Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Oh okay, by "almost a decade" you meant Chiefs over Broncos, my mistake. I thought you meant Chiefs vs. the League. Such domination does exist, but it's maybe just 5-6 years.
No no, I definitely DO acknowledge the total numbers, franchise head-ho-head. I just devalue the AFL numbers such that I believe they're not comparable, it wasn't an even playing field.
FIRST OFF: Playing a schedule with 25 other teams stocked with top notch rosters is very different than 7 other teams with good and not-so-good players, plus ....
So...somehow, dividing the pro talent among 25 teams creates more loaded rosters than dividing it among 7? Make it make sense. This is completely backwards. Teams were stocked then and watered down now, especially with the constraint of a salary cap.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff: Here's a good comparison:
For decades the Denver Bears (in their last years "Zephyrs") played baseball in the AAA American Association, as did the Oklahoma City 89ers. In 1991 Denver was awarded a National League franchise the "Colorado Rockies" (not the NHL Hockey team, they moved from Denver to become the New Jersey Devils eight years earlier in 1983), and for the sake of conformity, let's say it was the same owners, Zephyrs and Rockies.
Then, in say, 1992 or 2002, Oklahoma City was awarded a major league baseball franchise. Would anyone seriously acknowledge their H2H from a different league? Acknowledge, yes.Consider an appropriate evaluation of their historical strength? No.
Forget the difference between AFL and NFL, your own Lamar Hunt was adamant that AFL owners pace themselves, not get into bidding wars with NFL teams unless they knew they could afford to - that the short-term rewards of wins and losses paled in comparison with the long-term reward of MERGER.
Far from hiding Otis Taylor in a series of Dallas hotel rooms until you could sign him, the Phipps Brothers offered only rookie minimum contracts to draftees, and consequently signed a none of them, until a framework for the merger was announced and the leagues drafted in one common draft. Broncos drafted pretty damn well then, too .....
1962-66 Broncos Drafts
* Merlin Olsen
* Kermit Alexander
* Bob Hayes
..Jerry Richardson
* Paul Krause
. Wally Hilgenberg
* Bob Brown
* Willie Brown (CFA)
..Ray Mansfield
* Dick Butkus
..Tom Coughlin
- - - - - - - - - -
1967-68
* Floyd Little (1st common draft,1st signed)
* Curley Culp
* = Hall of Fame Hmmm... Curly Culp? If we were trading you Hall of Fame talent because we couldn't afford to sign them, does that strike you as an even playing field? NO, I didn't think it would!
..
So the SB win vs the NFL's Vikings counts, but we shouldn't count wins vs Denver? Lol. Pretty cringey and desperate stuff here. I've literally never seen this argument from anyone else, and I've seen many a desperate reach from Denver fans.
As a Royals fan, can I scratch all losses to the Yankees and Red Sox because it's not a level playing field? That would actually make a lot more sense than this...
Would you be doing this pretzel twisting if the situation were reversed and Denver started 19-1? I think we all know the answer. :-) [Reply]
Over and over and over ... I just keep hammering away at you guys, and most of you don't even realize you're being embarrassed.
I had to get crazy sarcastic before any of you realized it was sarcasm ..... I stepped closer? Nothing ..... A little closer? still nothing ..... right to the edge closer? Nothing ..... finally started with WILD-EYED HUGE words!
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
The NFL doesn't give two cents about the "court of public opinion."
The court of public judgement doesn't give two cents about what the NFL publicizes....they call a spade a SPADE, and call things like they see it.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Besides, this isn't that .. this is just the only place pimping that nonsense, because the people in here all suffer from BDS
Do you mean like this comment made at You Tube...oh wait, this isn't the only place.
Originally Posted by :
@dogfacedboy6947
1 year ago
The reason that John Elway chased after Payton Manning SO HARD was because he knew that he would be "gifted" a Super Bowl or two in his last years. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO ELWAY.
To the objective observer, it does appear to be you suffering from DDS (Donktard Derangement Syndrom) because you can't stomach reality. No derangement syndrome by anybody here except you.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
HERE'S THE TRUTH: Remember our B2B Super Bowls? We crushed Atlanta in the second one 34-19 (led 31-6 early 4th quarter). We didn't need no punt taking no lucky bounce off somebody's foot!
Did you know KC is the "luckiest" team in the playoffs like 3 of the last 5 years?
You mean the two SB's where the Donkeys cheated & violated the salary cap during those seasons -- and thereby further cementing the fact that the Donkeys don't have any legit SB wins?
Being lucky isn't the same as cheating -- see 1990 Giants as an example.
At the end of the day the Donkeys all-time SB record is still 0 wins, 5 losses, and 3 given to them as going-away presents (two to Turd Elway and one to 5-head Manning)
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Over and over and over ... I just keep hammering away at you guys, and most of you don't even realize you're being embarrassed.
Nobody here is being embarrassed by you -- you're just making yourself look STUPID and are too delusional to realize it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
So...somehow, dividing the pro talent among 25 teams creates more loaded rosters than dividing it among 7? Make it make sense. This is completely backwards.
Bonehead, there were 16 loaded rosters ready and waiting! No "dividing" necessary ...
GEEZ! WTF is WRONG with you people? You bend over so far backwards to 'dis the Broncos!
Originally Posted by RaidersCellar:
So the SB win vs the NFL's Vikings counts, but we shouldn't count wins vs Denver? Lol. Pretty cringey and desperate stuff here. I've literally never seen this argument from anyone else, and I've seen many a desperate reach from Denver fans. :-)
Whose side are you on? In my (not permanent) statistical analysis of the Chiefs' first 48 years in the NFL, with just 4 playoff game wins (2 in the same season), the Vikings SB would NOT count because you were still an AFL team.
And crikey! You really have NEVER SEEN a statistical analysis starting from the merger?
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar: Would you be doing this pretzel twisting if the situation were reversed and Denver started 19-1? I think we all know the answer. :-)
I'll tell you what I wouldn't be doing: I wouldn't be whining about the arbitrary time period you focused on. Instead I'd probably be trying to minimize whatever negative-Broncos points you made.
Like an adult.
BTW, I've responded to several points made by you guys re: Chiefs multi-year win streak vs. Denver that just ended last year, never once complaining about the arbitrary time frame.
By the way, and you guys REALLY need to get this: The selection of specific time frames to make statistical or other relevant points is extreeemely, EXTREEEEEMLY common. You really gotta know that.
My selection of "The 48 years between the Merger and Mahomes' first start" is a reasonable time frame, relevant to the point I was making - that KC was basically devoid of NFL playoff success until Patrick Mahomes was their starting quarterback. I'm sorry to press the point, but that is a cogent and accurate analysis and conclusion [Reply]
Originally Posted by brdempsey69:
No dogfacedboy is not wrong, just because you say so. Your say-so amounts to nothing, with you being the only one giving any regard to it.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
My selection of "The 48 years between the Merger and Mahomes' first start" is a reasonable time frame, relevant to the point I was making - that KC was basically devoid of NFL playoff success until Patrick Mahomes was their starting quarterback. I'm sorry to press the point, but that is a cogent and accurate analysis and conclusion
And the Donkeys are still devoid of any legit SB trophies in their entire history. That is our point we are going to keep pressing back at you.
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Yeah, just me
Me and ............
Peyton Manning!
Zero + Zero still equals ZERO. Which is the real amount of credibility that both you and 5-head Manning have. [Reply]
Originally Posted by brdempsey69:
And the Donkeys are still devoid of any legit SB trophies in their entire history. That is our point we are going to keep pressing back at you.
Last Thursday, in front of my whole extended family, we all bowed our heads in silence, until I solemnly stated:
.
"And we thank thee too, oh lords of the game, that neither b.r.dempsey nor any member of his crayon-red clad band of hooligans awash in reality-denial have any votes of any kind in matters concerning professional football or the NFL ...
So you can pick two timelines for the Broncos. One of them is the timeline that has led them to where they are now, and the other is KC's. One gives you 3 SBs, one gives you 4.
If you chose Denver's, you're saying you would trade in that extra Super Bowl (not to mention going the first 37 years of your franchise with no championships) all for a bunch of playoff wins and a handful of embarrassing SB losses in the 80s? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
According to the National Football League, The Kansas City Chiefs' head to head record vs the Denver Broncos is 73-56.
Learn it, know it, live it!
NEVER DENIED IT. Merely chose to select a specific time frames... grrrrr... just read my Post #79268, above, and learn, dammit! Learn!
Understand and accept that it is ex-TREEEM-ly common, to the point of redundancy and repetition on every.single.sports.talk.show anywhere. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
So you can pick two timelines for the Broncos. One of them is the timeline that has led them to where they are now, and the other is KC's. One gives you 3 SBs, one gives you 4.
If you chose Denver's, you're saying you would trade in that extra Super Bowl (not to mention going the first 37 years of your franchise with no championships) all for a bunch of playoff wins and a handful of embarrassing SB losses in the 80s?
I’m not in this squabble, but I’m fine with the history as it is. I’m not getting caught up in the noise about lifetime stats, especially when I was not alive for the early years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Last Thursday, in front of my whole extended family, we all bowed our heads in silence, until I solemnly stated:
.
"And we thank thee too, oh lords of the game, that neither b.r.dempsey nor any member of his crayon-red clad band of hooligans awash in reality-denial have any votes of any kind in matters concerning professional football or the NFL ...
With humble thanks, lords of football."
It was quite moving, I assure you.
And I assure you that your false gods that you are praying to can't help you in any way because the only one in denial of reality is YOU, just as BlackOp pointed out to you. And like BlackOp said your only other option would be to admit to what everybody outside of Donktard camp knows to be true....Donkeys don't have any legit SB trophies in their history.
And the only thing that you probably found moving was your bladder & bowels emptying into your drawers because you can't stomach the truth & reality. [Reply]
