Broncos news megathread

[ROYC75]

Discussion: All things Broncos.

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Oh man ... you guys are SO easy to trigger!

And your Donktard mythology is so easy to disprove with facts & evidence that's been posted in abundance in this very thread. Anyone can start at page 5000 and sift through it to page 5300 & see it for themselves.

Donkeys all-time SB record is 0 wins, 5 losses, and 3 given to them as going-away presents (two to Turd Elway and one to 5-head Manning). None of your blather can get around this fact.

And why did Elway's throwing style look like Elway was pulling a turd out of his back pocket...especially compared to just about every other QB that played the game that anyone can think of.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

No, there were FOUR Super Bowls before the merger. Sorry to keep correcting you guys. If you don't like it, stop making mistakes.

And there HAS been one 3-Peat before ... it definitely WAS a 3-Peat. Only difference is the first of the 3 wasn't called a "Super Bowl."

We’re about to win the same number of SBs in the last 3 years as your franchise has in the last 65 years

[New World Order]

Has Chango came in and told us how bad we look?

Haven’t seen him since Buffalo plastered Denver a few weeks ago

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by tooge

The NFL fined the Broncos a 3rd round pick for circumventing the salary cap in 1997 and 1998. That is a fact. Without doing so, they wouldn't have been able to bring back Elway, Davis, Sharpe, and several other key players. So, in everyone elses mind, they cheated to win a couple of SBs and the cheating is legitimized by the penalty imposed by the NFL

Ok, you're making one small mistake - they didn't "circumvent the salary cap." They "violated salary cap rules."

Ok, very funny, what's the difference? But there is a difference. To gain an advantage, to free up more money for players, the Broncos (or any team) would have to submit forged player contracts to the League, showing lower salary amounts in order to free up funds (hey Peter Gibbons, now THAT'S math!). Not even the Union said that, the NFLPA. The Union's statement said:
.

"The approved procedures for deferring any portion of a player's compensation are spelled out in the CBA. In addition to violating these procedures, the Team failed to disclose to the Union it had entered into illegal deferments with the Players."

.

The only possible explanation how it might have given them a competitive advantage is - and this is complicated, so follow - the deferment agreements obviously included some additional compensation for agreeing to defer. It's not free, Elway and TD at least got interest on the amounts they deferred. Oh my gawd ...

Oh my gawd, I'll bet that's it! The private agreement to defer part of their salaries included, of course, interest on the money being deferred! That interest almost certainly was NOT reported to the union or the league, and that was what pushed us over the cap! We damn sure as hell didn't submit fraudulent and forged contracts to the League and the union.

How about that ... none of the parties have been permitted to explain the specifics of what the league based its penalties on, due to players' privacy. But this would explain it, this would be a violation of the cap itself, and would explain why the League refused to say it was intended to create a competitive advantage. And a 3rd round pick is nothing compared to what the Cowboys and Redskins were penalized - what the league didn't hesitate to call an intentional effort to create an advantage.

[tooge]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Ok, you're making one small mistake - they didn't "circumvent the salary cap." They "violated salary cap rules."

Ok, very funny, what's the difference? But there is a difference. To gain an advantage, to free up more money for players, the Broncos (or any team) would have to submit forged player contracts to the League, showing lower salary amounts in order to free up funds (hey Peter Gibbons, now THAT'S math!). Not even the Union said that, the NFLPA. The Union's statement said:
.

"The approved procedures for deferring any portion of a player's compensation are spelled out in the CBA. In addition to violating these procedures, the Team failed to disclose to the Union it had entered into illegal deferments with the Players."

.

The only possible explanation how it might have given them a competitive advantage is - and this is complicated, so follow - the deferment agreements obviously included some additional compensation for agreeing to defer. It's not free, Elway and TD at least got interest on the amounts they deferred. Oh my gawd ...

Oh my gawd, I'll bet that's it! The private agreement to defer part of their salaries included, of course, interest on the money being deferred. That interest almost certainly was NOT reported to the union or the league, and that was what pushed us over the cap! We damn sure as hell didn't submit fraudulent and forged contracts to the League and the union.

How about that ... none of the parties have been permitted to explain the specifics of what the league based its penalties on, due to players' privacy. But this would explain it, this would be a violation of the cap itself, and would explain why the League refused to say it was intended to create a competitive advantage. And a 3rd round pick is nothing compared to what the Cowboys and Redskins were penalized - what the league didn't hesitate to call an intentional effort to create an advantage.

It's cheating. They "violated" the rules for the salary cap. So, they cheated to win the SB's in 1997 and 1998, sorry. In my world, if you cheat, there should be an asterisk by your title.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by New World Order

We’re about to win the same number of SBs in the last 3 years as your franchise has in the last 65 years

Haha, yeah. Maybe

I might even say "probably,"

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Oh man ... you guys are SO easy to trigger!

I've been all over the Internet, a dozen or more football message boards, and dozens more sports sites, and this place is the first time I've heard those violations mentioned in at least 10 years, probably longer.

Guys, THE LEAGUE makes the rules, not you. We win those two Super Bowls, end of story. You're like Trump after Biden had already taken office, STILL CRYING the election was stolen.

Guys, it's over! And you wonder why I call you obsessed ....




Thanks for making my point for me, albeit in a backwards way.

You guys all DEMAND I COUNT AFL GAMES! But when I point out all the 3-Peat hype (a record your team doesn't even have yet), is just hype because the Packers already accomplished it, suddenly NOW you want to exclude that accomplishment. Exclude just ONE YEAR, the other two years you're ok with, right?

Exclude it? No. Diminish it? Yes.

Because having to win 2 games to win a Title, with the Title Game being in your own backyard in one instance is NOT the same as having to win 10 totals games over 3 years with a Title Game being set in a neutral location where neither team likely has a decided advantage over the other, unlike the Packers setup nearly 60 years ago.

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by DonkeyDuff

I'm the only one here making any mistake by suggesting that there's any difference between "circumventing the salary cap" and "violating the salary" because I'm too big of a dumbass to figure out that they are one and the same.

The rest of my Donktard long-winded blather doesn't change the fact that the Donkeys had players on their roster that they had ZERO business having from 1996 -- 1998.

Fixed.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by tooge

It's cheating. They "violated" the rules for the salary cap. So, they cheated to win the SB's in 1997 and 1998, sorry. In my world, if you cheat, there should be an asterisk by your title.

You're creating what are called "straw men" ... nobody ever denied there were violations. Not the Broncos, not Bowlen, not me.

But the NFL is shot-caller here, and they decided the penalties. I think now I see why they were comparatively minor ... the Cowboys' and Redskins' penalties were much more harsh, and the League's words were more harsh too.

And the "*" in your world, in this thread, okay. But like I said, This thread is the first place I've seen it mentioned in at least the last 10 years.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

BroncoBuff, you are a great poster. Don't tell anyone I said this, but those two bad spots yesterday cost Buffalo the game. I'm all broken up over it!

Fixed.

Relax, dempsey. The bad spots weren't your fault!

[tooge]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

You're creating what are called "straw men" ... nobody ever denied there were violations. Not the Broncos, not Bowlen, not me.

But the NFL is shot-caller here, and they decided the penalties. I think now I see why they were comparatively minor ... the Cowboys' and Redskins' penalties were much more harsh, and the League's words were more harsh too.

And the "*" in your world, in this thread, okay. But like I said, This thread is the first place I've seen it mentioned in at least the last 10 years.

That is because it was 28 years ago. In addition, you are a donk fan, so you probably live in more of an echo chamber with regards to discussing the donks with the other donk fans. I'm guessing that the salary cap violations of 1997 and 1998 aren't something y'all discuss much. As for the straw man, that is incorrect. You stated that the salary cap rules were violated. I stated that in my opinion (I used the word "world"), violating salary cap rules are a form of cheating, so in my opinion, they deserve an asterisk next to their title.

[Sassy Squatch]

Jesus ****, this dude actually makes me sympathetic towards Taco John

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

You guys just don't get it. I'm not sure why, but you don't.

I'll explain s l o w l y . . .

.

1. I posted a statistic analysis that counted just NFL games
2. I also post our teams' H2H should best be seen in NFL games only, leaving out the 19-1 in the intentionally uneven, non-competitive AFL
3. You guys CRY OUT "No BroncoBuff, no!" You can't leave out AFL games, that's the OTHER time we were good!"
4. Oh, but NOW - now you're FINE with excluding other records merely because they're NAMED differently: "No BroncoBuff, no! The first of those three wasn't even called "Super Bowl!'"

I got news for you - The second and third of those three weren't called Super Bowls either, not until two years later. Which proves even further that it's all about names, not about a true 3-Peat record.

It's a double standard on your part, plain and simple. A completely understandable double standard, in that your Chiefs-centric narrow minds badly want to believe you'll be the "First Ever," and the NFL's Promo Machine is working overtime to drive your thinking in that direction, so it's understandable. But it's still a double standard.

Since you care so much about pre-merger, then the Chiefs are clowning the Broncos in all time wins, yeah?

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Fixed

Relax, dempsey. The bad spots weren't your fault!

Wrong again. The video evidence has been posted all over X/Twitter proving those weren't bad spots -- here is one ---> (https)//x(dot)com/town13100/status/1883896384207941686

And you didn't 'fix' anything -- all you did was hump your neighbor's dog in your world of delusion.

65 years & counting and the Donkeys don't have any legit SB trophies.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Since you care so much about pre-merger, then the Chiefs are clowning the Broncos in all time wins, yeah?

Uh oh. SNR has him trapped