Buy Or Sell: The Minnesota Vikings are a better franchise, than the Tampa Bay...

Sep 4, 2011
#1
...Buccaneers? I have this dude that's a Bucs fan in my school, and he's trying to tell me that they are more important. I understand they've won a SB, but I bet you that was the least-memerable SB of all-time. The Vikings have just had to many players in their time.

Randy Moss and Cris Carter were complete monsters, if any of you got to see them. Arguably the best WR duo of all-time as well. And I haven't even mentioned their '98 season..

So what do you think? Which franchise has been more important to NFL, since they were created. Vikings or Bucs?
When I say All-Time guys for the both franchises, I also include recent success or failure.
@BuckyV3: Dude, shutup. Your a CHIACGO Bulls fan, CHICAGO Cubs fan, and then a Packers fan?? Lol can't handle the Bears being bad I guess.
 

Kilroy

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2010
#5
Vikes are 0-4 in the Super Bowl. So what about 1998? They got to the playoffs and dropped a giant turd...again. Just because a team's been around longer doesn't mean its entitled to more respect than another.
 

King Of NJ

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2009
#6
Vikings all-time are a more memorable franchise and have a richer tradition

Over the last decade the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They won a Super Bowl and had a memorable defense with players such as Warren Sapp and John Lynch that might be in the Hall Of Fame.
 
#7
Id probably go with the Viking due to this "Since the merger, they have made the playoffs 24 times, third most in the league. The team has played in four Super Bowls, but lost each time. The team currently has ten members in the Pro Football Hall of Fame: Fran Tarkenton, Alan Page, Bud Grant, Jim Finks, Paul Krause, Ron Yary, Carl Eller, Gary Zimmerman, Randall McDaniel, and John Randle."

Plus the Bucs used to be horrid I mean terrible