal Anderson was extremely good.

So with Denver destroying a team which just beat Minnesota, can we assume they likely would have beaten the Vikings? Or is it all about matchups. Despite Minnesota only being one game better than the Falcons, you have to believe that Denver was quietly celebrating when the Vikes got knocked off. If I recall correctly, Minneosta was all set to be installed as 7-point favorites over the Broncos in the Super Bowl had they beaten Atlanta.

 

[pigskin pimp]

It certainly would have made for a more interesting SuperBowl that year. The hype and the game itself.

I don't want to make a choice on a 98 winner between the Vikes and Broncos, but I do remember that the Vikes had some injuries from the Atlanta game on defense, including the heart of the defense in DT/DE John Randle. Still the Viking's offense held the NFL record for points in a regular season until New England this year.

Instead, we were handed an Atlanta DB solicitating a hooker (Eugene Robinson, if I recall) and a boring game with Denver stacking the box on Jamal Anderson.

 

[snogger]

All you need to know: The sheriff

He would have choked it away much like he choked away the NFC Championship game.

He was a "Coach not to lose" type instead of a "do whatever it takes to win".

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Yes, the Falcons were no pushover, that is for sure.

That Viking team was one of the best ever (I don't care what anyone says - sorry, you've brought up some bad feelings here! ). They didn't play many close games, and the defense was a lot better than people give them credit for. The Falcons were a good team, as were the Broncos, but I still think that the Viking team was one of the better ones in history - they just picked the wrong week to lose. They had everything on offense - the line, the RB, and the WR...

OK, I'm done, I think I am going to cry!

 

[Bri]

When I watched highlight games(those shortenned ESPN ones) of the 85 Pats. Sure Tippett and Hannah were phenomenal and there was some good players but I think Raymond Berry performed a magic trick coaching that team to a Supe. In the end, the guy took such a beating as a coach. In hindsight, I think the fans and media goofed. He did a terrific job and that's one of the worst Supe teams ever.

 

[Bri]

Those Vikings had no poise and were arrogant on offense. Remember the Giants beat them too. Long long drives made them rush and make mistakes. Pretty poor coaching and/or on the field leadership IMO.

Shanny would have had Davis carry them thru some long drives and it would have been over.

 

[Tom Servo]

You do realize that if Minnesota had played Denver, that would've been the Super Bowl that Tom Clancy had in The Sum of All Fears?

 

[snellman]

Why must you people keep bringing that FG up?

Probably a good thing they didn't make it though. They probably would have just lost another SB for us lifers anyway.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If I recall correctly, Minneosta was all set to be installed as 7-point favorites over the Broncos in the Super Bowl had they beaten Atlanta.

No way is that correct. The Broncos were the best team that year, and would have been favored. They only finished one game worse than the Vikings in the standings, because once they lost their first game to go to 13-1, they had nothing to play for the last two weeks, and played Miami in week 16 with a vanilla offensive game plan. Meanwhile, the Vikings had to keep winning till the end of the regular season to keep home field since the Falcons were only a game behind them. The 16-3 Falcons were the worst Super Bowl team ever? Uh, no. Not even close. That team was damn good. The Vikings would have matched up with the Broncos better than the Falcons would have, but the result would have been the same. The Broncos would have scored all day on that Vikings defense.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Those Vikings had no poise and were arrogant on offense. Remember the Giants beat them too. Long long drives made them rush and make mistakes. Pretty poor coaching and/or on the field leadership IMO.Shanny would have had Davis carry them thru some long drives and it would have been over.

Sorry, but the Bucs were the only other team to beat the Vikings that year. And the Viking defense was 13th overall in the NFL that year, so it wasn't like they were pushovers. How quickly a missed FG makes everyone forget the way things really were.

 

[Raider Nation]

If I recall correctly, Minneosta was all set to be installed as 7-point favorites over the Broncos in the Super Bowl had they beaten Atlanta.

No way is that correct. The Broncos were the best team that year, and would have been favored. They only finished one game worse than the Vikings in the standings, because once they lost their first game to go to 13-1, they had nothing to play for the last two weeks, and played Miami in week 16 with a vanilla offensive game plan. Meanwhile, the Vikings had to keep winning till the end of the regular season to keep home field since the Falcons were only a game behind them.

Yeah, you're probably right. I always had that number in my head for some reason. Still think Minny would've been favored though.

 

[Raider Nation]

When I watched highlight games(those shortenned ESPN ones) of the 85 Pats. Sure Tippett and Hannah were phenomenal and there was some good players but I think Raymond Berry performed a magic trick coaching that team to a Supe. In the end, the guy took such a beating as a coach. In hindsight, I think the fans and media goofed. He did a terrific job and that's one of the worst Supe teams ever.

New England ruined everything that year. In the AFC title game at Miami, they took out the one team that could (and DID) beat the Bears. People were salivating over the prospect of that Dolphins/Bears rematch in the Super Bowl. Oh well...

 

[Raider Nation]

One thing I forgot to mention which I heard on the radio just the other day. The play before Anderson's miss, there was a run towards the left hash. Anderson's kick was wide left. Green's critics pointed out that he should have been aware of the situation and run the ball to the right, given that Anderson's kicks had a natural left hook to them. Still no excuse though... that kick has to be made.

 

[BusterTBronco]

Ridiculous. The Broncos were the defending superbowl champions, won 18 straight games over the course of the 1997 and 1998 seasons, had a 2,000+ plus yard rushing season from Terrell Davis, and multiple future hall of famers on that team not to mention John Elway.

The 1998 Denver Broncos were probably one of the five best teams in NFL history.

 

[KoolKat]

I remember feeling a bit of relief when I found out we would be playing Atlanta. That being said, I'll take that 1998 Broncos team against any in history.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I say the Broncos win in easier fashion.

Instead of one Falcons DB (safety Eugene 'Genie Rob' Robinson) getting arrested the night before the Super Bowl - I say a half dozen to dozen of the Vikings get arrested.

 

[travdogg]

For that matter, if Michael Dean Perry gets off the field the in 96' against the Jags, do the Broncos win 3 in a row?

That's probably more likely than Minnesota beating Denver in 98', hell I actually thought that the second best team in 98' was the Jets.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Those Vikings had no poise and were arrogant on offense. Remember the Giants beat them too. Long long drives made them rush and make mistakes. Pretty poor coaching and/or on the field leadership IMO.Shanny would have had Davis carry them thru some long drives and it would have been over.

Swing and a miss!It wasn't the Giants that beat the Vikes that year

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I don't think you Broncos fans remember so much about that Super Bowl

Elam missed two field goals. That would mean Viking points

Didn't Shannon Sharpe get injured and taken out of the game?

Elway threw a pass that bounced of Sharpe and was intercepted. That would have meant Viking points

It's not like the Broncos were shutting down the Atlanta offense. Three consecutive drives got the Falcons inside the Bronco 30 (IIRC) All in all they were insode the Bronco 30 seven times! TheFalcons turned the ball over 5 times. I don't think the Vikes would have done that.

I hate the Vikings but to give those kind of drives to that Viking offense. There would have been more then a couple field goals.

 

[SSOG]

Just to give an interesting perspective... according to the DVOA from the 1998 regular season, Denver was the #1 team in the league by a noticeable margin. The difference between #1 Denver and #2 Minnesota was 2.9%, while the difference between #2 Minnesota and #5 Atlanta was just .6%. Also, Minnesota's offense might have scored the most points that year, but Denver's offense was better according to DVOA. Denver's passing offense was #2 in DVOA despite having to start Bubby Brister for huge stretches, and the difference between Denver's running game and Minnesota's was absurd. In fact, according to DVOA, Minnesota's offense was THIRD behind San Francisco's.

 

[ffldrew]

you have to believe that Denver was quietly celebrating when the Vikes got knocked off.

I was in the South Stands that day and the crowd went crazy when he missed. I know we would rather face the Falcons - with Dan Reeves as coach we knew we would most likely have an easier path.

 

[Tecmo]

No way the Vikes D would of stopped that Denver running game. The Vikes D would of got tired just like they did against Atlanta.

They were a smaller bunch of front.

I do like to think that could of been a great game if the Vikes were to take what was given to them and run 5 yds a carry. They were very capable of putting together long drives. The Vikes had a dominant line, they could of ran over teams, but the Sheriff was too into his 'system'.

 

[[scooter]]

MINNESOTA VIKINGS: 1969 NFL CHAMPIONS!

 

[Master of Past and Present]

Anyone who thinks the Falcons are one of the worst Super Bowl teams are just out of their mind. They lost two games that year and both were to 12-4 teams. Then they had to beat the 49ers to make it to the Vikings and that 49ers team was still really good. Young 4,000+, Hearst 1,000+ and 500+, Owens and Rice 1,000+ and Stokes 700+. Falcons were also 4th in points, 4th in points against, and 3rd in differential. They were first in takeaways.

Back on topic, I think the Vikings beat the Broncos.

 

[Bri]

Those Vikings had no poise and were arrogant on offense. Remember the Giants beat them too. Long long drives made them rush and make mistakes. Pretty poor coaching and/or on the field leadership IMO.

Shanny would have had Davis carry them thru some long drives and it would have been over.

Swing and a miss!It wasn't the Giants that beat the Vikes that year

Didn't say they beat them that yearhttp://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyg/2000.htm

 

[Bri]

Those Vikings had no poise and were arrogant on offense. Remember the Giants beat them too. Long long drives made them rush and make mistakes. Pretty poor coaching and/or on the field leadership IMO.Shanny would have had Davis carry them thru some long drives and it would have been over.

Sorry, but the Bucs were the only other team to beat the Vikings that year. And the Viking defense was 13th overall in the NFL that year, so it wasn't like they were pushovers. How quickly a missed FG makes everyone forget the way things really were.

Apparently I wasn't clear, sorryI was referring to the 2000 GmenI have always felt that Dennis Green's teams panic/rush "press" right after their opponent has a nice long clock eating drive. Reason I brought up the Gmen is because I thought it was an even worse beating really bringing it to light. sorry for the confusion

 

[Ghost Rider]

If I recall correctly, Minneosta was all set to be installed as 7-point favorites over the Broncos in the Super Bowl had they beaten Atlanta.

No way is that correct. The Broncos were the best team that year, and would have been favored. They only finished one game worse than the Vikings in the standings, because once they lost their first game to go to 13-1, they had nothing to play for the last two weeks, and played Miami in week 16 with a vanilla offensive game plan. Meanwhile, the Vikings had to keep winning till the end of the regular season to keep home field since the Falcons were only a game behind them.

Yeah, you're probably right. I always had that number in my head for some reason. Still think Minny would've been favored though.

I think it would have been a smaller spread that the Denver/Atlanta game was (I think it was 7 1/2); I will give you that.

I don't think you Broncos fans remember so much about that Super BowlElam missed two field goals. That would mean Viking pointsDidn't Shannon Sharpe get injured and taken out of the game?Elway threw a pass that bounced of Sharpe and was intercepted. That would have meant Viking pointsIt's not like the Broncos were shutting down the Atlanta offense. Three consecutive drives got the Falcons inside the Bronco 30 (IIRC) All in all they were insode the Bronco 30 seven times! TheFalcons turned the ball over 5 times. I don't think the Vikes would have done that.I hate the Vikings but to give those kind of drives to that Viking offense. There would have been more then a couple field goals.

That is the most convoluted thinking I have seen in quite some time. To assume the game would have played out the exact same way in certain situations with two different teams playing makes zero sense.

 

[Routilla]

Not to hi-jack, but there have been other big plays that could have made for different SB champions. If Primetime had been correctly called for pass interference against M. Irvin in the '94 NFC title game, Dallas would have likely won 4 consecutive SBs. But that play is not the difference in the game, nor was Anderson's FG. Had either team made a few more plays it would not have come to that.