Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Every 50 Years...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

    Yeah, the Braves had ONE WS win during the 90s. They won 14 straight divisions and they were a dynasty.

    You may not think so, but the Bills in the early 90s were a dynasty.

    Fans are idiots
    Click image for larger version

Name:	giphy.gif
Views:	117
Size:	930.2 KB
ID:	2559854

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

      Yeah, the Braves had ONE WS win during the 90s. They won 14 straight divisions and they were a dynasty.

      You may not think so, but the Bills in the early 90s were a dynasty.

      Fans are idiots
      Can multiple dynasties exist at the same time? I mean the whole definition of Dynasty is being a consisted ruler over a period of time. So I guess KC has a divisional Dynasty going right now.

      Comment


      • #33
        Come on. No titles = no dynasty. Stop quoting his idiotic posts so that I have to read them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

          No, cause he will break their bank. So, we will see. I see him as one of those special types who will be a perpetual winner.

          Will he win it all without enough talent? Doubt it. Like I said, Rodgers can't do it, Brees can't do it. Brady couldn't do it. Brady had to adjust his salary to soldify the defense. They did and they won it for the first time in 10 years when they previously won it with the help of an elite defense.

          I think a Mahomes led team will average 10 to 15 wins over the next 10 seasons. He is two years in averaging 12 wins.

          We will see. Hope I am wrong.
          I’m sure as long as they have Mahomes they will be competitive in the division, but you really are making more of him than you should (most people are). When I watch him play at least half his completions are to college-open receivers. That’s because he has some of the fastest and most talented receivers in the league, and Reid is great at scheming players open. Mahomes does make some great plays, no doubt, but if he’s forced to play in a less talented offense or he loses Reid (heart attack looks imminent doesn’t it?), then he will cease to look so amazing. It’s not an insult to him. It’s just a simple awareness that he is a very good QB in an ideal situation. Ideal situations rarely last.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

            Yeah, the Braves had ONE WS win during the 90s. They won 14 straight divisions and they were a dynasty.

            You may not think so, but the Bills in the early 90s were a dynasty.

            Fans are idiots
            Rofl...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mile High Salute View Post
              Come on. No titles = no dynasty. Stop quoting his idiotic posts so that I have to read them.
              the bills put the nasty in dynasty.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gutless Drunk View Post

                Click image for larger version

Name:	giphy.gif
Views:	117
Size:	930.2 KB
ID:	2559854
                do you need a place for that thumb ?

                Comment


                • #38
                  As far as the dynasty thing goes, I think I'll wait for them to actually win a super bowl.

                  From what I've read, the Chiefs have done a pretty good job restructuring contracts and creating space to sign Mahomes to a long term deal - somewhere around $40 mil a year - but the fact remains that they'll no longer have the luxury of that rookie contract and little room for error in future signings. OTOH, he'll probably attract a number of free agents willing to take a discount to join the circus. KC will be a strong team for the foreseeable future. If they develop issues, it will probably be on the defense.

                  The Broncos have their work cut out for them, but the cap space, the infusion of talent from the last couple of rookie classes and a cartload of picks coming up this year are grounds for optimism.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Old Dude View Post
                    As far as the dynasty thing goes, I think I'll wait for them to actually win a super bowl.

                    From what I've read, the Chiefs have done a pretty good job restructuring contracts and creating space to sign Mahomes to a long term deal - somewhere around $40 mil a year - but the fact remains that they'll no longer have the luxury of that rookie contract and little room for error in future signings. OTOH, he'll probably attract a number of free agents willing to take a discount to join the circus. KC will be a strong team for the foreseeable future. If they develop issues, it will probably be on the defense.

                    The Broncos have their work cut out for them, but the cap space, the infusion of talent from the last couple of rookie classes and a cartload of picks coming up this year are grounds for optimism.
                    Yes, that imo will be a major obstacle for them. Having said that, there will also be players that will want to team up with Mahomes, maybe even for a discounted price if they feel they can get a ring.

                    We saw that with Manning etc. Also, I would not be shocked if Mahomes does a Brady type deal to lure players.

                    Can you believe someone was comparing Matt Moore to Mahomes? Lol

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

                      I’m sure as long as they have Mahomes they will be competitive in the division, but you really are making more of him than you should (most people are). When I watch him play at least half his completions are to college-open receivers. That’s because he has some of the fastest and most talented receivers in the league, and Reid is great at scheming players open. Mahomes does make some great plays, no doubt, but if he’s forced to play in a less talented offense or he loses Reid (heart attack looks imminent doesn’t it?), then he will cease to look so amazing. It’s not an insult to him. It’s just a simple awareness that he is a very good QB in an ideal situation. Ideal situations rarely last.
                      Love how you guys oscillate between "Reid's holding the Chiefs back!" to "Where would they be without Reid?!?!"

                      As for being in the ideal situation, I would think an ideal situation for a QB would involve a strong running game and a better interior line.

                      Garoppolo is closer to the ideal situation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RockyMountainOyster View Post

                        Love how you guys oscillate between "Reid's holding the Chiefs back!" to "Where would they be without Reid?!?!"

                        As for being in the ideal situation, I would think an ideal situation for a QB would involve a strong running game and a better interior line.

                        Garoppolo is closer to the ideal situation.
                        I don’t oscillate. Reid is an amazing offensive coach who has historically sucked ass as a head coach in big playoff games. These things do not in any way conflict with each other.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

                          No, I will make the prediction now...

                          That is how predictions work.
                          You didn't make a prediction, you made a statement. You said they are a dynasty right now. You didn't say they could be dynasty, or they will be a dynasty, or anything remotely like a prediction. You said they are right now and that statement is idiotic. If you want to change it to you're predicting they will, then fine.

                          Lombardis are nice, but a team can be a dynasty without Lombardis.
                          This is just dumb. The only point to the game is to win championships. There is one winner and 31 losers every year. To be a dynasty you need to be a winner at some point. If that offends your delicate sensibilities I also don't care.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
                            You didn't make a prediction, you made a statement. You said they are a dynasty right now. You didn't say they could be dynasty, or they will be a dynasty, or anything remotely like a prediction. You said they are right now and that statement is idiotic. If you want to change it to you're predicting they will, then fine.


                            This is just dumb. The only point to the game is to win championships. There is one winner and 31 losers every year. To be a dynasty you need to be a winner at some point. If that offends your delicate sensibilities I also don't care.
                            Me making a statement saying they are a dynasty is true and if I say the statement before they actually are, that is a prediction.

                            Holy ****.

                            No, a team doesn't actually have to win it all. The Bills were a dynasty and they never won it.

                            The Braves example also fits since many define a dynasty with MULTIPLE championships. The Braves won ONE and they were clearly a dynasty in the 90s.

                            Teams in the NFL that win consistently over a number of years can be considered a dynasty.

                            The Colts with Manning won ONE championship and they were a dynasty in the 2000s. Averaged 11+ wins a season for over a decade.

                            There really are ridiculous posters on here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Broncoblood32 View Post

                              Me making a statement saying they are a dynasty is true and if I say the statement before they actually are, that is a prediction.

                              Holy ****.
                              Holy **** is right...

                              No, a team doesn't actually have to win it all. The Bills were a dynasty and they never won it.

                              The Braves example also fits since many define a dynasty with MULTIPLE championships. The Braves won ONE and they were clearly a dynasty in the 90s.

                              Teams in the NFL that win consistently over a number of years can be considered a dynasty.

                              The Colts with Manning won ONE championship and they were a dynasty in the 2000s. Averaged 11+ wins a season for over a decade.

                              There really are ridiculous posters on here.
                              There really are...

                              Hey guys, let's make a list of all the teams that were almost good enough to be actual winners for a bunch of years in a row. Even though they didn't actually win anything we'll call them a dynasty anyway. I wouldn't have pegged you as the trophy generation type, but I guess in your eyes everyone should get to know what it's like to have a dynasty. It's not fair if only winners get the title right?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by broncosjf View Post
                                Holy **** is right...


                                There really are...

                                Hey guys, let's make a list of all the teams that were almost good enough to be actual winners for a bunch of years in a row. Even though they didn't actually win anything we'll call them a dynasty anyway. I wouldn't have pegged you as the trophy generation type, but I guess in your eyes everyone should get to know what it's like to have a dynasty. It's not fair if only winners get the title right?
                                Last edited by Broncoblood32; 01-20-2020, 07:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X