Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
I've been nothing but complimentary to your team's dynasty in my ~2 weeks visiting here, and especially complimentary to your founder Lamar Hunt. Despite this, you've attacked, insulted and piled on top of me for just two reasons:
.
my statistical analysis of your first five decades (48 yrs) in the NFL, with just four playoff wins, and
Denying the Broncos salary violations in the '90s resulted in an onfield competitive advantage because the League said it didn't
Never even talked current football with me... FYI, I didn't think we'd win last week, don't think so this week either.
Now... if you're not obsessively prejudiced against the Broncos and their fans, why such treatment?
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brioni:
BIFF, we've never respected the Broncos even when they won games because of the cheating allegations
It was more than just allegations, we did cheat. We admitted it and we were punished. But according to the League, there was no on-field competitive advantage. They didn't say that verbatim, but the League did say they reviewed every team's roster before every game since 1993.
brdempsey, what you quoted there is nothing but insults and attacks. I was asking for something beyond that to explain how rude you guys are in here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
It was more than just allegations, we did cheat. We admitted it and we were punished. But according to the League, there was no on-field competitive advantage. They didn't say that verbatim, but the League did say they reviewed every team's roster before every game since 1993.
brdempsey, what you quoted there is nothing but insults and attacks. I was asking for something beyond that to explain how rude you guys are in here.
I don't think anyone was rude to you at all. As a matter of fact, every one of us has told you to go fuck yourself in the nicest way possible. If you're having trouble finding ways to fuck yourself, or how hard you should go fuck your mother, well that's on you fella. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
I've been nothing but complimentary to your team's dynasty in my ~2 weeks visiting here, and especially complimentary to your founder Lamar Hunt. Despite this, you've attacked, insulted and piled on top of me for just two reasons:
.
my statistical analysis of your first five decades (48 yrs) in the NFL, with just four playoff wins, and
Denying the Broncos salary violations in the '90s resulted in an onfield competitive advantage because the League said it didn't
Never even talked current football with me... FYI, I didn't think we'd win last week, don't think so this week either.
Now... if you're not obsessively prejudiced against the Broncos and their fans, why such treatment?
Look, guys, I've been nothing but complimentary...other than when I said you were really bad for almost 50 years and compared your early success to the minor leagues and said your first two SB appearances don't count. :-) [Reply]
No kidding? That would be a pretty good reason ... but I don't think I started out like that. Pretty early on I definitely expressed admiration for your current dynasty, and for Lamar Hunt's invaluable contribution to the game. He was a great man (still not sure about Clark though).
Is that wisecrack about Clark "not nice?" I'm kind of thinking some of you might agree. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
(A)It was more than just allegations, we did cheat. We admitted it and we were punished. But according to the League, there was no on-field competitive advantage. They didn't say that verbatim, but the League did say they reviewed every team's roster before every game since 1993.
(B)brdempsey, what you quoted there is nothing but insults and attacks. I was asking for something beyond that to explain how rude you guys are in here.
(A) What the League said about "no on-field competitive advantage" is complete RUBBISH and it doesn't change the fact that the Donkeys had players on their roster that they had no business having. What part of that don't you get?
(B) No, it wasn't just insults & attacks. jjChiefsfan was spelling out to you with undoubtable clarity where your problem lies when he told you this:
"you actually believe that everyone else is wrong and you're the only one that's right. SMH. Guess what dipshit? You're not right."
You can't seem to figure it out that you are NOT going to earn any respect by continually peddling false narratives (typical Donktard thought process). [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Look, guys, I've been nothing but complimentary...other than when I said you were really bad for almost 50 years and compared your early success to the minor leagues and said your first two SB appearances don't count. :-)
That analysis of mine - those 48 years - was posted in defense of the massive incoming torrents of attacks I was getting from my very first post here. I was "guessing" what it was that prompted those attacks and this thread. Admittedly it was hostile and probably uncalled for that soon
"Minor leagues" was a kinda low blow, but accurate for SB I.
SB IV though, that was different. That was a HUGE game historically, it proved SB III was more than just a Joe Namath inspired, potentially fixed outcome, and every football fan everywhere should be grateful the Chiefs forever cemented the AFL-NFL SB record at .500 - 2-2.
And, for the 10th+ time, I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T COUNT! But my analysis was from Merger - to - Mahomes first start.
. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
No kidding? That would be a pretty good reason ... but I don't think I started out like that. Pretty early on I definitely expressed admiration for your current dynasty, and for Lamar Hunt's invaluable contribution to the game. He was a great man (still not sure about Clark though).
Is that wisecrack about Clark "not nice?" I'm kind of thinking some of you might agree.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
That analysis of mine - those 48 years - was posted in defense of the massive incoming torrents of attacks I was getting from my very first post here. I was "guessing" what it was that prompted those attacks and this thread. Admittedly it was hostile and probably uncalled for that soon
"Minor leagues" was a kinda low blow, but accurate for SB I.
SB IV though, that was different. That was a HUGE game historically, it proved SB III was more than just a Joe Namath inspired, potentially fixed outcome, and every football fan everywhere should be grateful the Chiefs forever cemented the AFL-NFL SB record at .500 - 2-2.
And, for the 10th+ time, I NEVER SAID THEY DIDN'T COUNT! But my analysis was from Merger - to - Mahomes first start.
.
I literally quoted you saying that their AFL success didn't count. :-)
So now SB 1 was minor leagues but not SB 4? Possibly SB 3? Let us know when the committee has officially deliberated on this.
If it's defined by competitiveness, does that mean the Broncos were a minor league team until the late 90s? 55-10 and 42-10 aren't very competitive scores. [Reply]
Every single word in that post is positive and complimentary - except the little half-a-wisecrack about Clark Hunt, and I keep repeating that because I thought chefs fans were skeptical about Clark, that's what I've read ... :-)
Every single word in that post is positive and complimentary - except the little half-a-wisecrack about Clark Hunt, and I keep repeating that because I thought chefs fans were skeptical about Clark, that's what I've read ... :-)
