| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NextBigThing
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 15886
Location: Tuck Rule FTW
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
The 1998 Vikings would have crushed the Broncos, as would the 2007 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2004 Eagles, 1999 St. Louis Rams, etc.
_________________
The King Does As He Pleases
| NFLfan511 wrote: | | NBT, I made an account here just because of you. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelerspower
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 6520
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think the broncos would have destroyed the Vikings in 1998, as the Broncos have destroyed the falcons
The broncos were a more complete team with a better QB, RB, better defense,and better coach
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russell2Bailey
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 12481
Location: Where I will, I'll roam.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think the 1997 team was better than the 98' team but that's just me.
_________________
Von Miller Stat Tracker- 68 Tackles. 15 TFL. 18.5 sacks. 6 FF. 3 PD. 1 Pick 6. 6 Man Cards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CP3MVP
Joined: 07 Feb 2012
Posts: 195
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NextBigThing wrote: | | The 1998 Vikings would have crushed the Broncos, as would the 2007 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2004 Eagles, 1999 St. Louis Rams, etc. |
They didn't crush the Falcons who the Broncos crushed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GaTechRavens
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 15560
Location: Knoxville, TN
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CP3MVP wrote: | | NextBigThing wrote: | | The 1998 Vikings would have crushed the Broncos, as would the 2007 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2004 Eagles, 1999 St. Louis Rams, etc. |
They didn't crush the Falcons who the Broncos crushed |
Transitive property doesn't work, though I think the Broncos would have won as well.
And 7DnBrnc53, don't the same principles of your "Super Bowl Myth Era" apply just as much to the Broncos. Their Super Bowl opponent, by your own standards, was a one year fluke that lacked particularly great talent. Their AFC championship foe was the same. So why are the '98 Broncos exempt from this?
_________________
| ArrowheadRage58 wrote: | | I'd much rather be in our position now than the Ravens, that's for sure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChazStandard
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 2115
Location: The bandwagon, hop on up!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry that this isn't entirely on topic, but this "Superbowl Myth Era" when referencing the 80s, am I interpreting it right: that 80s SBs deserve an asterisk because of the relative weakness of the AFC?
If that's the case, surely they still deserve credit for beating the rest of the NFC.
_________________
| ConnPatFan wrote: | | We always assumed BB was playing chess...In fact he is playing Monopoly, and can now put up hotels on Rutgers Secondary. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tom cody
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 6560
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Neither team. The 1998 Broncos were that good.
_________________
Why, if it isn't my old friend, Mr. McGreg. With a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7DnBrnc53
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| GaTechRavens wrote: | | CP3MVP wrote: | | NextBigThing wrote: | | The 1998 Vikings would have crushed the Broncos, as would the 2007 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2004 Eagles, 1999 St. Louis Rams, etc. |
They didn't crush the Falcons who the Broncos crushed |
Transitive property doesn't work, though I think the Broncos would have won as well.
And 7DnBrnc53, don't the same principles of your "Super Bowl Myth Era" apply just as much to the Broncos. Their Super Bowl opponent, by your own standards, was a one year fluke that lacked particularly great talent. Their AFC championship foe was the same. So why are the '98 Broncos exempt from this? |
1. The year before, the Broncos did beat a good team in the 97 Packers, even though they were overrated compared to the Broncos because they had no business being more than three point favorites.
2. The 98 Broncos aren't mythologized, reverenced, and overrated like the 85 Bears, 84 Niners, 91 Skins, and 92-93 Cowboys are. And, it isn't warranted because those teams beat less than worthy opponents. The 98 Falcons were more balanced than some of those teams the SB myth teams beat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GaTechRavens
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 15560
Location: Knoxville, TN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 7DnBrnc53 wrote: | | 1. The year before, the Broncos did beat a good team in the 97 Packers, even though they were overrated compared to the Broncos because they had no business being more than three point favorites. |
That's fine for the '97 team. '98 doesn't get away with it, though.
| Quote: | | 2. The 98 Broncos aren't mythologized, reverenced, and overrated like the 85 Bears, 84 Niners, 91 Skins, and 92-93 Cowboys are. |
Except that's exactly what you're doing with them. You're saying they were better than those teams when the same principle applies to them.
| Quote: | | And, it isn't warranted because those teams beat less than worthy opponents. The 98 Falcons were more balanced than some of those teams the SB myth teams beat. |
More balanced =/= better. They were not a better team than the '84 Dolphins or '91 Bills, and using the standards you used to knock down the '91 Redskins, they're worse than pretty much all of those Super Bowl opponents. And even if they were better, it wasn't by much. Then you look at the NFC competition some of those teams faced in the playoffs and it's clearly better than what Denver faced in the AFC.
_________________
| ArrowheadRage58 wrote: | | I'd much rather be in our position now than the Ravens, that's for sure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
x0x
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 13903
Location: Oh Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
2002 Bucs or 2007 Pats
Every other team would probably lose to the Broncos.
For the record, with regards to the 02 Bucs, their offense was underrated and their defense was in the realm of 85 Bears and 00 Ravens.
_________________
Legends Never Die. They Breathe Through The New Generation.
100 Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reckless123
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 5602
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
2007 Pats...Oh wait.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7DnBrnc53
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| GaTechRavens wrote: | | 7DnBrnc53 wrote: | | 1. The year before, the Broncos did beat a good team in the 97 Packers, even though they were overrated compared to the Broncos because they had no business being more than three point favorites. |
That's fine for the '97 team. '98 doesn't get away with it, though.
| Quote: | | 2. The 98 Broncos aren't mythologized, reverenced, and overrated like the 85 Bears, 84 Niners, 91 Skins, and 92-93 Cowboys are. |
Except that's exactly what you're doing with them. You're saying they were better than those teams when the same principle applies to them.
| Quote: | | And, it isn't warranted because those teams beat less than worthy opponents. The 98 Falcons were more balanced than some of those teams the SB myth teams beat. |
More balanced =/= better. They were not a better team than the '84 Dolphins or '91 Bills, and using the standards you used to knock down the '91 Redskins, they're worse than pretty much all of those Super Bowl opponents. And even if they were better, it wasn't by much. Then you look at the NFC competition some of those teams faced in the playoffs and it's clearly better than what Denver faced in the AFC. |
1. I didn't start this thread. I am not mythologizing the 98 Broncos. I never have.
2. The 91 Bills are better than the 98 Falcons, but I don't know if the 84 Dolphins were. If Dan Marino got hurt, that would be an 8-win team at best.
3. Some of the teams that Denver played in the playoffs those two years were better than teams that those NFC playoffs teams played during the streak. For example, I would take the 97 Chiefs and Steelers over the teams that the 91 Redskins beat in the playoffs.
I would also take the 97 Chiefs over the 92 and 93 49ers and the 93 and 94 Packers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaguarCrazy2832
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 73448
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bohlmann20 wrote: | | GaTechRavens wrote: | | 7DnBrnc53 wrote: | Uh, none.
I wouldn't even take the 07 Pats over the 97-98 Broncos. TD would hang 150 on that weak defense. |
4th in both points and yards = weak defense |
Not to mention you never know in the playoffs. Remember how Larry Johnson was supposed to absolutely murder the Colts' horrible run D back in the '06(?) wild card game at Indy?
Plus, Bill is known for being able to take away the opposing team's best player every week. Not saying the Broncos didn't have the passing attack to compete with the Patriots, but they sure would need it along with Davis. |
Wasnt their run D horrible without Bob Sanders and then he came back for the playoffs and he dominated?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GaTechRavens
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 15560
Location: Knoxville, TN
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 7DnBrnc53 wrote: | | 1. I didn't start this thread. I am not mythologizing the 98 Broncos. I never have. |
Well, you're propping them up for the same reasons people prop up a lot of the "myth" teams.
| Quote: | | 2. The 91 Bills are better than the 98 Falcons, but I don't know if the 84 Dolphins were. If Dan Marino got hurt, that would be an 8-win team at best. |
Except Dan Marino didn't get hurt. You can't just take away possibly the greatest single season quarterback of all time. The 49ers played the Dolphins with a healthy Marino, so there's no reason to consider how good that team would be without him.
| Quote: | 3. Some of the teams that Denver played in the playoffs those two years were better than teams that those NFC playoffs teams played during the streak. For example, I would take the 97 Chiefs and Steelers over the teams that the 91 Redskins beat in the playoffs.
I would also take the 97 Chiefs over the 92 and 93 49ers and the 93 and 94 Packers. |
We're not even talking about '97. We're talking about the '98 Dolphins and the '98 Jets.
I would take the 97 Chiefs and Steelers over the teams the 91 Redskins beat as well. I would not, however, take 4 point wins against those teams over 17 and 31 point wins over the teams the Redskins beat. You can't just ignore margin of victory here.
_________________
| ArrowheadRage58 wrote: | | I'd much rather be in our position now than the Ravens, that's for sure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7DnBrnc53
Joined: 09 Mar 2010
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| GaTechRavens wrote: | | 7DnBrnc53 wrote: | | 1. I didn't start this thread. I am not mythologizing the 98 Broncos. I never have. |
Well, you're propping them up for the same reasons people prop up a lot of the "myth" teams.
| Quote: | | 2. The 91 Bills are better than the 98 Falcons, but I don't know if the 84 Dolphins were. If Dan Marino got hurt, that would be an 8-win team at best. |
Except Dan Marino didn't get hurt. You can't just take away possibly the greatest single season quarterback of all time. The 49ers played the Dolphins with a healthy Marino, so there's no reason to consider how good that team would be without him.
| Quote: | 3. Some of the teams that Denver played in the playoffs those two years were better than teams that those NFC playoffs teams played during the streak. For example, I would take the 97 Chiefs and Steelers over the teams that the 91 Redskins beat in the playoffs.
I would also take the 97 Chiefs over the 92 and 93 49ers and the 93 and 94 Packers. |
We're not even talking about '97. We're talking about the '98 Dolphins and the '98 Jets.
I would take the 97 Chiefs and Steelers over the teams the 91 Redskins beat as well. I would not, however, take 4 point wins against those teams over 17 and 31 point wins over the teams the Redskins beat. You can't just ignore margin of victory here. |
If Marino gets lost for the year early in the 84 season, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Fins would have been in a heap of hurt.
And, I know that we are dealing with the 98 Broncos, but the 97 team also has a lot of relevance to this discussion since they were back to back champions, something that the "big, bad" 85 Bears, 84 Niners, and 91 Skins weren't able to accomplish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
