PDA

View Full Version : Looking back at the 1998 season


troya900
01-13-2012, 04:34 AM
Tonight for some reason I was reminiscing about the 1998 season the Broncos had and the thought that popped into my mind was that I wish we all could've seen the Broncos take on the Vikings in the Super Bowl that year.

Bored as I was I googled vikings should have faced broncos in Super Bowl 33 and to my amazement I found this thread (and poll) at a forum discussing this.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12200207

I'm honestly amazed at how many people truly believe the Broncos would not have been a match for the Vikings that year. Obviously I'm biased and my thoughts are that that Vikings team couldn't even take care of the Falcons in their own damn stadium and we demolished the pathetic Falcons in the SB. IMO the Broncos were on a mission that 98 season and not even a high flying offense like the Vikings were gonna stop them that year, but I still do wish to this day that it would have been proven by the Broncos smashing the Vikings in Superbowl 33. Just wanted to post this and get the opinions of other biased Broncos fans. :)

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 06:00 AM
It wouldn't have been a contest. Denver would have won easily. That might have been the best running game of all time.

And it's also ab absurd hypothetical for the exact reason you said. Denver steamrolled Atlanta on a neutral field when Minnesota couldnt even deal with them at home. Atlanta was similar to Denver except Denver was a much more superior version.

fwf
01-13-2012, 06:12 AM
The first post of that thread cracks me up. He forgot to mention that the Falcons beat the Vikings and we easily handled the Falcons. Fact is that 98 team was as complete as any time in the last 2 decades. Qb to FB to Safety they didnt have a weakness. We might have cheated the salary cap in order to assemble that team but even so.. you cant deny the facts.

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 06:37 AM
The first post of that thread cracks me up. He forgot to mention that the Falcons beat the Vikings and we easily handled the Falcons. Fact is that 98 team was as complete as any time in the last 2 decades. Qb to FB to Safety they didnt have a weakness. We might have cheated the salary cap in order to assemble that team but even so.. you cant deny the facts.

It wasn't really cheating as much as it was a miscalculation...it was an error.

gunns
01-13-2012, 07:13 AM
The few posts I read that sided with the Vikings failed to bring up the fact that the Vikings had to go into OT with the Falcons, in their own house, and lost. You can blame that game on Gary Anderson all you want, but who put Anderson in the position to have to win that game....the Vikings team.

As far as the two teams the stats for both were almost identical. 1 and 2 in offense, 6 and 8 in defense. 1 and 2 in outscoring opponents. The one area that was different was rushing. We would have dominated them in rushing. Their defense was ranked 14th in stopping rushing TD's, we were #1 in scoring rushing TD's.

Garcia Bronco
01-13-2012, 07:17 AM
It's all over but the crying

bronco militia
01-13-2012, 07:19 AM
Broncos fans fears that year was the secondary. Late in the seasn they had trouble stopping the "mighty" passing games of the chiefs, giants, and Dolphins.

Jason in LA
01-13-2012, 07:33 AM
People seem to remember that Vikings team as the greatest ever. I don't get it. The Even though the Broncos finished 14-2, they nearly pulled off a perfect season. It's like when the Vikings finished 15-1, people thought they were clearly the best team in the league. And people thought that the Falcons beating them was a huge upset. The Falcons were 14-2 that year. That's no upset.

That Broncos team was stacked, and I remember that Vikings team being all offense and not much defense. I'm kind of pissed that they blew their game against the Falcons because in a way it has taken away from the Broncos victory. The Broncos defense would have slowed the Vikings offense, and there is no way that the Vikings defense would have stopped the Broncos offense.

bronco militia
01-13-2012, 07:40 AM
People seem to remember that Vikings team as the greatest ever. I don't get it. The Even though the Broncos finished 14-2, they nearly pulled off a perfect season. It's like when the Vikings finished 15-1, people thought they were clearly the best team in the league. And people thought that the Falcons beating them was a huge upset. The Falcons were 14-2 that year. That's no upset.

That Broncos team was stacked, and I remember that Vikings team being all offense and not much defense. I'm kind of pissed that they blew their game against the Falcons because in a way it has taken away from the Broncos victory. The Broncos defense would have slowed the Vikings offense, and there is no way that the Vikings defense would have stopped the Broncos offense.

yeah, it might have been a high scoring game. Going into the playoffs, the broncos D was not playing well, but they turned it on against the Dolphins Jets and Falcons

Chris
01-13-2012, 07:43 AM
I agree with you guys but our pass defense was somewhat suspect... I think we were ranked 22nd or at the very least middle tier. Of course I think we would still have whupped them.

This is a case of Vikings fans having sour grapes.

TheChamp24
01-13-2012, 07:44 AM
The Vikings did provide a potential matchup nightmare for our defense, they were with almost every team actually.
I don't think people realize though that our rushing offense was unstoppable. We would've slowly went down the field and scored our points, forcing the Vikings to be predictable and us pinning our ears back to get to Cunningham.

Tombstone RJ
01-13-2012, 08:22 AM
Tonight for some reason I was reminiscing about the 1998 season the Broncos had and the thought that popped into my mind was that I wish we all could've seen the Broncos take on the Vikings in the Super Bowl that year.

Bored as I was I googled vikings should have faced broncos in Super Bowl 33 and to my amazement I found this thread (and poll) at a forum discussing this.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12200207

I'm honestly amazed at how many people truly believe the Broncos would not have been a match for the Vikings that year. Obviously I'm biased and my thoughts are that that Vikings team couldn't even take care of the Falcons in their own damn stadium and we demolished the pathetic Falcons in the SB. IMO the Broncos were on a mission that 98 season and not even a high flying offense like the Vikings were gonna stop them that year, but I still do wish to this day that it would have been proven by the Broncos smashing the Vikings in Superbowl 33. Just wanted to post this and get the opinions of other biased Broncos fans. :)

What a bunch of asshats. They all think that the Viking would have beaten the Broncos based on seasonal stats. One asshat throws out the stat that the Broncos pass defense was ranked 26th but conviniently forgets that the Broncos always played with a lead and the opposing teams had to pass the ball. Ignorance.

Also, it comes down to big games. Which team (the Vikings or the Broncos) had the ability to play mistake free football in the big games when it mattered the most--easy answer--the Denver Broncos and it's not even close.

fuggem.

barryr
01-13-2012, 08:29 AM
The Vikings would have been the tougher matchup since as others have pointed out, their passing game would have caused the Bronco defense many problems as it did most teams. I think the Broncos would still win, but the game would not nearly been as comfortable as taking on Atlanta and their conservative offense, which the Bronco defense handled rather easily it seemed.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-13-2012, 08:32 AM
It would have a been a great game, but im glad we didn't have to face them. That offense was potent and, if we had made an early mistake or two, that's the type of team that would have took it and ran.

Gimme a blow out agains the falcons anyday.

Tombstone RJ
01-13-2012, 08:36 AM
I still say the pressure of playing in the SB is a huge Broncos advantage. If the Vikings could have squeeked by the Falcons and made it to the SB, the Broncos would have had a huge advantage in the preparation, experience, coaching and overall mental aspect of the football game. In other words, all the intangible aspects of the game would favor the Broncos.

bronco militia
01-13-2012, 08:50 AM
I still say the pressure of playing in the SB is a huge Broncos advantage. If the Vikings could have squeeked by the Falcons and made it to the SB, the Broncos would have had a huge advantage in the preparation, experience, coaching and overall mental aspect of the football game. In other words, all the intangible aspects of the game would favor the Broncos.

mehhh....it didn't help the Packers against the Broncos

Tombstone RJ
01-13-2012, 09:23 AM
mehhh....it didn't help the Packers against the Broncos

meh, that doesn't change the fact that the Broncos still have Elway and Davis on offense and that Davis plays his best in the big games where as the Vikings obviously didn't play their best when it mattered the most.

SimonFletcher73
01-13-2012, 10:23 AM
I would have loved to see the Broncos play the Packers in XXXI. Although we got whooped by them 41-6 on the road that season we were 12-1 going into that game with little to play for. Bill Musgrave actually started that game.

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 01:02 PM
People seem to remember that Vikings team as the greatest ever. I don't get it. The Even though the Broncos finished 14-2, they nearly pulled off a perfect season. It's like when the Vikings finished 15-1, people thought they were clearly the best team in the league. And people thought that the Falcons beating them was a huge upset. The Falcons were 14-2 that year. That's no upset.

That Broncos team was stacked, and I remember that Vikings team being all offense and not much defense. I'm kind of pissed that they blew their game against the Falcons because in a way it has taken away from the Broncos victory. The Broncos defense would have slowed the Vikings offense, and there is no way that the Vikings defense would have stopped the Broncos offense.

I'm not. Because, like you said, the Falcons were 14-2. Those teams were very even. This was proven on the field. The Falcons team was like a poor man's Broncos. Jamal Anderson had a huge season running then ball and Chris Chandler had a big season to complement the running game. But the Falcons, though balanced, were run first. The Vikings, though balanced, were pass first.

During that period in the NFL, you almost had to be more balanced to contend for SBs. It wasn't the same league that it is now where there's been 10 years worth of rule changes to make the league more passing focused.

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 01:05 PM
It would have a been a great game, but im glad we didn't have to face them. That offense was potent and, if we had made an early mistake or two, that's the type of team that would have took it and ran.

Gimme a blow out agains the falcons anyday.

I would have rather faced Minnesota. We would have exposed them worse than Atlanta did. We faced better defense en route to the SB than what Minnesota had. We averaged around 30 ppg against strong defenses but it would have been a lot more had they not let their foot of the gas. Minnesota might have gotten a few big plays but not enough because they would have eventually been sacked or intercepted. Meanwhile, good luck trying to stop Denver's running game.

bronco militia
01-13-2012, 01:05 PM
meh, that doesn't change the fact that the Broncos still have Elway and Davis on offense and that Davis plays his best in the big games where as the Vikings obviously didn't play their best when it mattered the most.

of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with that point you were making

Tombstone RJ
01-13-2012, 01:14 PM
of course, but that doesn't have anything to do with that point you were making

My point is that the coaching staff and players of the Vikings choked during their biggest game of the year while the Broncos were playing their best football during the post season. The Vikings were a great team but choked at home to the Falcons. If they had won that game then I think the pressure of the SB would have been greater on them than on the Broncos and they could have easily made a lot of big mistakes (turnovers, penalties, etc.) that could have affected the outcome of the game. You can reasonably argue that they were the superior team talent wise, but the intangibles go to the Broncos.

Fact is, the Packers did not think the Broncos could beat them and they were not as mentally prepared to play the game as the Broncos were. Theres video of a Packers player on the Packers sideline (a defensive player) saying something along the lines of how the Broncos were not even a good team. That gives you some idea of what they thought of the Broncos.

The Broncos on the other hand were not going to take the Vikings lightly (or the Falcons for that matter). They would have been prepared to play the game at a high level and they had the vets to lead the team.

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 01:21 PM
My point is that the coaching staff and players of the Vikings choked during their biggest game of the year while the Broncos were playing their best football during the post season. The Vikings were a great team but choked at home to the Falcons. If they had won that game then I think the pressure of the SB would have been greater on them than on the Broncos and they could have easily made a lot of big mistakes (turnovers, penalties, etc.) that could have affected the outcome of the game. You can reasonably argue that they were the superior team talent wise, but the intangibles go to the Broncos.

Fact is, the Packers did not think the Broncos could beat them and they were not as mentally prepared to play the game as the Broncos were. Theres video of a Packers player on the Packers sideline (a defensive player) saying something along the lines of how the Broncos were not even a good team. That gives you some idea of what they thought of the Broncos.

The Broncos on the other hand were not going to take the Vikings lightly (or the Falcons for that matter). They would have been prepared to play the game at a high level and they had the vets to lead the team.

Not really. Most of the perception of being more talented has to do with who had the more prolific passing games. The Falcons were like a poor man's Broncos and they were 14-2. There was no guarantee that Minnesota could or should steamroll the Falcons. Sure, Anderson missed a FG but it was a home game and it was coming down to a FG.

Tombstone RJ
01-13-2012, 01:31 PM
Not really. Most of the perception of being more talented has to do with who had the more prolific passing games. The Falcons were like a poor man's Broncos and they were 14-2. There was no guarantee that Minnesota could or should steamroll the Falcons. Sure, Anderson missed a FG but it was a home game and it was coming down to a FG.

go tell that to these guys:

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12200207

OrangeSe7en
01-13-2012, 01:34 PM
go tell that to these guys:

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=12200207

If thats the thread from the OP, I already saw it. Most of them are speaking out of ignorance.

Hercules Rockefeller
01-13-2012, 01:48 PM
I remember listening to KOA that night on our way home from the game, they talked to an oddsmaker in Vegas who said Denver would have opened at about a 3 point favorite if the Vikings had won the NFC.