No, you're talking the first 48 years minus the first 10 years when they were really good and won one of those Super Bowl thingies. Did your trash ass team get anything like that in their first few decades? Oh they didn't? That's fascinating.

The Steelers went the first 40ish years of their team not winning shit. They were the 1999 resurrection of the Cleveland Browns if you took the misery the Cleveland Browns have experienced and added 15 more years of pain into the future on top of what they already experienced.

Like I was saying, it's probably smarter just to look at total franchise accomplishments. You don't look like a buttfucking moron that way.
[Reply]

Yep, pretty similar.

And yet even counting that, we STILL lead head-to-head in NFL games.
[Reply]

Fucking what? No you don't :-)
[Reply]

Well, strictly speaking that was the last game ever played by an AFL team - and it was the Chiefs.

When the final gun sounded on the Chiefs win over Minnesota, three things happened: 1) The AFL was dissolved, 2) Ten new teams became NFL Franchises, and 3) Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Baltimore joined those ten new teams to form the American Football Conference.

No, neither of us were NFL yet.

If you wanna argue with my time frame, the last six years seem like the place to start...
[Reply]

Totally irrelevant. Those first 20 meetings between the 2 teams still stand, no matter how you try to spin it.
[Reply]

Yes ... take the total H2H you or another guy just posted, and subtract the 1-19 AFL record.

Even with the recent streak we lead by 1 game, 2 games if you count our one playoff game, which we won (but we probably cheated right?) ��
[Reply]

Denver and Dallas/KC founded at the same time.

Oh, look who has more total wins as a franchise.

Look who has won more in the all-time series between those two teams.

Look who has more Super Bowls.

Oh no, but Kansas City wasn't good in the 70s-80s. Not like the ringless Denver Broncos during that span!

Like I said (and this is the part you keep refusing to acknowledge) it's pretty fucking idiotic to not acknowledge a team's complete history if you're comparing total franchise success.
[Reply]

Okay. So do we conveniently get to pick which 10 years of our history we can conveniently ignore in the head to head?

Dumbass.
[Reply]

They "stand" with you, but not with me and Lamar.

Different league, different world.
[Reply]

BroncoBuffs dad wishes he had a daughter instead of the embarrassment that carries his last name
[Reply]

Nothing "convenient" about it... it's not an arbitrary ten years, it was the AFL. It was the minor leagues. They don't count ball players' minor league stats do they?
[Reply]

What did the Denver Broncos do when they were in the minor leagues? They're the more impressive franchise, so surely they dominated during those years?

And the NFL acknowledged that all AFL stats are a part of NFL history. It was a part of the merger. Way back in 1970.
[Reply]

RUBBISH!! They do stand with Lamar. How far did you have to dig into your own anal cavity to pull out that load of crap?
[Reply]

You can count them all you wish, I'm not bothered by that. You don't hear me complaining.

I choose not to count AFL stats, I read both Lamar Hunt biographies, I know we had the poorest of all AFL owners, and were concerned with survival first. I'm proud of the AFL, I'm proud it was the only upstart renegade League ever to have no teams fold, no teams go belly up. Thanks to Lamar Hunt.
[Reply]

Listen, I'm sorry you guys are so bothered by the Broncos and all those years you were looking up at us like big brother.

But I had nothing to do with that, and neither did you. You should really try to get over it.


4 playoff wins in five decades is really really sad. Especially while we were going to 10 Championship games, winning eight.... and 8 Super Bowls, winning 3.

My advice is get over the Broncos resentment from all those years and enjoy these glory years before they pass you by...........
.
[Reply]