PDA

View Full Version : Back in Time: A Hypothetical


DomCasual
12-08-2011, 11:43 AM
Okay, here's a hypothetical I've been thinking about, with the Giants having recently played the undefeated Packers.

You can go back in history and choose one of the following two options:

1) December 13, 1998 - The Broncos finally lose in their 14th game of the season. Final Score: Giants 20 Broncos 16

What you get to change: The entire outcome of the game. You get to be an invisible hand to knock the ball down before it reaches Amani Toomer in the end zone. Our machine allows us to see the remainder of the game, and it ends up 23-13 Broncos on a late sack/fumble/recovery/touchdown by Trevor Pryce.

The upside: The Broncos play their starters the next week at Miami, and win. They then run through Seattle at home and the playoffs and Super Bowl. They are considered the greatest team in NFL history, at 19-0.

The risk: The win changes the dynamics of the team. They end up falling short of the Lombardi Trophy.



2) January 4, 1997 - the Broncos are shocked at home by the expansion Jacksonville Jaguars. Final Score: Jacksonville 30 Broncos 27

What you get to change: The outcome of the game. Pick your play. Any number of them could have stopped Jacksonville's momentum during that game. The end result is that the Broncos win by at least a touchdown.

The upside: The team hosts the AFC Championship game against an over-matched Patriots team. The Broncos win easily, and beat the Packers in the Super Bowl. Hence, the 1999 game becomes one for a three-peat.

The risk: The Broncos either lose to the Patriots; or worse, to the Packers. Say they lose to the Packers, and become the first team to go 0 for 5 in Super Bowls. Maybe they still win the next two. Or maybe, there is a ripple effect, and John Elway plays one year less - or, God forbid, two.

So, what do you choose? Would you change the Giants game, and take what would have been a realistic (probably likely) shot at absolute immortality? Or, do you change the Jaguars game, and take what seems like a less likely (but still very possible) shot at a three-peat? If you vote, please explain your reasoning.

ColoradoDarin
12-08-2011, 11:45 AM
Giants game.

We already had the Superbowl win by then, so everything that year was gravy.

Spider
12-08-2011, 11:48 AM
2) January 4, 1997 - the Broncos are shocked at home by the expansion Jacksonville Jaguars. Final Score: Jacksonville 30 Broncos 27

What you get to change: The outcome of the game. Pick your play. Any number of them could have stopped Jacksonville's momentum during that game. The end result is that the Broncos win by at least a touchdown.

The upside: The team hosts the AFC Championship game against an over-matched Patriots team. The Broncos win easily, and beat the Packers in the Super Bowl. Hence, the 1999 game becomes one for a three-peat.

The risk: The Broncos either lose to the Patriots; or worse, to the Packers. Say they lose to the Packers, and become the first team to go 0 for 5 in Super Bowls. Maybe they still win the next two. Or maybe, there is a ripple effect, and John Elway plays one year less - or, God forbid, two.

So, what do you choose? Would you change the Giants game, and take what would have been a realistic (probably likely) shot at absolute immortality? Or, do you change the Jaguars game, and take what seems like a less likely (but still very possible) shot at a three-peat? If you vote, please explain your reasoning.

****ing Michael Dean Perry ............I dont thin i will ever forgive him ... but this is the one I would trade ........shiat I hate reliving this

TheReverend
12-08-2011, 11:48 AM
Both. Edge to #2 for potential 3-peat

broncocalijohn
12-08-2011, 11:53 AM
Is the date correct on the first one? We went to the superbowl in 1999 but the season was 1998.

MileHighMagic
12-08-2011, 11:53 AM
I have never felt as sick to my stomach as I did after the Jax loss. I shattered an old helmet and cried.

ppablo
12-08-2011, 11:54 AM
# 2 we should have had a 3 peat 96 would have been the start of it

DomCasual
12-08-2011, 11:55 AM
I meant to make the poll public, because private polls suck. I don't suppose there is any way to do that after the fact?

I chose the Giants, too. Last weekend, I found myself torn. I wanted the Giants to knock off the Packers. But I also get sick thinking about the damn Dolphins celebrating every time the final undefeated team loses. When they did that our year, I vowed to hate the Dolphins into the eternities. It's so classless. And what's more, I don't think that team is in the top five of greatest teams in history.

We, on the other hand, dominated that year. If we had won out, I think we would have been called the greatest of all-time. Losing two, like we did (even though the second one was altogether meaningless), I think people forget how good we were.

DomCasual
12-08-2011, 11:56 AM
Is the date correct on the first one? We went to the superbowl in 1999 but the season was 1998.

I think so. I always get confused with that. Our first Super Bowl win came in 1998, for the 1997 season.

DomCasual
12-08-2011, 11:57 AM
Is the date correct on the first one? We went to the superbowl in 1999 but the season was 1998.

You're right. I messed it up. And I apparently don't read well, since you asked about the first date, rather than the second.

Spider
12-08-2011, 11:58 AM
Is the date correct on the first one? We went to the superbowl in 1999 but the season was 1998.

;D I still refer to SB 12 as our 77 season

broncocalijohn
12-08-2011, 11:59 AM
I prefer to leave things as they lie because, as Dom mentioned, we dont know if Elway comes back for a third chance at a title. I am just happy that after witnessing 4 superbowl losses, I got to see two wins in a row. I don;t want to **** up that karma so I vote neither and just suffer the consequences of the events.

You're right. I messed it up. And I apparently don't read well, since you asked about the first date, rather than the second.

Bonafide **** up you are Dom.

;D I still refer to SB 12 as our 77 season

As everyone should and normally do. Dom is just part retard so you have to forgive him. He got hit by a softball when he should have been rehabing his knee much longer. ACL torn and back playing for his Rec league in 6 weeks. Crazy!

DomCasual
12-08-2011, 11:59 AM
****ing Michael Dean Perry ............I dont thin i will ever forgive him ... but this is the one I would trade ........shiat I hate reliving this

Yeah, I can still see his fat ass waddling off the field. It's etched in my memory.

That said, it should have never been called. It was ticky-tack, with a lot at stake.

Spider
12-08-2011, 12:00 PM
I prefer to leave things as they lie because, as Dom mentioned, we dont know if Elway comes back for a third chance at a title. I am just happy that after witnessing 4 superbowl losses, I got to see two wins in a row. I don;t want to **** up that karma so I vote neither and just suffer the consequences of the events.

;) not to mention a year earlier of B.Griese

Spider
12-08-2011, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I can still see his fat ass waddling off the field. It's etched in my memory.

That said, it should have never been called. It was ticky-tack, with a lot at stake.

true ..........very true ...... I try to get over it ;D .....But i still hate the Cowboys , Giants , Niners ...I dont get over these things well

v2micca
12-08-2011, 12:21 PM
As painful as it was, I just can't bring myself to change the Jacksonville game for fear of it screwing up everything that came after. There are just too many variables that come into play (freak injuries, bad bounces, ect) with each additional game played. Picking at that one thread could well pull out the entire pattern.

Like Spider said, the entire '98 season was gravy. I'm much more willing to potentially mess with that than Superbowl 32.

ScottXray
12-08-2011, 12:27 PM
I still remember the bogus PI call against Tory James when he picked off that pass in the third (?) quarter. In my mind THAT was the turning point of that game. He made an absolutely clean pick and didn't interfere. That was when I started to hate on the officials and when I knew they were going to make sure we didn't win that game.

He ( james) later got his knee blown out ,but if that injury hadn't happened I think he would have been one of the great CBs that Denver has had.

WolfpackGuy
12-08-2011, 12:31 PM
Good question. I'd change the loss to the Jaguars, but I don't think they win two Super Bowls without that Jaguars loss. The Broncos would've gone up 20-0 if not for that damn phantom pass interference on James! Losing Davis for an extended period of time is also something people don't talk about much... They would've easily smoked the Pats/Steelers in the AFCCG, but the Packers were pretty strong that year, and likely wouldn't have been denied.

The Giants game was almost a relief. You could tell the pressure was building, and they barely escaped a loss to the Cheaps the week before. Even if history had been on the line, I'm still not sure Shanahan shows the Phins anything going into that game at 14-0. Miami was totally lost on both sides of the ball in the playoff game, and obviously gameplanned from the regular season meeting.

BroncoLifer
12-08-2011, 12:35 PM
I've never believed in the 3-peat possibility. Its easy to overlook now but the 1996 team was still lacking in a few key spots, which is borne out by their failure to stop Brunnel. Packers/Favre would have won Super Bowl 31. The offseason acquisitions - Neil Smith, Darrian Gordon on D plus Howard Griffith and the emergence of young Rod Smith made the difference the next year.

bowtown
12-08-2011, 12:38 PM
Jax. I hated them both, but the Jax loss was by far the most painful Denver loss for me aside from the 86 and 87 Superbowls.

Steve Prefontaine
12-08-2011, 12:38 PM
I still remember the bogus PI call against Tory James when he picked off that pass in the third (?) quarter. In my mind THAT was the turning point of that game. He made an absolutely clean pick and didn't interfere.

That was such a bull**** ****ing call that still gets me fired up.

gunns
12-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Jacksonville, because we would have gotten the 1st of a 3 peat. I have no doubt. I hate that Favre got a bogus SB win and the Pack are piling on the SB wins

Hell, even the lowly Patriots went 18-1. So what if the Dolphins celebrate it every year. Doesn't bother me in the least.

Irish Stout
12-08-2011, 12:54 PM
I wouldn't change a thing. In my opinion, its what being a Broncos fan is all about. Its about the horrible, horrible, gut wrenching loss to the Jaguars when the world knows we're better than that. Its about driving it back to the SB the next year to take down the 14 point favorite and hearing Pat's voice crack as he dedicates the trophy to John.

In my mind, there will never be anything as magical as SB32 and I wouldn't risk losing that 97 season for anything.

DomCasual
12-08-2011, 01:00 PM
Jacksonville, because we would have gotten the 1st of a 3 peat. I have no doubt. I hate that Favre got a bogus SB win and the Pack are piling on the SB wins

Hell, even the lowly Patriots went 18-1. So what if the Dolphins celebrate it every year. Doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't know if we would have beaten the Packers. I would put it at 50/50. Remember, we weren't dominant the next year. It took the Revenge Tour, mostly on the road, for us to even get to the Super Bowl. And there, we were big underdogs.

The thing about winning out in 98-99 is that it would have been the watermark for every team for every season going forward. I think I might take that, even if I could be guaranteed winning it all in 96-97.

It's immortality! Those two little wins would have changed the historical perspective of that team. Whereas now, most consider them top-10 all-time, they would be considered the greatest. I think Elway would be considered the greatest, in that case (some still consider him such - most will talk about Montana, or the flavor of the week). I think it might be the thing that bumps guys like TD, Atwater, and Rod into the Hall of Fame. On top of their borderline Hall of Fame careers, they were key cogs in the greatest team of all time.

I really think it would have changed everything.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-08-2011, 01:10 PM
I still remember the bogus PI call against Tory James when he picked off that pass in the third (?) quarter. In my mind THAT was the turning point of that game. He made an absolutely clean pick and didn't interfere. That was when I started to hate on the officials and when I knew they were going to make sure we didn't win that game.

He ( james) later got his knee blown out ,but if that injury hadn't happened I think he would have been one of the great CBs that Denver has had.

It was the last game i ever went to in denver! I wanna say the TJ PI call was in the first half, when we were up 12-0 (what a game for elam to miss an XP).

broncosteven
12-08-2011, 01:37 PM
I wouldn't change anything either, who knows, maybe John decides to retire after winning the SB in 1996? I like how it all eventually turned out.

Bronc62
12-08-2011, 01:56 PM
I've never believed in the 3-peat possibility. Its easy to overlook now but the 1996 team was still lacking in a few key spots, which is borne out by their failure to stop Brunnel. Packers/Favre would have won Super Bowl 31. The offseason acquisitions - Neil Smith, Darrian Gordon on D plus Howard Griffith and the emergence of young Rod Smith made the difference the next year.

Absolutely agree, BroncoLifer, and I'm a lifer since '62. People underestimate the value of fullback Howard Griffith to the SB-winning '97 & '98 teams. The Darrien Gordon return threat was key too--best since Rick Upchurch (Broncs haven't had that kind of PR threat since).

Give the Packers & Reggie White credit in '96. It was their year of NFL dominance.

Bronc62
12-08-2011, 01:58 PM
I wouldn't change a thing. In my opinion, its what being a Broncos fan is all about. Its about the horrible, horrible, gut wrenching loss to the Jaguars when the world knows we're better than that. Its about driving it back to the SB the next year to take down the 14 point favorite and hearing Pat's voice crack as he dedicates the trophy to John.

In my mind, there will never be anything as magical as SB32 and I wouldn't risk losing that 97 season for anything.

Well said, Irish.

elsid13
12-08-2011, 02:25 PM
They needed the lose to the Jags to win the next two. So I am going with the Giants game because I do think they could have been undefeated.

Crushaholic
12-08-2011, 02:51 PM
Losing to Jacksonville was embarrassing. Come to think of it, it STILL would be absolute embarrass to lose to Jacksonville...LOL

BroncsCheer
12-08-2011, 02:53 PM
definitely change the Jax game - that should have been the first of a 3-Peat

Vine
12-08-2011, 02:56 PM
Okay, here's a hypothetical I've been thinking about, with the Giants having recently played the undefeated Packers.

You can go back in history and choose one of the following two options:

1) December 13, 1998 - The Broncos finally lose in their 14th game of the season. Final Score: Giants 20 Broncos 16

What you get to change: The entire outcome of the game. You get to be an invisible hand to knock the ball down before it reaches Amani Toomer in the end zone. Our machine allows us to see the remainder of the game, and it ends up 23-13 Broncos on a late sack/fumble/recovery/touchdown by Trevor Pryce.

The upside: The Broncos play their starters the next week at Miami, and win. They then run through Seattle at home and the playoffs and Super Bowl. They are considered the greatest team in NFL history, at 19-0.

The risk: The win changes the dynamics of the team. They end up falling short of the Lombardi Trophy.



2) January 4, 1997 - the Broncos are shocked at home by the expansion Jacksonville Jaguars. Final Score: Jacksonville 30 Broncos 27

What you get to change: The outcome of the game. Pick your play. Any number of them could have stopped Jacksonville's momentum during that game. The end result is that the Broncos win by at least a touchdown.

The upside: The team hosts the AFC Championship game against an over-matched Patriots team. The Broncos win easily, and beat the Packers in the Super Bowl. Hence, the 1999 game becomes one for a three-peat.

The risk: The Broncos either lose to the Patriots; or worse, to the Packers. Say they lose to the Packers, and become the first team to go 0 for 5 in Super Bowls. Maybe they still win the next two. Or maybe, there is a ripple effect, and John Elway plays one year less - or, God forbid, two.

So, what do you choose? Would you change the Giants game, and take what would have been a realistic (probably likely) shot at absolute immortality? Or, do you change the Jaguars game, and take what seems like a less likely (but still very possible) shot at a three-peat? If you vote, please explain your reasoning.


The play that I remember that doomed Denver was that idiot lard-ass (can't remember his name) that couldn't get off the field on a Jacksonville punt, which the 5 yard penalty resulted in a 1st down. Denver had a hard time getting their defense off the field that day, and they finally DO get the defense off the field, late in the game, but no.... instead, it is a too many men on the field penalty, and Denver gave up a score on that possession, and Denver did not have enough time to fully catch up after that.

vonqkilla
12-08-2011, 02:58 PM
I wouldn't change either. Risk not worth changing anything, at all.
I would go back and change doug williams fumble to a fumble before any of those plays.