Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
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
"I don't care if the NFL recognizes those games; they don't count to ME because it wasn't FAIR!!"
So why wasn't it a level playing field again? Because the Chiefs had a better owner? Did they try harder? Man, that's so freaking unfair.
You know what the most hilarious part of this is? Even after subtracting 20 games for no sensible reason, you're left with an advantage of....wait for it.... 1 win. ONE. :-):-):-):-):-) [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?
Like Mania, I'm fine with all we've done ... and I'm not "trading in" anything.
It's your "First 48" that gets me. Imagine Joe Montana in the what, two seasons he was there? Imagine he won you half the 4 playoff wins you'd get in that "First 48."
Like I said, I'd call that a "drought," but that'd be an insult to droughts everywhere. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
You know what the most hilarious part of this is? Even after subtracting 20 games for no sensible reason, you're left with an advantage of....wait for it.... 1 win. ONE. :-):-):-):-):-)
Even MORE HILARIOUS?
Our advantage is TWO WINS if you count the one playoff game we beat you in :-) [Reply]
Came in here to wish the resident drove of donk fan the worst of luck tonight and I see that bundleofsticks buff is still in here writing dozens of white paper length posts that no one is going to read and repeating the same shit over and over. Sounds like a completely sane and not-at-all unhinged use of time.
What I see is a 4 limbed transgender mammal, indicative of a horse–mule hybrid, sucking (sniffing) on a pole, or their own tail. Perhaps a unicorn who lost its spiral horn. The homoerectus orange hue contrasts sharply against a navy blue backdrop. Basically, a queer made logo. [Reply]
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
You actually posted this in the same breath as claiming to be the adult here? Do you have any shame? :-)
"If I remove all your best years, and include all of our best years, our numbers are better!! Nyah nyah nyah!"
Whoa, the Broncos won more during a cherry-picked timeframe that ended years ago. Want a cookie? You realize that all you're accomplishing is showing daddy how desperate you are to be like daddy, right? :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Even MORE HILARIOUS?
Our advantage is TWO WINS if you count the one playoff game we beat you in ��
Who is 'we'? Do you got a turd in your back pocket (like Elway's throwing style seemed to appear like he was pulling a turd out of his back pocket)?
Donks didn't win anything in that '97 Kabuki Theater playoff debacle -- they had it gifted to them by the zebras and Marty's refusal to let Rich Gannon play in that game -- so that one doesn't count. [Reply]
Denver should win this game at home… anything can happen though. Defense has to set the tone early and the ground game for Denver needs to be established early. Still think it’s 30-20, Broncos. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff:
Like Mania, I'm fine with all we've done ... and I'm not "trading in" anything.
It's your "First 48" that gets me. Imagine Joe Montana in the what, two seasons he was there? Imagine he won you half the 4 playoff wins you'd get in that "First 48."
Like I said, I'd call that a "drought," but that'd be an insult to droughts everywhere.
Yet here you are....fewer playoff wins, fewer Super Bowl trophies, fewer overall wins, lower win %, fewer division titles, no AFL titles, many fewer H2H wins.
Weird how a team with a drought to end all droughts sailed past your proud history in just 5 years, eh? [Reply]
Interesting that DEN's D was so porous tonight against Winston of all QBs.
Nix looked pretty good for the most part. The picks were fugly, but he also made some nice throws. And now DEN almost certainly is making the playoffs. I don't remember what I predicted before the season started, but I probably didn't have them getting into the playoffs. Sean once again proving he's a top-tier NFL coach. [Reply]
