40 replies to this topic

[26554]

1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?

2. Is Bill Brown underrated? I mean in general, not by Vikings' fans.

3. Was Chuck Foreman the best all-purpose back of the mid-70's?

4. Although Fran Tarkenton was named NFL MVP in 1975, was Foreman the Vikings' true MVP during that period?

5. Best/Worst Tommy Kramer moment?

6. Were Jerry Burns' and Dennis Green's stints as Vikings' hc ultimately successful or disappointing?

7. Was the Vikings loss to the Falcons in the 1998 NFC Championship game really as big an upset as many make it out to be? I agree that the Vikings should've won, but the Falcons were 14-2, had a strong running game and, like the Vikings, were a dome team.

8. Is Randy Moss the most talented wr you've seen first-hand? Should he have to wait a year or two to get into the HoF because he didn't always live up to his potential?

9. Biggest missed opportunity (sorry, Evan and John) - 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1987, 1998, 2000 or 2009?

10. HOF - Tingelhoff, Marshall, Blair, Browner, Doleman, Birk. Which/any? I left off Cris Carter because I think he'll make it in in the next couple of years.

11. Will Leslie Frazier and Donovan McNabb be able to lead the Vikings back to the playoffs in 2011?

12. Will the Vikings still be playing in Minnesota five years from now?

[Bob Gill]

1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?

I don't think so. He may not have worked out that well overall, but my impression is that he was believed at that time to have a real future as a head coach, and the Vikings probably considered themselves lucky to get him. Also, since he'd just retired after winning a championship with the Eagles, he was really a prominent name, and they might have figured that would help them too.


3. Was Chuck Foreman the best all-purpose back of the mid-70's?

All-purpose, yes. I think you can make a good case that he was the best back other than O.J. at that time. Franco Harris certainly deserves consideration too, but I think for five years there, 1973-77, Foreman was one of the three best backs in the NFL. Which is why I think he probably ought to be in the Hall of Fame. There are quite a few backs already in who can't meet that qualification.


6. Were Jerry Burns' and Dennis Green's stints as Vikings' hc ultimately successful or disappointing?

I may not be remembering everything, but I think Green, at least, was pretty successful with the Vikings.


7. Was the Vikings loss to the Falcons in the 1998 NFC Championship game really as big an upset as many make it out to be? I agree that the Vikings should've won, but the Falcons were 14-2, had a strong running game and, like the Vikings, were a dome team.

I don't think it was any great upset at all. I don't think a victory by a 14-2 team can ever be considered anything more than a very minor upset. Of course, the fact that the Vikings had a pretty good lead and lost it adds to the story, but that's a different thing.


9. Biggest missed opportunity (sorry, Evan and John) - 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1987, 1998, 2000 or 2009?

Two stand out for me: 1969 and 1998. But I could see an argument for 2009 too. I think those three are the biggest.


10. HOF - Tinglehoff, Marshall, Blair, Browner, Doleman, Birk. Which/any? I left off Cris Carter because I think he'll make it in in the next couple of years.

Tinglehoff definitely, Marshall no way in the world. Doleman, maybe, though I'd have to look at his all-pro credentials. I think Chuck Foreman might be a better candidate than any of these, actually. I've always mentioned Tinglehoff as a major Hall of Fame snub, as many of you have, but really, I don't know that he was ever as important to the Vikings as Foreman was from 1973-77, or maybe 1978. By that standard, Foreman might be the best candidate of all.

[26554]

Tinglehoff definitely, Marshall no way in the world. Doleman, maybe, though I'd have to look at his all-pro credentials. I think Chuck Foreman might be a better candidate than any of these, actually. I've always mentioned Tinglehoff as a major Hall of Fame snub, as many of you have, but really, I don't know that he was ever as important to the Vikings as Foreman was from 1973-77, or maybe 1978. By that standard, Foreman might be the best candidate of all.

That's a great observation. I thought about including Foreman and probably should've gone ahead and done so. He doesn't have much of a chance, but neither do Blair, Browner or Birk. Marshall shouldn't have much of a chance, but his name seems to keep coming up. Don't get me wrong, he was a solid player overall and occasionally more than that, but I laugh when people try to make him out to be the Cal Ripken, Jr. of the NFL.

[bachslunch]

2. Is Bill Brown underrated? I mean in general, not by Vikings' fans.

10. HOF - Tinglehoff, Marshall, Blair, Browner, Doleman, Birk. Which/any? I left off Cris Carter because I think he'll make it in in the next couple of years.

I definitely think Bill Brown is in the next-tier down of 60s non-HoF RBs with players like Don Perkins and Ken Willard. Underrated and very good, if not at HoF caliber.

Absolutely yes for Mick Tingelhoff at 7(5AP)/6/none, and I don't see how Chris Doleman at 3(2AP)/8/90s can be denied when Fred Dean and Richard Dent are HoF-ers. I'm all for both being elected, and these are the two most likely to get in sooner or later. I also think Joey Browner at 4(3AP)/6/80s seriously belongs in the mix with the other safeties of the era not in such as Kenny Easley at 4(3AP)/5/80s and Deron Cherry at 3(3AP)/6/none and Donnie Shell at 3(3AP)/5/none, though I doubt any of these will be voted in.

Matt Blair's 1(1AP)/6/none is a little thin for a LB of the era. Given that he's a close contemporary of Robert Brazile at 5(2AP)/7/70s, Randy Gradishar at 5(2AP)/7/none, and Isiah Robertson at 3(2AP)/6/none, I don't see it happening for Blair. I just don't think he's got enough to break through this group.

Matt Birk at 1(0AP)/6/none is caught in the second tier of centers from the 90s and 00s with guys like Olin Kreutz at 2(1AP)/6/00s and Tom Nalen at 3(2AP)/5/none and Jeff Saturday at 2(2AP)/5/none -- and I think only the top dogs from each decade, Dermontti Dawson and Kevin Mawae, will get in or should.

I've posted my strongly anti-Jim-Marshall-for-the-HoF rant here before, and will do so again. In his 20 year career, Marshall went to two measly pro bowls and was named a 1st team all pro exactly zero times. Yes, that's a zero. Dean and Dent's anemic postseason honors look lavish next to Marshall's. And I think anyone comparing Marshall to Cal Ripken or Lou Gehrig is being unfair to these two baseball HoF-ers -- both Ripken and Gehrig were HoF-ers with or without their consecutive game streaks. As it is, that’s the only HoF argument Marshall has, and as such he has no better claim to Pro Football HoF membership than Everett Scott has to Baseball HoF membership.

Like you, I also think Cris Carter and Randy Moss will be elected sooner or later.

[bachslunch]

3. Was Chuck Foreman the best all-purpose back of the mid-70's?

I think one can definitely make that case. As for the HoF -- with Floyd Little in, it's really hard to see why Foreman isn't just as deserving and likely more so. Foreman is one of those "I won't squawk if he gets elected but I won't lose sleep if he isn't" kind of guys.

[BD Sullivan]

1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?

Perhaps more interesting were some of the other candidates that were mentioned: Sid Gillman, Ara Parseghian, Charley Winner, Harry Gilmer and ... Bud Grant. The Vikings may have figured that Van Brocklin's leadership skills, combined with his STRONG desire to get back at the Eagles for supposedly going back on their word would be an asset.

[Bob Gill]

>I've posted my strongly anti-Jim-Marshall-for-the-HoF rant here before, and will do so again. In his 20 year career, Marshall went to two measly pro bowls and was named a 1st team all pro exactly zero times.

This is really the worst result of campaigns (sometimes successful) to put unqualified guys in the Hall of Fame: It makes you focus on them negatively all the time. Jim Marshall was a good player on a very good team for a long time, but whenever I talk about him now I find myself using words like "ludicrous." Floyd Little was a very good player and actually a favorite of mine at the time, but now I almost never mention his name without adding words like "ridiculous choice." Dick LeBeau was a fine player and has been a very good assistant coach, but I can't think of him now without using words like "totally unqualified." All because they've been put in the running for an honor they clearly don't merit.

Of course, I realize that most people don't know that much about any of these guys, and now think Little belongs in a class with Jim Brown and Walter Payton, and LeBeau is on the same level as Night Train Lane and Deion Sanders, not to mention Sid Gillman and Paul Brown. So sticking these guys in the Hall of Fame inflates them for all of the great uninformed. But for those who actually know anything about them, it sort of insults them in an indirect way. Just go back and find the last 50 mentions on this forum of LeBeau, Little, Marshall -- oh, and Marshall Goldberg too -- and you'll see what I mean.

Oh well. I can't do anything to stop this from going on, so I guess this just constitutes howling into the wind.

[bachslunch]

This is really the worst result of campaigns (sometimes successful) to put unqualified guys in the Hall of Fame: It makes you focus on them negatively all the time.

Bob, you make a fair point. It's not like Jim Marshall had no business on the field -- he was a good player and had a very long career. He's just not in any way a HoF-er, and there's a difference between the two ideas.

Part of this may be that in order to counter idiocy (such as the argument that Jim Marshall is a HoF-er) one has to make the negative points clearly and often. There are likely two sources for such idiocy:

-ignorant people who don't think their ideas through and/or parrot what they hear or see elsewhere without examination. In this case, I see my posting something like an anti-Jim-Marshall message as an attempt to educate, to get people to at least stop and think. Sometimes, it's the best one can hope for. In fact, I've been known to brave less thoughtful online venues like Bleacher Report and Pro Football Talk and Pulp List and Fan Nation and Everyjoe and Faniq and the HoF's own forum just to air views like this. The level of ignorance at such places can be breathtaking. I think the level of HoF conversation at the Zoneblitz website improved about the time I started posting there regularly -- there are some thoughtful and knowledgeable folks there these days and I'm hoping I helped that some. From my standpoint, I may not get things right all the time, but I'm trying my best and am certainly open to examining beliefs.

-well-organized campaigns pushing such candidates. I see this as akin to the coordinated campaign to clear the negativity surrounding Pete Rose. There's a thinking here that if you say anything often enough and forcefully enough, on the internet and elsewhere, it somehow becomes reality. I feel scuzzy tactics merit an equally strong dose of the truth. Especially as time passes, people forget what the truth is, and to paraphrase, the price of knowledge is eternal vigilance. I'm thinking the pfraforum and entities like it are important venues for the search for the truth, and thus especially valuable.

In an ideal world, everyone would be thoughtful and informed and able to look at issues of this kind without bias or self-interest. Sadly, that's not the case.

[BD Sullivan]

Bob, you make a fair point. It's not like Jim Marshall had no business on the field -- he was a good player and had a very long career. He's just not in any way a HoF-er, and there's a difference between the two ideas.

Part of this may be that in order to counter idiocy (such as the argument that Jim Marshall is a HoF-er) one has to make the negative points clearly and often. There are likely two sources for such idiocy:

-ignorant people who don't think their ideas through and/or parrot what they hear or see elsewhere without examination. In this case, I see my posting something like an anti-Jim-Marshall message as an attempt to educate, to get people to at least stop and think. Sometimes, it's the best one can hope for. In fact, I've been known to brave less thoughtful online venues like Bleacher Report and Pro Football Talk and Pulp List and Fan Nation and Everyjoe and Faniq and the HoF's own forum just to air views like this. The level of ignorance at such places can be breathtaking. I think the level of HoF conversation at the Zoneblitz website improved about the time I started posting there regularly -- there are some thoughtful and knowledgeable folks there these days and I'm hoping I helped that some. From my standpoint, I may not get things right all the time, but I'm trying my best and am certainly open to examining beliefs.

-well-organized campaigns pushing such candidates. I see this as akin to the coordinated campaign to clear the negativity surrounding Pete Rose. There's a thinking here that if you say anything often enough and forcefully enough, on the internet and elsewhere, it somehow becomes reality. I feel scuzzy tactics merit an equally strong dose of the truth. Especially as time passes, people forget what the truth is, and to paraphrase, the price of knowledge is eternal vigilance. I'm thinking the pfraforum and entities like it are important venues for the search for the truth, and thus especially valuable.

In an ideal world, everyone would be thoughtful and informed and able to look at issues of this kind without bias or self-interest. Sadly, that's not the case.

While not necessarily germane to the Marshall debate, it's become fairly common for former players/coaches to (sometimes) less-than-subtly use their media soapbox to either campaign for themselves, a teammate or a contemporary. It's annoying to hear a phrase like "future Hall of Famer" casually thrown around when discussing a player, either current or former.

One person who got in a few years ago, would likely have been long forgotten in a HOF debate, had his broadcasting career not put him front and center. When John Madden retired after the 1978 season, he had put up an outstanding record over his 10 seasons--the same length as Lombardi's career. However, his one Super Bowl victory was offset somewhat by his less-than-impressive record of 1-5 in conference title games, and he had been derided as an Al Davis flunky. He became a broadcaster the following year, but was given D-level games (mostly from the Bay Area), hardly the image of a revered coach. Contrast that with another Bay Area coach Bill Walsh, who retired a decade later and was immediately appointed to NBC's first-string broadcast team, with NBC overdosing on how great he was going to be--a huge blunder, if ever there was one.

[bachslunch]

it's become fairly common for former players/coaches to (sometimes) less-than-subtly use their media soapbox to either campaign for themselves, a teammate or a contemporary. It's annoying to hear a phrase like "future Hall of Famer" casually thrown around when discussing a player, either current or former.

True enough, and this is a big reason why I don't think the HoF voting process should include former players and coaches. Despite its correction of some unfortunate oversights, the track record of bad selections by the old Veteran's Committee in the Baseball Hall of Fame left by such folks is an embarrassment to that organization, as is its more recent overly-stringent straight-vote version that has admitted no one in over a decade. There has to be a better way.

The PFHoF doesn't need this kind of foolishness, despite the squawking one sees in let's-fix-the-PFHoF-selection-process articles to the contrary.

[paulksandiego]

It's too late. The foolishness has started and will probably continue in regards to under-qualified selections.

[evan]

Great questions! Of course as a long-suffering Vikings fan, I feel obligated to respond to all of them:
1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?
I agree with Bob that the Vikings did pretty well to get a name like the Dutchman, even though he had no coaching experience. It wasn’t like expansion coaching jobs were seen as desirable by most legitimate coaching candidates anyway. They weren’t going to lure a top college coach or even a well-reputed assistant.

An ancillary question would be, if mass media was around in the early 60s, would Van Brocklin have acted differently (tempered his drunk press conferences and profanity) or would he have been exposed as a mess earlier and been jettisoned after a year or two?

2. Is Bill Brown underrated? I mean in general, not by Vikings' fans.
Probably a little underrated. He could do a lot of things well, and had some big seasons for the era (16 TDs in 1964 and 14 in 1968). When he retired I’m pretty sure he was in the Top 20 rushers of all-time.

3. Was Chuck Foreman the best all-purpose back of the mid-70's?
Hard to separate Foreman from Lydell Mitchell (although Mitchell had Third-Down Don McCauley to share the load, particularly on, well, third down), except that Foreman had bigger post-season games. I’d go with him as the best all-purpose back of the mid-70s and the best all-purpose back of the entire 70s really. The Vikings used him up because he could do so many things well, he was their best option on most plays, any down and distance. The guy could line up as a flanker and get open down the sideline. The effort and exertion he gave on every play was simply unlike any player I’ve ever seen (Although Adrian Peterson comes close). Too bad he couldn’t do what Calvin Hill and a few others did and extend his career a little longer by becoming exclusively a pass-catching RB into the early 80s.

4. Although Fran Tarkenton was named NFL MVP in 1975, was Foreman the Vikings' true MVP during that period?
Definitely could make a case for it. Like Terrell Davis was to Elway, Foreman was to Tarkenton. Both QBs were outstanding players, but when paired with remarkable RBs they became awesome.

5. Best/Worst Tommy Kramer moment?
Great question. Best moment for me was the 1981 air assault for an upset victory at San Diego. I was fearing an embarrassing blowout as the Chargers were at their peak and the Vikes historically faltered against AFC teams, especially on the road. But Kramer led the Vikes back against a really good opponent in a very exciting game. Since the game went long, CBS switched to national coverage of the last few minutes, in time for me to see an onsides kick recovered by Terry LeCount I think and the game-winning FG.

A close second would be the revenge game the next week against the unbeaten Eagles also in 1981, when the Vikes went up big early. There would be no rides off the field for Vermeil that day, like he had in 1980 at the Met. I’m sure Bud didn’t like the look of that.

Honorable mentions would be the comeback against SF in 1977 (actually that might be No. 1 the more I think about it, although Kramer only played part of the game) and the miracle against Cleveland in 1980 (Kramer actually had a big game even before Squadron Right, Squadron Fly). The loss to Washington in 1986 was exciting nevertheless, and the win over Chicago in 1986 (with the fans chanting We want McMahon) was exhilarating.

Worst moment would have to be all the off-the-field transgressions, typically alcohol-related, that made you wonder what version of Kramer you would get. On the field, the back-to-back 5-interception games in 1980 were not fun, as was any game from 1984, and the disappointing loss to Houston in 1986 when the Vikes still had a chance to make the playoffs.

6. Were Jerry Burns' and Dennis Green's stints as Vikings' hc ultimately successful or disappointing?
I enjoyed Burnsie, seemed like the Vikes were primed to break out, but just couldn’t do it. Too many egos and crazy stuff. The teams that won in those years (Bears, Giants, Skins, Niners) were just too good, I don’t think you could call it disappointing really. Green lost too many home playoff games for my liking, it seemed like the Vikes did not play their best when they needed to.

7. Was the Vikings loss to the Falcons in the 1998 NFC Championship game really as big an upset as many make it out to be? I agree that the Vikings should've won, but the Falcons were 14-2, had a strong running game and, like the Vikings, were a dome team.
Many people thought the Vikings’ 15-1 was eons better than the Falcons’ 14-2 because of all the points that Cunningham, Moss, Carter, etc. put up. But the Vikings rarely out-hit anybody that year. When I saw Dwayne Rudd duck-walking into the end zone with a fumble recovery in one of their blowouts, I was thinking this team is getting too cocky before they’ve done anything yet. The lack of real solid hitters on that team left them a little soft defensively, and that’s what did them in. Anderson’s FG miss hurt, but it was the defense that let Atlanta go right down the field and score. A great defense doesn’t let that happen.

8. Is Randy Moss the most talented wr you've seen first-hand? Should he have to wait a year or two to get into the HoF because he didn't always live up to his potential?
If you’re talking about pure skills and talent, to me, John Stallworth was much more talented than Moss, and just about anyone else. I think Moss will wind up waiting a year or two to get to Canton as all his personality-related foibles have in some ways superseded his production on the field.

9. Biggest missed opportunity (sorry, Evan and John) - 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1987, 1998, 2000 or 2009?
I appreciate the sympathy. The vast majority of those years the Vikings lost to teams that were just better than they were. I think the biggest missed opportunity was in 1987. The Vikes only went 8-4 in non-strike games, but had a plethora of young talent, and a ton of momentum generated from the 44-10 and 36-24 road playoff pastings of 12-3 New Orleans and 13-2 San Francisco, respectively. Considering the records of the opponents, those were probably the two most impressive Vikings playoff wins ever, and on the short list of most impressive back-to-back road playoff wins in NFL history.

The reason that 1987 was their best shot was that the NFL lacked a super team that season. There was no team in the league that the Vikings could not only beat, but wipe out on a given Sunday. In the regular season against eventual AFC champ Denver, the Vikings led 34-17 late in the fourth quarter before giving up 10 cosmetic points to make the final 34-27 score closer than the game was. Even eventual champ Washington was on its way to getting blown out of the Metrodome in the season finale. The Vikings were ahead 7-0 and were within a few yards of going up 14-0 early, but a 100-yard interception return for a touchdown by Barry Wilburn kept the Redskins in it, and even though the Vikings outplayed Washington all day and held a 24-14 fourth quarter lead, the Redskins got some late heroics from Ricky Sanders and won 27-24 in overtime.

If Minnesota hadn’t gotten sunk by Washington in the NFC Championship, I think they would have lambasted Denver in the Super Bowl just like the Redskins did.

10. HOF - Tinglehoff, Marshall, Blair, Browner, Doleman, Birk. Which/any? I left off Cris Carter because I think he'll make it in in the next couple of years.

I’m one of the few who isn’t entirely sure on Tingelhoff, just because I think he got some of his rep off of pretty weak opponents. I’ve never heard any of the better d-linemen overtly praise him. But maybe nobody’s ever asked them, so I shouldn’t judge too much off of that.

Marshall isn’t a Hall of Famer, but definitely an all-timer in terms of being an inspirational captain, and in some ways that’s as good.

Matt Blair often looked like the best athlete on the field, and if he was on a better team with better defensive talent he would have been a Hall of Famer. There was nothing he couldn’t do – run, tackle, jump, swat passes and kicks out of the air. And a really good guy by all accounts as well.

Browner and Kenny Easley are near-twins I suppose. Browner probably falls a few years short of HOF status, but in his prime he was a freaking demon out there. No one, and I mean no one, in the league wanted to see that purple blur wearing No. 47 coming at them.

Doleman and Birk I think of more as HOVG types, just not quite dominant enough for HOF for me.

11. Will Leslie Frazier and Donovan McNabb be able to lead the Vikings back to the playoffs in 2011?
I’m 42 years old this September, and have been dying each fall with this team for 37 of those years. That kind of sinks your optimism after a while. Looking at the schedule I see between 4-12 and 6-10 for various reasons, but I hope they give Frazier another year or two to see if he can improve on that.

12. Will the Vikings still be playing in Minnesota five years from now?
Hard to say, although I think the last I saw on the Arden Hills plan was that it had a chance to make it.

[bachslunch]

I’m one of the few who isn’t entirely sure on Tingelhoff, just because I think he got some of his rep off of pretty weak opponents. I’ve never heard any of the better d-linemen overtly praise him. But maybe nobody’s ever asked them, so I shouldn’t judge too much off of that.

I've seen somewhere that Tingelhoff has been highly praised by various MLBs who played opposite him, most notably Ray Nitschke. Wish I could find the place where I saw that, or I'd post a link or citation.

[evan]

I've seen somewhere that Tingelhoff has been highly praised by various MLBs who played opposite him, most notably Ray Nitschke. Wish I could find the place where I saw that, or I'd post a link or citation.

Thanks bachslunch, that's the kind of stuff I'm trying to find out more about for my own education. I know Tingelhoff gets a lot of HOF consideration for his six pro bowls and five all-pro nods. I’m wondering if anyone in the Forum can help me get some insight into his talent. Was he as good or better than a HOF contemporary like Jim Otto?

Here are some things that are kind of underwhelming to me about Tingelhoff:

Four of his six Pro Bowl years (1964-69) came for Viking teams that didn’t make the playoffs, sort of the building years leading up to the 70s. By the time the rest of the team became dominant in the 70s, Tingelhoff was no longer garnering all-pro honors. For the last eight or nine years of his career, I think he was starting to be thought of as a center who had seen the game pass him by. He seemed undersized as he wasn’t a product of the weight room or steroids, and seemed to have trouble handling nose tackles when the 3-4 defense came into vogue. So in some ways Tingelhoff’s longevity hurts the memory of his career, as for a long portion of his career he was not known as an elite player.

What were his tasks specific to the Viking offense? How did he help the running game and passing game? Some times the center has to protect the middle of the line against blitzers, but I don’t recall too many teams blitzing up the middle against Tarkenton, as first of all Francis was smart enough to recognize it and audible to something to deal with it, and second of all if you blitzed and missed him, then all you did was flush him outside where he would go on a merry scramble to embarrass the stuffing out of you. So I’m not sure Tingelhoff was integral as a blitz protector per se.

The Viking running game was about average throughout much of Tingelhoff’s career, and nightmarishly bad in the Super Bowls, which of course taints my view of Tingelhoff, Yary, White, et al. I mean, there were just no holes in any of those games. I grant that the opponents in the Super Bowls were superior, but that’s why some of those guys are in the Hall of Fame and Tingelhoff and others are not.

I think Tingelhoff is thought of first as an ironman among centers (240 consecutive games is pretty darn good) and a guy with a strong run in the 1960s for mostly average teams, and then as a guy who saw the game pass him by for the last half of his career.

It seems that all I hear about Tingelhoff are his post-season honors, with no anecdotal or analytical evidence showing his talents and contributions. So please, Forum members, feel free to take issue and exception with any of my above comments and help me to understand why he should be enshrined in Canton. I want to learn here.

[Bob Gill]

>Four of his six Pro Bowl years (1964-69) came for Viking teams that didn’t make the playoffs, sort of the building years leading up to the 70s. By the time the rest of the team became dominant in the 70s, Tingelhoff was no longer garnering all-pro honors. For the last eight or nine years of his career, I think he was starting to be thought of as a center who had seen the game pass him by. He seemed undersized as he wasn’t a product of the weight room or steroids, and seemed to have trouble handling nose tackles when the 3-4 defense came into vogue. So in some ways Tingelhoff’s longevity hurts the memory of his career, as for a long portion of his career he was not known as an elite player.

That's not a ridiculous way to describe his career. An alternative view, though, is that his peak came earlier, when he was the best center in the NFL for several years, and even after his peak he was still a starter and significant contributor to a very good team. I think that's just as valid. But I imagine the Hall of Fame people are seeing it the way you described it above.

Interestingly enough, Jim Marshall's career trajectory was very similar, except nobody ever considered him the best at his position. But at least the folks at the NFL Network decided HE'S the one who's been snubbed by the Hall of Fame. That's crazy.

[bachslunch]

That's not a ridiculous way to describe his career. An alternative view, though, is that his peak came earlier, when he was the best center in the NFL for several years, and even after his peak he was still a starter and significant contributor to a very good team. I think that's just as valid. But I imagine the Hall of Fame people are seeing it the way you described it above.

Interestingly enough, Jim Marshall's career trajectory was very similar, except nobody ever considered him the best at his position. But at least the folks at the NFL Network decided HE'S the one who's been snubbed by the Hall of Fame. That's crazy.

Agreed. In short, both Jim Marshall and Mick Tingelhoff have longevity. But only Tingelhoff has any premium peak value -- and his peak lasted better than half a decade, which is pretty darned good. Marshall has no peak value to speak of.

[Todd Pence]

1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?

I wouldn't say so. Van Brocklin did a good job building an expansion franchise quickly into a competitive team, and developed many of the key players that made up the contending teams in the early years under Grant.

5. Best/Worst Tommy Kramer moment?

Best - the 1980 game against the Browns capped by the Hail Mary to Rashad. Worst - his five-INT performance three weeks later against the Eagles.


9. Biggest missed opportunity (sorry, Evan and John) - 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1987, 1998, 2000 or 2009?

1998 and 2009 have to top the llist. 1970 is one to ponder. The Vikes would have matched up well with both the Cowboys and Colts that year.

10. HOF - Tinglehoff, Marshall, Blair, Browner, Doleman, Birk. Which/any? I left off Cris Carter because I think he'll make it in in the next couple of years.

Tingelhoff definitely. Also I disagree with the Marshall nay-sayers, I think his HOF case is solid and don't understand the arguments against him. Also Doleman has a strong case. The rest - not realy a case. And what about Grady Alderman?

[Rupert Patrick]

I think one can definitely make that case. As for the HoF -- with Floyd Little in, it's really hard to see why Foreman isn't just as deserving and likely more so. Foreman is one of those "I won't squawk if he gets elected but I won't lose sleep if he isn't" kind of guys.

I would rate Foreman more deserving of Canton than Floyd Little, but I just don't think either one belongs.

As an all-purpose back, Foreman's closest contemporary was Lydell Mitchell, other players of this type include Roger Craig, Marcus Allen and Marshall Faulk but Faulk was the best player of this type I believe and Allen a close second. But like Foreman, Mitchell's peak was short, and I think Foreman was slightly better than Mitchell. I think it can also be argued that Chuck Foreman was at his peak in the mid-70's one of the 3-4 most valuable players in Pro Football, and probably should have been the 1975 NFL MVP instead of Tarkenton. If the Vikes had won a Super Bowl or two in that 1973-77 window (and they lost three Super Bowls, and the two other seasons they lost the Hail Mary game to Dallas in 1975 and upset the Rams and lost to Dallas in the NFC Championship game without Tark), I think it would have definitely helped the HOF cases of a number of Vikings players, Marshall, Tinglehoff and Foreman most notably.

Comparing Chuck Foreman to Terrell Davis in the short-but-brilliant career category, I think Davis comes out a little ahead, for helping lead the Broncos to back-to-back SB wins. The edge that Davis has in rushing offsets in my opinion Foreman's edge in receiving although Davis caught 25-45 passes a year in his peak. Tarkenton and Elway before 1997 were good comparisons, but Davis was the guy who put Denver over the top. The Vikings teams of the 70's still had a strong veteran nucleus, but even as good as Foreman was he could not put them over the top. Chuck Foreman was one of my favorite players of the 70's, but I cannot endorse him for the HOF, but he was a solid HOTVG type.

[Bob Gill]

>Tingelhoff definitely. Also I disagree with the Marshall nay-sayers, I think his HOF case is solid and don't understand the arguments against him.

The simple point is that he wasn't that good. He had a long career with one meaningless record (as most streaks are, especially the ones that don't require you to do any more than just show up), but in all that time he was never once chosen as a first-team all-pro. He only showed up as a second-team all-pro choice in four seasons. There are probably hundreds of guys with credentials as good as that who aren't in the Hall of Fame; I'm sure there are more than a dozen just at defensive end. That's why he doesn't belong, and I think it's pretty easy to understand.

[BD Sullivan]

1. Did Vikings' management make a mistake in going with Norm Van Brocklin as the franchise's first head coach?

I wouldn't say so. Van Brocklin did a good job building an expansion franchise quickly into a competitive team, and developed many of the key players that made up the contending teams in the early years under Grant.

Joe Thomas was the guy who was in charge of drafting the talent they brought in.