- Thread starter
- #1
GhostOfPoverty
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, most people I've heard talk about all-time great Vikings teams state 1998 as the GOAT Vikings team that simply shit the bed in the NFC title game against the Falcons. I tend to agree with this sentiment, as a 15-1 team with several blowout wins and the GOAT offense of the time speaks for itself. That said, I think a lot of people underestimate the 2009 team.
1998 was obviously a magical season. They had arguably the greatest offense of all time when considering the passing/offense friendly rules for the 2007 Patriots and 2013 Broncos compared to 90's rules. The defense was solidly middle of the pack in terms of the league, which made them almost impossible to beat when the offense was on their game - ie, the D wasn't great, but didn't lose any games that the offense lit it up in.
2009 saw Brett Favre's best statistical year of his career, coupled with a top 10 GOAT (minimum) RB in AP, several other substantial contributors on offense for that year (Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice, Matt Birk, Steve Huthinson, Chester Taylor, etc), and an above average defense that was easily better than the '98 defense. The 2009 D was a unit that could do a lot more to salvage shitty games by the offense, on average anyway.
6/10 times, I'd say the 1998 team beats 2009 head to head. But I think the "magic" of the 2009 team is underrated by most. The 2009 team only had 1 clear bad loss against Arizona that year, with their 3 other losses being extremely close, and even BS due to dogshit officiating in their game against Pittsburg. They were arguably a team that *should have* gone 15-1 like '98 did, but I'll blame the extra losses primarily on Chilly, who was even better at shitting the bed than Dennis Green.
Cliffs:
- If both teams played at their absolute best, I think the 2009 team easily hangs with the 1998 team due to the superior 2009 defense allowing Favre/AD/Sidney Rice and co. to keep up with the insane offense of 1998.
1998 was obviously a magical season. They had arguably the greatest offense of all time when considering the passing/offense friendly rules for the 2007 Patriots and 2013 Broncos compared to 90's rules. The defense was solidly middle of the pack in terms of the league, which made them almost impossible to beat when the offense was on their game - ie, the D wasn't great, but didn't lose any games that the offense lit it up in.
2009 saw Brett Favre's best statistical year of his career, coupled with a top 10 GOAT (minimum) RB in AP, several other substantial contributors on offense for that year (Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice, Matt Birk, Steve Huthinson, Chester Taylor, etc), and an above average defense that was easily better than the '98 defense. The 2009 D was a unit that could do a lot more to salvage shitty games by the offense, on average anyway.
6/10 times, I'd say the 1998 team beats 2009 head to head. But I think the "magic" of the 2009 team is underrated by most. The 2009 team only had 1 clear bad loss against Arizona that year, with their 3 other losses being extremely close, and even BS due to dogshit officiating in their game against Pittsburg. They were arguably a team that *should have* gone 15-1 like '98 did, but I'll blame the extra losses primarily on Chilly, who was even better at shitting the bed than Dennis Green.
Cliffs:
- If both teams played at their absolute best, I think the 2009 team easily hangs with the 1998 team due to the superior 2009 defense allowing Favre/AD/Sidney Rice and co. to keep up with the insane offense of 1998.