Broncos news megathread

[ROYC75]

Discussion: All things Broncos.

[Otter]

Hey, Yo, What's Going on here?

Has Kati shown boobs or not?

PM me Mer. Promise not to stalk you. Maybe.

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Otter

Hey, Yo, What's Going on here?

Has Kati shown boobs or not?

PM me Mer. Promise not to stalk you. Maybe.

I’ll be at Justin Timberlake tomorrow.
Put on your best jeans and wife beater.

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

But since then, RedinTexas corrected me, pointing out the Packers pulled off a "Prehistoric 3-Peat," winning three straight championships 1929, 30, 31. There was no AFL or other league then, so the only difference is the name of the championship game.

Thanks Redin.

You know, this is another thing. Was the threepeat from '29-'31 "prehistoric?" Yes, it was nearly 100 years ago, but it was only about 35 years before the second Packers threepeat. Personally, I think would say that if the first is "prehistoric," we should probably call both of them prehistoric. The second Packers threepeat was nearly 60 years ago. It is far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today.

[Clyde Frog]

Originally Posted by rydogg58

I love how these ****tards show back up to join the celebrations of us being the greatest team the NFL has ever seen. Even that dipshit Mensa Muff.

I would never expect donk fan, or anyone associated with the donk organization, to show any accountability or take responsibility for lying or cheating. They just ignore reality and carry on as if none of the underhanded actions ever occurred. Completely in line with their usual behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

And it's not an "alleged 3-Peat." The Packers were World Champions three years in a row - the only 3-Peat ever. Never happened before or since, under any name.

What's your definition of World Champion? What do you mean by that term, specifically?

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by RedinTexas

You know, this is another thing. Was the threepeat from '29-'31 "prehistoric?" Yes, it was nearly 100 years ago, but it was only about 35 years before the second Packers threepeat. Personally, I think would say that if the first is "prehistoric," we should probably call both of them prehistoric. The second Packers threepeat was nearly 60 years ago. It is far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today.

You guys need to get your shit together. The Canton/Cleveland Bulldogs 3peated from 1922-24. Same team, they just changed cities before the '24 season.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

WHOA! Now I'm a "piece of sh**"?!

Guys, you should really think about how you're reacting to me. This level of vitriol, this borderline rage, it's just not appropriate for a "dimwitted Donk cheater." There's something else that's bothering you ... you should really try to figure out what that is.


Not super important, but jjchiefsfan, you were mostly right in discounting the Packers' late 60s 3-Peat because they didn't play the AFL Champion. But since then, RedinTexas corrected me, pointing out the Packers pulled off a "Prehistoric 3-Peat," winning three straight championships 1929, 30, 31. There was no AFL or other league then, so the only difference is the name of the championship game.

Thanks Redin.

So ........are you now stepping away from your stance that the 60's Packers were indeed 3 peat champions? Do you now agree that the Chiefs are currently tied with the 60's Packers with 2 Superbowl championships and 1 conference championship? Regardless of the past leather helmet area championships, can we agree on that?

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

So ........are you now stepping away from your stance that the 60's Packers were indeed 3 peat champions? Do you now agree that the Chiefs are currently tied with the 60's Packers with 2 Superbowl championships and 1 conference championship?

Well, it wasn't a "conference." That, plus the number of teams being double (16 then, 32 now), and I think the Chiefs are probably further along right now.

It's not the NAME Super Bowl that matters to me, it's that in the first of the three they didn't play the AFL champ, so yes jj, it fails. And the one from the 1920s, that's just too long ago, and rfaulk's Bulldogs? NOOOO! This is the 21st century dammit!

Redin, you have a point, but the 1960s just don't seem "prehistoric" to me ... your point: "(Those 60s Packers) are far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today," you sound like one of those YouTube videos, "Martin Luther King and Anne Frank were the same age," or "Egyptian Queen Cleopatra lived much closer in time to Christopher Columbus than she did the building of the pyramids."




GUYS, I WAS 100% SERIOUS ABOUT THAT MAHOMES THEORY ... I think he might have a soft spot in his heart or something. I don't know if you guys heard, but after our game in Arrowhead, he commented to Sean Payton "you guys really got one," or something like that in reference to Nix. Sounds like a nice guy.

Something is kinda off about how CLOSE your game scores are, and yet you win every one The theory I'm percolating is - maybe, subconsciously maybe - he's SO good now, he's doing just enough to win. Bo freaking Nix' offense scored 45 more points this season than Mahomes. But you were 15-2 (15-1 really). Go figure.

Maybe he doesn't see any upside to humiliating opponents, so he's doing just enough to win. It MIGHT BE SUBCONSCIOUS, but it's something to think about.

[Mile High Mania]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Well, it wasn't a "conference." That, plus the number of teams being double (16 then, 32 now), and I think the Chiefs are probably further along right now.

It's not the NAME Super Bowl that matters to me, it's that in the first of the three they didn't play the AFL champ, so yes jj, it fails. And the one from the 1920s, that's just too long ago, and rfaulk's Bulldogs? NOOOO! This is the 21st century dammit!

Redin, you have a point, but the 1960s just don't seem "prehistoric" to me ... your point: "(Those 60s Packers) are far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today," you sound like one of those YouTube videos, "Martin Luther King and Anne Frank were the same age," or "Egyptian Queen Cleopatra lived much closer in time to Christopher Columbus than she did the building of the pyramids."




GUYS, I WAS 100% SERIOUS ABOUT THAT MAHOMES THEORY ... I think he might have a soft spot in his heart or something. I don't know if you guys heard, but after our game in Arrowhead, he commented to Sean Payton "you guys really got one," or something like that in reference to Nix. Sounds like a nice guy.

Something is kinda off about how CLOSE your game scores are, and yet you win every one The theory I'm percolating is - maybe, subconsciously maybe - he's SO good now, he's doing just enough to win. Bo freaking Nix' offense scored 45 more points this season than Mahomes. But you were 15-2 (15-1 really). Go figure.

Maybe he doesn't see any upside to humiliating opponents, so he's doing just enough to win. It MIGHT BE SUBCONSCIOUS, but it's something to think about.

That is such a dumb perspective…

[RedinTexas]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Redin, you have a point, but the 1960s just don't seem "prehistoric" to me ... your point: "(Those 60s Packers) are far closer in history to the '29-'31 threepeat than it is to today,"

The NFL has changed a great deal over the years. The way the game is played has evolved enormously as the money has grown larger. Saying that the '20s and '30s seem prehistoric to you and that the '60s do not is another way of saying that "anything before I was born is ancient history."

So, you've made the case for disregarding the earlier threepeat of the Packers, but claim that the later threepeat is still relevant despite the fact that you have also claimed that any contests between the Broncos and the Chiefs that occurred before the merger should be disregarded. Now give us your rationale for why that should be.

[htismaqe]

Plan B free agency was the biggest single change to the game since the AFL merger. Nothing that happened before free agency can even be considered because the game was so radically different.

[notorious]

What possesses an opposing fan to come on a rival board and spit out hundreds of shit posts while being absolutely roasted over and over again?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by notorious

What possesses an opposing fan to come on a rival board and spit out hundreds of shit posts while being absolutely roasted over and over again?

The fatal combination of hubris and idiocy.

[St. Patty's Fire]

Originally Posted by notorious

What possesses an opposing fan to come on a rival board and spit out hundreds of shit posts while being absolutely roasted over and over again?

let’s be real, this guy is a special case. emphasis on special.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by notorious

What possesses an opposing fan to come on a rival board and spit out hundreds of shit posts while being absolutely roasted over and over again?

Well, it is what Donk fans do best