Best ever Broncos team that isn’t ’97, ’98, or 2015?

[74_75_78_79_]

Of course the five who made, but lost, the Super Bowl will be the first installments to look at. And then there are some that didn’t even make it to the SB that come to mind as well. And of those, there are two obvious ones with me that didn’t even make it to the CCG!

Well, one of those two is my pick. Hint - they lost handily late in the season to the eventual Lombardi-winner but with an obvious explanation - and for that reason/logic, I once accused them of being ‘better’ than them. Then some of you set me straight with me then seeing them as equal and, soon enough, then seeing the actual champ as the better team after all, even if in a ‘1a’/‘1b’ way.

So who’s your pick?


PS - sure-enough, some of you may see quite a few of these squads as better than ’15. You all know I'm referring to '96 as to who I think is the best of the Denver teams that didn't go all-the-way. Of course I see them as better than 2015. I also see 2012 as better who I actually feel is the 2nd-best Denver team to not finish the deal. Yes, the two who didn't even make it to the CCG.

Had '12 turned that real close OT loss to Balt into a win, I feel they top NE the following week and then off to New Orleans in a close one vs San Fran. But I'll take Peyton over Kaep in that one. '77 is like '15 in that both were quite defense-heavy. Craig Morton was better that year than Peyton was in that final year of his, 12-1 going into that meaningless finale, besting both Pittsburgh & Oakland to get to the Big Game, and 2015 barely getting by undermanned Pittsburgh in their divisional. However, topping that one-loss Carolina team who utterly dismantled Bruce Arians' 14-3 Cards as well as 2015 besting the Pats to get to that very SB along with they...WINNING IT places them over Red Miller's gang with me.

And '13 despite they and '15 being just two years apart are basically opposites! But I very usually take defense over offense and '13 got destroyed whereas '15...(again)...WON it!

Yes, it's just '96 and then '12 who I think are better than 2015 IMO. What do you all think?

PPS - and if we’re going strictly by the five SB-losers, Dan Reeves being the middle three with ‘77 & ’13 flanking them, how do you rank strictly those amongst each other?

IMO, it's...5) 1987, 4) 1989, 3) 2013, 2) 1986, 1) 1977

[CSKreager]

An interesting Broncos team I want to mention is the 1981 team, Dan Reeves' 1st.

Only team since the merger to go undefeated at home and miss the playoffs.

Craig Morton at age 38 threw 21 TD's (which back then was a ton for an older QB) and Steve Watson had 12 TD's in his first 10 games.

9th in points allowed, 6th in yards allowed.

But a top heavy AFC did them in- a loss at KC (whom San Diego swept) swung AFCW tiebreakers as did the Jets tie at Miami.

[Brian wolf]

The 2013 team was a juggernaut, but just had a bad SB. The offensive line didnt play well but neither did Manning, who had an uncharacteristic day of nervous feet. With Wilson on the other side for Seattle converting first downs, keeping the Broncos defense on the field, Manning probably felt he had to press more which blew up in their face.

The 2012 squad was another top team but got upset in the divisional round like the 1984, 2014 and 1996 teams. Of those four, I feel only the 2012 team could have won the SB.

Had the 1977 team played anyone but Dallas, they may have went all the way. My vote is 2013 though.

[7DnBrnc53]

An interesting Broncos team I want to mention is the 1981 team, Dan Reeves' 1st.

Only team since the merger to go undefeated at home and miss the playoffs.

Craig Morton at age 38 threw 21 TD's (which back then was a ton for an older QB) and Steve Watson had 12 TD's in his first 10 games.

9th in points allowed, 6th in yards allowed.

But a top heavy AFC did them in- a loss at KC (whom San Diego swept) swung AFCW tiebreakers as did the Jets tie at Miami.

I think that team was better than any of their 70's playoff teams, including the 1977 one. It was probably more talented than some of the 84-91 Bronco teams as well.

[Brian wolf]

The 2005 team was very good as well with Plummer at QB but didnt play well against the Steelers in the AFC championship game. Plummer would get replaced by Cutler soon afterward which I feel in hindsight, was a mistake. Why Plummer didnt try to start for another team and resume his career is a mystery?

[Ness]

The 2005 team was very good as well with Plummer at QB but didnt play well against the Steelers in the AFC championship game. Plummer would get replaced by Cutler soon afterward which I feel in hindsight, was a mistake. Why Plummer didnt try to start for another team and resume his career is a mystery?

Over time I'm not sure if that team was that great. I go back, and forth. On one hand they went 13-3 in a tough division with the Chargers/Chiefs in the mix. A few aging vets from the 97 to 98 SB squads lingered. They really blew it at home against the Steelers. Plummer flopped in the biggest game of his life, and that Denver defense crumbled. I actually forgot about this team when thinking over the prompt a bit until you mentioned it.

Plummer was playing bad in 2006 before he got benched. As for why he didn't continue on, if I recall he was on the verge of being traded to Tampa, but just decided to retire instead. Don't think he wanted to go there. SI did an article on the entire situation a few years back.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/06/30/si-va ... er-broncos

[7DnBrnc53]

The 2005 team was very good as well with Plummer at QB but didnt play well against the Steelers in the AFC championship game. Plummer would get replaced by Cutler soon afterward which I feel in hindsight, was a mistake. Why Plummer didnt try to start for another team and resume his career is a mystery?

I think the 2003 Broncos were better than the 2005 version because of depth. Plummer missed five games in 03, and they still went 10-6. The 2005 Broncos were just luckier because of health. If Plummer missed that many games in 05, they may not have made the playoffs in a tougher AFC.

[74_75_78_79_]

Nice responses!

I do, indeed, respect that '81 team. It could have easily been they at Miami in that divisional. Whether that game would be as...'Epic' as to the match-up we actually did get (I, and I'm sure most others, would agree not), sure-enough with me it would have still been competitive. Broncos & Dolphins didn't play each other that season. But I'd think Denver gives Cincy no more a challenge in the 'Freezer Bowl' than SD actually did nor Miami would have done had it been them. And Denver did lose at Cincy convincingly late that regular season.

Still, they had a pretty nice 5-1 start. I keep forgetting about that. Within that start they convincingly beat SD at home along with - FWIW - sweeping the Raiders (17-0 at Oakland for the second win) and beating the Lions which is a feat worth bringing up. They had a nice pass game and pass-defense though less INTs could have been thrown and more INTs could have been made. Their run-defense was middling and their run-game was even less than that; Y/A in both such categories was pretty bad!

And not a great road-team barring a 24-7 win at NFC champ-to-be, Tampa Bay, which did bring Denver to 8-3. But then that aforementioned convincer at Cincy followed by the Chargers getting decisive revenge at the Murph, 34-17, the following week. Then, finally, three weeks later - with the division at stake - they let the 5-10 Bears at Soldier roll over them in Armstrong's final game with them.

A respectable bring-up, but IMO not a candidate and not at all better than '77. That Super Bowl qualifier who, again, were 12-1 going into that meaningless finale and then beat the last two SB-champs to get to that very first dome SB is the best pre-Shanahan Broncos team plain and simple IMO. And, yes, anyone but Dallas in that Super Bowl, and the Broncos win their first Vince twenty years earlier!

'78 & '79, though each not far from finishing 2nd-seed, not up to par either. As I said before they're like the '88/'89 Vikings. Very great defense still, but fall flat on their faces to Champs-to-be, Bradshaw & Co, both years just as the Vikings' #1 D a decade later fell flat to Montana & Co both years (of course both SF triumphs were divisional games whereas Steelers blast Denver in the '78 divisional, but do so just on MNF in '79 - and, yes, Den & Min get the 'first' laugh over them in '77 & '87 respectively).


2013 were juggernaut-enough with me going into that Super Bowl. I incorrectly thought it'd be competitive - contrast-in-styles (didn't Mia/SF, Oak/TB teach me anything). But after the big blowout, it made me look at their stats and the D wasn't really there all along. Yes with Seattle's first downs, but that was also a case of the D simply being exposed. I still may very easily place them just over '86 if the wind blows right. But the simple balance of '86 along with the over-achievement of beating Browns AT the Dawg Pound and FWIW beating the Giants at halftime (and playing them tough at the Meadowlands weeks earlier) places them as '2nd-best' SB-loser with me despite 11-5 instead of 13-3.


2005, no, not a paper tiger as I may have once almost opined them as being. A true-enough 13-3 team with me if however barely. A terrific 5-1 start! All five wins were against eventual above-500 teams. The fifth 'W' was over the Pats, 28-20! They finished at #5 in offense but it was not because of the passing game, though Jake throwing just seven INTs clearly helped. Unlike '81, 2005's run-game was the strength of their offense instead. Yes, Pats turned the ball over five times in that divisional rematch, but I'll lean to still giving Denver credit. They likely were actually better than that now "good" 10-6 two-time-defending-Champ. And the convincing home loss to Pittsburgh but lets face it, the Steelers were now on a roll by then. After upending Indy, how could the fire still not be burning if for just one more game? But it was, perhaps, that very decisive Mile High win along with a two-week wait that may have made the 'Burgh 'spent' by XL. But thank God both the 'Hawks and the officials had an off-game as well.

Jake Plummer? Maybe I need to dig deeper into his career but in-hindsight, with what limited gathering I have, it seems to be that his career with the Cards had more 'bite' to it than it did in Denver. Is it because he did more with much less around him in the desert, or was he actually better in Denver and I'm seeing it wrong? Or a little of both?


And, again, with 1996...they are the #3 best Broncos team ever with me. I 'treat' them as a SB-winner. It would either be an upset to the Jags which is what did happen, or coming up just short vs Green Bay in a hypo-matchup which would clearly have been no disgrace vs that #1 offense/#1 defense. Many other years, barring that divisional upset, and it'd be they holding up the Lombardi. I give the '96 Pack the nod as best team that year as I should. But it still wouldn't be a shock to me if God came down and told me that it really was they who were best with GB being..."lucky" that the Jaguar upset happened. In either event, lets say the Broncos in '96 avert that very upset, fully take advantage of having NE's # ("Send the National Guard, Part II"), then...beat Green Bay (Elway under center this time instead of Mus), it'd be safe-enough to assume with me that it would have still been just a back-to-back in Mile High. John would have been talked out of retirement to win it again in '97, and then he'd definitely call it quits after that thus nothing near 14-2 (13-0 start)/another Lombardi in '98 (Falcons/Jets SB? I'll take Tuna winning that third Ring).

[74_75_78_79_]

The 2005 team was very good as well with Plummer at QB but didnt play well against the Steelers in the AFC championship game. Plummer would get replaced by Cutler soon afterward which I feel in hindsight, was a mistake. Why Plummer didnt try to start for another team and resume his career is a mystery?

I think the 2003 Broncos were better than the 2005 version because of depth. Plummer missed five games in 03, and they still went 10-6. The 2005 Broncos were just luckier because of health. If Plummer missed that many games in 05, they may not have made the playoffs in a tougher AFC.

Good point about 2003 over 2005. Stronger defense, the run-game was the O's strength as well just like two years later, thus statistically they were better. Yes, Plummer out those games. However, respectfully, getting blown-out in the 1st Rd, 41-10, to a QB still ISO his first ever playoff win is difficult to look past. And Jake did play in that game.

[7DnBrnc53]

getting blown-out in the 1st Rd, 41-10, to a QB still ISO his first ever playoff win is difficult to look past. And Jake did play in that game.

It doesn't look great, but they were playing without RB Clinton Portis in that game, which didn't help.