TOP TEN bronco play-off games

[Chef Zambini]

http://www.milehighreport.com/2012/6/24/3104508/ranking-the-top-10-denver-broncos-post-season-games-elway-tebow-jackson-reeves#storyjump

I know that most of what I post enfuriates many of you.
here is something to help you all enjoy what binds us as bronco fans
my best regards.

[OrangeHoof]

Surprisingly, I agreed with the rankings for the most part. Many of you are too young to remember what it felt like in 1977 when we had the great year and beat the Steelers and Raiders for our first two post-season games and reached the Super Bowl. The Broncos had rarely been a .500 team, much less a playoff team for the first 16 years of their history. That season came out of nowhere - nobody was predicting it or saw it coming.

Those who weren't there have no idea how joyful and happy Bronco fans were when that happened or how important it was to the franchise. Plus to beat the Steelers and Raiders in the playoffs made it so much sweeter.

[Chef Zambini]

orange crush and
broncomania.
calling in to work with a dase of 'BRONC-itis"
peolple painting their house, cars, and chuildren and pets orange !
I agree, that season was second only to our first winning superbowl !
all ten games, great victories, great memories !

BTW, every time we went to the SB, we had to beat the steelers along the way!
in 77 the steelers were the reigning SB champs !

[Timmy!]

BTW, every time we went to the SB, we had to beat the steelers along the way

Ummmmm....no.

[Chef Zambini]

mmm yes, either regular season or in the play-offs.

[MOtorboat]

mmm yes, either regular season or in the play-offs.

In that case, we had to go through the Raiders, Chiefs and Chargers each time. Twice.

[Chef Zambini]

do we play the steelers every year?
WTF is your problem exactly?

[MOtorboat]

do we play the steelers every year?
WTF is your problem exactly?

Did I say something factually incorrect?

[EMB6903]

Pretty good list. No arguments here.


Oh ya...Fat, unhealthy people are gross...

[Timmy!]

mmm yes, either regular season or in the play-offs.

U said the Broncos had to beat the steelers in all sb years. HAVING to beat a team, to me, would mean a playoff game, where a team HAD to win. In 99 the Broncos didnt HAVE to beat the steelers, the season wouldnt have ended if they lost. To get to the sb last year the pats didnt HAVE to beat buffalo, but they did HAVE to beat Baltimore. So, youre wrong, as usual.

[EMB6903]

^^^ ummm nfl goes by season not calender. "in 99" broncos went 6-10.

Broncos won the nfl title in 1998.

[Timmy!]

^^^ ummm nfl goes by season not calender. "in 99" broncos went 6-10.

Broncos won the nfl title in 1998.

U sir, are correct.....but u know what i meant. :D

[Simple Jaded]

I'd be interested to see someone prove that the Broncos would have won the SB's they won if they didn't beat exactly who they beat, and how they beat them, to get there.

Look at the way the Broncos backed into the playoffs last year, what'd it go down to, the 10th F'n tiebreaker? For all we know/remember the Broncos would get another Jax and get bounced in the Wildcard round again. We all like to say that the Broncos would have three-peated if it weren't for the egg they laid against the Jags but it's about as easy to actually prove as the existence of God.

It may be easy to prove or it may not be, but reading it might be slightly more interesting than another Zambini against the World thread. To me it's semantics and the research is probably not worth the effort. Did the Broncos play and beat the Steelers each time? That's about as far as my attention span would get me.......

[Dzone]

The depression over the 96 loss to Jacksonville lingered until the grudge match. Having to wait 12 months for it was brutal.
Only loss worse was the 78 loss to Dallas. Oh wait, the 55-10 loss to SF was equally dreadful. Oh hell, the collapse against Washington was the Marianas trench. Phil Simms throwing 22-25 was, well, horrific.

[Simple Jaded]

The depression over the 96 loss to Jacksonville lingered until the grudge match. Having to wait 12 months for it was brutal.
Only loss worse was the 78 loss to Dallas. Oh wait, the 55-10 loss to SF was equally dreadful. Oh hell, the collapse against Washington was the Marianas trench. Phil Simms throwing 22-25 was, well, horrific.
I got up, walked into the living room and beat the shit out of the Christmas tree with a pool stick after losing to J-ville. I think it was really therapeutic.......

[Jsteve01]

mmm yes, either regular season or in the play-offs.

U said the Broncos had to beat the steelers in all sb years. HAVING to beat a team, to me, would mean a playoff game, where a team HAD to win. In 99 the Broncos didnt HAVE to beat the steelers, the season wouldnt have ended if they lost. To get to the sb last year the pats didnt HAVE to beat buffalo, but they did HAVE to beat Baltimore. So, youre wrong, as usual.sheesh quit trolling. The point he made is valid. We get it. You and mo can't stand Zam.

[Timmy!]

sheesh quit trolling. The point he made is valid. We get it. You and mo can't stand Zam.

Enlightening post. Actually i like Zam, i also like giving him shit, and have done it for years. u, however, i can ****. :welcome:

[Chef Zambini]

wow, I actually start a feel good thread and look at how it evolves.

[Ravage!!!]

My favorite was "the drive" of course. (I still have a hard time considering the Super Bowl a "playoff game")

[TXBRONC]

I got up, walked into the living room and beat the shit out of the Christmas tree with a pool stick after losing to J-ville. I think it was really therapeutic.......

This war on Christmas has to stop. :tsk:

[OrangeHoof]

I'd be interested to see someone prove that the Broncos would have won the SB's they won if they didn't beat exactly who they beat, and how they beat them, to get there.

Look at the way the Broncos backed into the playoffs last year, what'd it go down to, the 10th F'n tiebreaker? For all we know/remember the Broncos would get another Jax and get bounced in the Wildcard round again. We all like to say that the Broncos would have three-peated if it weren't for the egg they laid against the Jags but it's about as easy to actually prove as the existence of God.

It may be easy to prove or it may not be, but reading it might be slightly more interesting than another Zambini against the World thread. To me it's semantics and the research is probably not worth the effort. Did the Broncos play and beat the Steelers each time? That's about as far as my attention span would get me.......

I agree about the loss to the Jags. That was before the two SBs and possibly was the loss the team needed to focus on excellence the next two years. People also forget we were a Wild Card team the following year and had to win twice on the road in the playoffs (not easy) before beating the heavily-favored Packers.

As for the existence of God, that's easy to prove - just not with the finite laws of science. "Miracles" like parting the Red Sea or raising the dead are miracles *because* they can't be explained scientifically without factoring God into the equation.

But the easiest way to prove God is to prove love. Love cannot scientifically exist because it can't be measured and can't be isolated for observation but we all know that love exists. If love exists, it had to be invented somewhere. Who else could do it but God? And the Bible says flatly "God is love". Next time an atheist tells you God doesn't exist, ask him if love exists. If he believes love exists, tell him to prove it.

[Chef Zambini]

The depression over the 96 loss to Jacksonville lingered until the grudge match. Having to wait 12 months for it was brutal.
Only loss worse was the 78 loss to Dallas. Oh wait, the 55-10 loss to SF was equally dreadful. Oh hell, the collapse against Washington was the Marianas trench. Phil Simms throwing 22-25 was, well, horrific.I was fortunate to be at mile high for the re-match. I think we had 3 different RBs go over 100 yrds on them ! we kicked their arse that day, revenge was o so sweet !

[Jsteve01]

Enlightening post. Actually i like Zam, i also like giving him shit, and have done it for years. u, however, i can ****. :welcome:

Maybe we should move you to safety? I get it. I've argued with the guy for almost ten years but there seems to be a trend around here lately of following him around and arguing with him just to argue. Perhaps I posted in error. But I'm really sad because I can't read what the asterisks blocked out in your last post. I'm sure it was "enlightening" as well.

[Timmy!]

Well it is the offseason.......and id make a horrible safety.

[Simple Jaded]

I agree about the loss to the Jags. That was before the two SBs and possibly was the loss the team needed to focus on excellence the next two years. People also forget we were a Wild Card team the following year and had to win twice on the road in the playoffs (not easy) before beating the heavily-favored Packers.

As for the existence of God, that's easy to prove - just not with the finite laws of science. "Miracles" like parting the Red Sea or raising the dead are miracles *because* they can't be explained scientifically without factoring God into the equation.

But the easiest way to prove God is to prove love. Love cannot scientifically exist because it can't be measured and can't be isolated for observation but we all know that love exists. If love exists, it had to be invented somewhere. Who else could do it but God? And the Bible says flatly "God is love". Next time an atheist tells you God doesn't exist, ask him if love exists. If he believes love exists, tell him to prove it.

I'd take a bullet for my wife, I'm about as indifferent to whether or not that proves I love her as I am about whether it proves if God exists. Being able to prove whether or not the Broncos still win the SB if any variable changes falls somewhere in between and is far more interesting.......

[Ravage!!!]

But the easiest way to prove God is to prove love. Love cannot scientifically exist because it can't be measured and can't be isolated for observation but we all know that love exists. If love exists, it had to be invented somewhere. Who else could do it but God? And the Bible says flatly "God is love". Next time an atheist tells you God doesn't exist, ask him if love exists. If he believes love exists, tell him to prove it.

That would just get you laughed at by any atheist as that proves absolutely nothing. But then, the proof of nothing is exactly what "faith" is based on. So I guess thats pretty much what you are shooting for.

[MOtorboat]

No. 10 is on NFL Network right now.

[Dzone]

Hey, the recent overtime victory over the Steelers on the 80 pass to Thomas still feels good.