Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Bronco team that did not win it all

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bradshaw3001 View Post
    But don't forget the 91 team that lost in Buffalo on that Steve Sewell fumble.
    As I recall, it had more to do with David Treadwell missing three friggin' field goals. Another loss that scarred me for life.
    sigpic

    TZ

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by japfaff View Post
      I think we have a definate generation gap here.....Is there anyone that remember the 77 team play that thinks that the 96 team would have a chance? That 77 team had a monster D. If they would have won that SB I think that it would be thought of as one of the best ever. They lost to a Dallas team that was loaded with HOFers and Pro-bowlers. The 96 team was very talented.. But they were young and very inexperienced. TD in his second year, Sharpe was just coming into his own at a new position, Smith was a 2nd year guy, Eddie was a new peice, we had 3 new starters on our line, our D was tough and physical but they really relied on the big play to help them out. Plus they lost to a team that was all 1st and 2nd year players. I just dont see how this team was better.... Also throw in that the 77 team had to go through the Steel Curtin at thier height, and a Madden coached Raider team. Then as a prize for winning the AFC, we get a Landry coached Dallas team in the SB. Now if that isnt running the gauntlet of the 1970's powerhouses I dont know what is. The 96 team couldnt beat an expansion team when it mattered
      I REMEMBER the Orange Crush...I also remember C.Morton being the first "famous" name I memorized...My father was a HUGE Broncos fan so I have been cheering for them since the womb. I also remember the shock..and disappointment I went through that day in '78..I went to elementary school on the Western slope...little town called Palisade..the WHOLE school (including teachers) wore Orange and Blue for a week before the game...the following day after the Cowgirls beat us...silence..desolation..I will never forget that..I was only in the 3rd grade..but I recall a bogus touch down call in that game..if we had the replay rule back then it would have been good.

      So ...IMHO 77-78 CRUSH
      Disclamer: Anything stated by Hippie Guy is meant to be sarcasm and should not be construed as or mistaken for anything serious.

      Comment


      • #63
        Well I thank all you old guys that are making a stand with me. I definatly think that all the young guys are saying 96. While the older guys are all saying 77. The younger guys dont realize what that team was, and the talent that they had to face. The 96 team couldnt beat the expansion Jags. The 77 team took on 3 ledgendary teams with legendary coaches (Pitt, Oak, and Dallas). Look at the HOFers that they had to go agianst. It is a who's who's of the 70's and if it wasnt for all those damn turnovers we wouldn't have this discussion cause this would have been our first crown. The 96 team had talent, but the first time they faced a challange they folded. That D was every bit as good as the vaunted "steel curtin"
        Thanx Blondie79 for the sweet Sig....Love it and I will rock it with pridesigpic

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by japfaff View Post
          Well I thank all you old guys that are making a stand with me. I definatly think that all the young guys are saying 96. While the older guys are all saying 77. The younger guys dont realize what that team was, and the talent that they had to face. The 96 team couldnt beat the expansion Jags. The 77 team took on 3 ledgendary teams with legendary coaches (Pitt, Oak, and Dallas). Look at the HOFers that they had to go agianst. It is a who's who's of the 70's and if it wasnt for all those damn turnovers we wouldn't have this discussion cause this would have been our first crown. The 96 team had talent, but the first time they faced a challange they folded. That D was every bit as good as the vaunted "steel curtin"
          You guys can quote all this young guy crap all you want. I grew up with the passion I have for the broncos due to my dad who has been a fan of the Broncos since long before the 77 super bowl. And he tells me all the time how all our super bowl teams before 97 had no business even being in the super bowl. The 77 orange crush defense may have been good but I never ever hear anyone brag about the offense. The 96 team wins because they were phenominal on both sides of the ball. I believe someone already stated #1 offense and #4 defense or something like that. That's an all around damn good team. So yall can live in the past all you want and talk about hall of famer this hall of famer that. But they wouldnt have beat the 96 team
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
            You can't say we would definitely have beaten the seahawks. They were a very good team that had a very solid shot at beating the steelers. Whose to say they wouldn't have given plummer fits as the steeelers did

            The Steelers shouldn't have beaten that team, that game was FIXED, it was disgusting to watch!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
              You guys can quote all this young guy crap all you want. I grew up with the passion I have for the broncos due to my dad who has been a fan of the Broncos since long before the 77 super bowl. And he tells me all the time how all our super bowl teams before 97 had no business even being in the super bowl. The 77 orange crush defense may have been good but I never ever hear anyone brag about the offense. The 96 team wins because they were phenominal on both sides of the ball. I believe someone already stated #1 offense and #4 defense or something like that. That's an all around damn good team. So yall can live in the past all you want and talk about hall of famer this hall of famer that. But they wouldnt have beat the 96 team
              But they couldnt beat a second year expansion team. With all first and second year players, what is your excuss there? Good teams dont blow it in the playoffs, and definatly not in the first round. 96 was a young team, that if they made the SB would have been slayed by the Packers. A team that already beat them by 5 TD's. Yeah they were highly ranked offensively and defensively (but they were 4th ranked O, and 7th ranked D)...But they played one of the easiest schedules in the league. TD was inexperienced, the oline had 3 new starters, Smith was young and couldn't get onto the field (remember Anthony Miller was the starter back then), Eddie was coming into his own. The D was solid, but really lacked the vetran presance that Neil Smith, and Darrien Gordan would add the next year. To many young players and no vets...96 would be crushed by the 77 team. Live in the past....96 was 12 years ago not really a current team.
              We all know that the 77 team was a defensive team....But the offense was dominate also ranking 7th that year.....This team rushed for over 2000 yards (in 14 games), you add in the likes of Haven Moses, Riley Odems, and Rick Upchurch (my fav player as a kid) and the passing game was solid. I wont even get into the D stats.... but this team forced over 50 turnovers (agian 14 games), and avged just short of 5 sacks a game. You really think that an inexperienced 96 team could stand up to the kinda heat that this team could bring. The 77 team would win, and I gotta say it would be a laugher. The only thing that the 96 team has going for it is Elway. But the 77 team's D is just to tough
              Thanx Blondie79 for the sweet Sig....Love it and I will rock it with pridesigpic

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by RadEucalyptus View Post
                I'm going to have to agree with the '96 team. I was at that playoff game, just 10 years old. The most vivid memory that I have is when we got flagged for too many men on the field for a punt because someone on the sideline was standing in bounds. That gave them a first down and continued their drive. I was so pissed about so stupid a mistake.

                That being said, it is amazing that more people aren't suggesting the '86 team that beat the Browns, in Cleveland, on "The Drive", and then played well in the Superbowl until the second half. Of the 80's teams that made it to the Superbowl, that was the team that had a good chance. I've heard the '84 team that lost to the Steelers was solid as well.

                But, since the '96 team was the only one I was technically conscious of, I have to place my vote for them.
                I wasnt at the game but I did get to see it even here in Tennessee. I can tell you who was on the field...Michael Dean Perry....he was coming off the field but he was freakin WALKING and wasnt headed STRAIGHT to the sideline but more like he was angling towards the gatorade jugs or something...I was SOO pissed at that slacker I was wishing his brother had fallen on his head when he was a baby...lol

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by broncofanatik View Post
                  Even with plummer at QB we shouldve beaten the steelers at home.
                  Plummer cost us that game. We were driving in the 4th qtr and his ass threw that interception. And at the end of the 1st half.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RadEucalyptus View Post
                    I'm going to have to agree with the '96 team. I was at that playoff game, just 10 years old. The most vivid memory that I have is when we got flagged for too many men on the field for a punt because someone on the sideline was standing in bounds. That gave them a first down and continued their drive. I was so pissed about so stupid a mistake.

                    That being said, it is amazing that more people aren't suggesting the '86 team that beat the Browns, in Cleveland, on "The Drive", and then played well in the Superbowl until the second half. Of the 80's teams that made it to the Superbowl, that was the team that had a good chance. I've heard the '84 team that lost to the Steelers was solid as well.

                    But, since the '96 team was the only one I was technically conscious of, I have to place my vote for them.

                    IMO the 86 team wasnt that great. They had lway at his best, but little else. Also remember this team fadded really bad at the end of the year after starting out 6-0, going 5-5 down the streach. Then we slip by NE, and played a very tough Cle team to win the Champ. However this team had no chance. That Giant team had an unbelievable D. So when Karlis started missing those kicks.... It was over we couldnt leave any points on the table in that game, and the 3rd quarter did us in.

                    I think that the 87 team was the best team we had in the 80's. That was when we got the amigo's (what ever happened to Ricky nattiel??) We were a very good team and I thought (and I still think) that we had a better team than the Redskins. But that 2nd quarter did us in.
                    Thanx Blondie79 for the sweet Sig....Love it and I will rock it with pridesigpic

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
                      Possibly the 96 team that had no business losing to Jacksonville in the second round of the playoffs. Runner up would probably be 2005 losing to the steelers at home. Accept Jake Plummer was the qb so I wouldn't put that team at the top
                      Possibly? Is there a question? That should've been John's 1st of the threepeat. Would he have been there in 98 if we had won in 96? Who knows?

                      And for those of you talking the 77 team, well, you have an argument but not a very good one. I watched that game too and thought we were going to win but overall we just didn't have the tallent. We had the tallent to get there but not to put it away. I blamed Morton for the loss for many years but have since rewatched the game and I don't think it was his falt. We just didn't have it clicking that day.

                      The reason we lost to Jacksonville was we didn't consider them a contender and were preparing for (KC?) the next week. It was a hard learned lesson I hope Shanny never forgets as long as he's with us. In the NFL you will play one game at a time or you will watch the next game from your lazyboy.
                      Last edited by SkyFlash1; 10-12-2008, 06:57 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by japfaff View Post
                        But they couldnt beat a second year expansion team. With all first and second year players, what is your excuss there? Good teams dont blow it in the playoffs, and definatly not in the first round. 96 was a young team, that if they made the SB would have been slayed by the Packers. A team that already beat them by 5 TD's. Yeah they were highly ranked offensively and defensively (but they were 4th ranked O, and 7th ranked D)...But they played one of the easiest schedules in the league. TD was inexperienced, the oline had 3 new starters, Smith was young and couldn't get onto the field (remember Anthony Miller was the starter back then), Eddie was coming into his own. The D was solid, but really lacked the vetran presance that Neil Smith, and Darrien Gordan would add the next year. To many young players and no vets...96 would be crushed by the 77 team. Live in the past....96 was 12 years ago not really a current team.
                        We all know that the 77 team was a defensive team....But the offense was dominate also ranking 7th that year.....This team rushed for over 2000 yards (in 14 games), you add in the likes of Haven Moses, Riley Odems, and Rick Upchurch (my fav player as a kid) and the passing game was solid. I wont even get into the D stats.... but this team forced over 50 turnovers (agian 14 games), and avged just short of 5 sacks a game. You really think that an inexperienced 96 team could stand up to the kinda heat that this team could bring. The 77 team would win, and I gotta say it would be a laugher. The only thing that the 96 team has going for it is Elway. But the 77 team's D is just to tough
                        There have been several explanations on this thread as to why we lost a game we shouldn't have. First off someone already posted an old article stating that Elway didn't even play the game against the packers. So you can't say they would have romped us in the super bowl. After all they were supposed to romp the next year as well and look what happened. As for jacksonville someone pointed out that our starters were out of play for basically almost a month before that game where as jacksonville had to fight to the end just to get into the playoffs and then beat the bills first round. I dont care how good you are with that kind of layoff it's very easy to see why we lost to that expansion team. IT's not that we couldn't beat them we just didnt'. Same teams rematched the next season and I believe we beat them 42-17. And that year we weren't resting people at the end of the season. AS for the 77 team as I stated before there may have been more raw talent but if you don't equal out the difference in player size from the 70"s to the 90"s then yes it would be a laugher. But it would be a laugher in favor of the 96 team. They are and were the best team that didn't win the super bowl
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by SkyFlash1 View Post
                          Possibly? Is there a question? That should've been John's 1st of the threepeat. Would he have been there in 98 if we had won in 96? Who knows?

                          And for those of you talking the 77 team, well, you have an argument but not a very good one. I watched that game too and thought we were going to win but overall we just didn't have the tallent. We had the tallent to get there but not to put it away. I blamed Morton for the loss for many years but have since rewatched the game and I don't think it was his falt. We just didn't have it clicking that day.

                          The reason we lost to Jacksonville was we didn't consider them a contender and were preparing for (KC?) the next week. It was a hard learned lesson I hope Shanny never forgets as long as he's with us.
                          Why were we preparing for Kc the next week? If I remember correctly it was NE that advance to the AFc chamionship. Did they upset KC cuz I don't remember. But we shouldn't have been preparing for a team that hadn't even advanced yet
                          sigpic

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X