What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2013 Broncos, Best Offense Ever? (1 Viewer)

99 Rams. Honestly I don't think it's close.
Please unpack this - position to position. Outside of RB, I think almost every Bronco counterpart is a better talent.

Manning > Warner
No. Manning's career is better than Warner's career.

But 1999 Warner is better than 2013 Manning. All other seasons are irrelevant to this conversation.
Biggest difference between greatest show on turf and this Denver team is Marshall Faulk. Game over.

 
yeah. I'd still lean towards the Warner led Rams. This Broncos offense is too one dimensional as it stands right now.

 
99 Rams. Honestly I don't think it's close.
Please unpack this - position to position. Outside of RB, I think almost every Bronco counterpart is a better talent.Manning > Warner
No. Manning's career is better than Warner's career.But 1999 Warner is better than 2013 Manning. All other seasons are irrelevant to this conversation.
:confused: by what measure?
Seriously, that's a bold statement... Especially considering D's have to show very little respect to Broncos run game in comparison to Faulk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
99 Rams. Honestly I don't think it's close.
Please unpack this - position to position. Outside of RB, I think almost every Bronco counterpart is a better talent.

Manning > Warner
No. Manning's career is better than Warner's career.

But 1999 Warner is better than 2013 Manning. All other seasons are irrelevant to this conversation.
Biggest difference between greatest show on turf and this Denver team is Marshall Faulk. Game over.
:goodposting:

 
99 Rams. Honestly I don't think it's close.
Please unpack this - position to position. Outside of RB, I think almost every Bronco counterpart is a better talent.

Manning > Warner
No. Manning's career is better than Warner's career.

But 1999 Warner is better than 2013 Manning. All other seasons are irrelevant to this conversation.
Biggest difference between greatest show on turf and this Denver team is Marshall Faulk. Game over.
Julius Thomas and Peyton Manning say :bye:

 
99 Rams. Honestly I don't think it's close.
Please unpack this - position to position. Outside of RB, I think almost every Bronco counterpart is a better talent.

Manning > Warner

WRs? D. Thomas, Decker and Welker VS. Bruce, Holt and Proehl. Thomas and Decker are easily both bigger than Bruce and Holt. Holt was the fastest of he and Bruce - but DT ran the same 40 time - and is 4" taller and 25 lbs bigger than Holt. Don't get me wrong Bruce and Holt are great WRs - but I think time will show that D. Thomas and Decker (to a lesser extent) is right there with them....if not better. Welker is one of the best slot receivers in the game right now - and obviously better than Proehl.

Obviously Faulk gets the nod over - well, anyone not named "LT2"

J. Thomas is obviously more of receiving threat than...Ernie Conwell? Chad Lewis? I don't even know who you want to go with here.

Granted, it's not fair to compare eras - Thomas and Decker are bigger - and just as fast because they have to be. That's how the game has changed. And TE is also a bigger part of the passing game. But I hardly think it's a given that it's the Rams. In fact I would suggest that it's not. The edge at TE and QB imho, outweighs the RB advantage - and I think WR is close to a wash.
You can't just say Manning was better than Warner. 1999 Kurt Warner sustained his excellence throughout the season and playoffs. 2013 Peyton Manning has played 3 games.

And I like how Denver's WRs are apparently better than two WRs who are HOF candidates.

Marshall Faulk is the best player on either team, and the 1999 Rams OL was beyond comparison.

Rams are better.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.

 
Want to give some love to 98 Broncos over this current Bronco team. 2000 yard rusher and hall of fame te, left tackle, and qb. They just beat the crap out of teams with a steamroller running game. I don't think Manning would see the field much.

 
1999 Rams:

526 points

6412 yards total offense

2013 Broncos Pace:

673 points

8338 yards total offense - 6093 in passing alone.

The 1999 Rams had Faulk - who is better than any RB the Broncos have on their current roster. The Rams had only one 1000-yd WR: Bruce (Holt: 788, Hakim: 677), the Rams had no TE to speak of. The Broncos have 3 WRs on pace to gain 1000 yards, AND a TE who is also on pace to gain 1000 yards.

The Rams offense was essentially Faulk and Bruce, while the Broncos have so many more weapons available. So, while the Rams could run the ball more effectively with Faulk, the Broncos can spread the ball around the field more effectively.

The Broncos still have to do it for a full season, and you would expect some regression, but the Broncos should not meet much resistance until a three-week stretch starting in week 11, when they play Chiefs, @NE, @Chiefs.

 
1999 Rams:

526 points

6412 yards total offense

2013 Broncos Pace:

673 points

8338 yards total offense - 6093 in passing alone.

The 1999 Rams had Faulk - who is better than any RB the Broncos have on their current roster. The Rams had only one 1000-yd WR: Bruce (Holt: 788, Hakim: 677), the Rams had no TE to speak of. The Broncos have 3 WRs on pace to gain 1000 yards, AND a TE who is also on pace to gain 1000 yards.

The Rams offense was essentially Faulk and Bruce, while the Broncos have so many more weapons available. So, while the Rams could run the ball more effectively with Faulk, the Broncos can spread the ball around the field more effectively.

The Broncos still have to do it for a full season, and you would expect some regression, but the Broncos should not meet much resistance until a three-week stretch starting in week 11, when they play Chiefs, @NE, @Chiefs.
The Broncos haven't played a single game yet against an NFL defense without Clady. Their "pace" is meaningless. They're in for some struggles ahead.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
07 pats scored most points per game ever.. That 98 Vikes team was awesome though with Moss as a Rookie and Randall Cunningham, Cris carter. I still think the rams offense was better because Minn didn't have a back Like FAULK.

 
Why are we arguing this after week three?

Denver won't be able to sustain this level. No running game, no left tackle, and one dimensional offence will be figured out by defenses.

They are good, no doubt, but there have been better....much better

 
Why are we arguing this after week three?

Denver won't be able to sustain this level. No running game, no left tackle, and one dimensional offence will be figured out by defenses.

They are good, no doubt, but there have been better....much better
How are you defining one-dimensional? They have 4 players on pace to have 1000 yards receiving. I'd say that makes them pretty multi-dimensional - a defense can't focus on one player to shut down without exposing itself to mismatches at other positions.

 
1999 Rams:

526 points

6412 yards total offense

2013 Broncos Pace:

673 points

8338 yards total offense - 6093 in passing alone.

The 1999 Rams had Faulk - who is better than any RB the Broncos have on their current roster. The Rams had only one 1000-yd WR: Bruce (Holt: 788, Hakim: 677), the Rams had no TE to speak of. The Broncos have 3 WRs on pace to gain 1000 yards, AND a TE who is also on pace to gain 1000 yards.

The Rams offense was essentially Faulk and Bruce, while the Broncos have so many more weapons available. So, while the Rams could run the ball more effectively with Faulk, the Broncos can spread the ball around the field more effectively.

The Broncos still have to do it for a full season, and you would expect some regression, but the Broncos should not meet much resistance until a three-week stretch starting in week 11, when they play Chiefs, @NE, @Chiefs.
The Broncos haven't played a single game yet against an NFL defense without Clady. Their "pace" is meaningless. They're in for some struggles ahead.
:shrug:

The Ravens, Giants, and Raiders (who did face the Broncos without Clady) have given up an average of 193 yards passing in games that were not against the Broncos. Broncos are averaging almost double that at 381 yards per game.

Broncos Schedule:

Eagles - do you think the 29th ranked passing defense can slow the Broncos at Mile HIgh?

@Cowboys - 22nd ranked passing offense - not slowing Manning down

Jax - next

@Colts - manning going back to Indy, expect fireworks

Redskins - 31st ranked passing defense, next

@Chargers - only team worse than Redskins, next

Chiefs - finally a team that can challenge Broncos defensively, but it at Denver

@Patriots - BB does seem to have Manning's number, this will be the lowest offensive output of the season imo

@Chiefs - Chiefs play better at home, Manning is "average"

Titans - tougher than you might expect, but Broncos get back on task at home

Chargers - Worst passing defense at home, you do the numbers

@Texans - If Broncos are smart, and Texans are good, Denver will throw this game

@Raiders - Just put 536 yards of offense on the board, at 75%, it would still be over 400 yards

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
I give the edge to the Greatest Show on Turf, but that one is a close second. Carter, Moss, and Reed were quite a group of WRs.

 
yeah. I'd still lean towards the Warner led Rams. This Broncos offense is too one dimensional as it stands right now.
This. Not much of a rushing threat, all pass.
The Broncos are 14th in rushing yards in the league - so decent enough that they are top half in rushing.

I understand that Moreno/Ball/Hillman are nowhere near Faulk's talent level, but with the WRs and TE, most defenses have to help in coverage. Ernie Conwell did not demand the kind of defensive attention that Julius Thomas does. That alone changes the equation.

 
It's obviously way too early to debate this, but I see a good 5 week stretch of cold weather games in a row. (Chiefs, Pats, Chiefs, Titans and Chargers) That can bring anything from snow, wind, ice, cold rain, to all of the above. Averaging 3 passing TD's during that stretch is going to be tough to accomplish.

 
LOL at people claiming DT and Welker are a better combo than Holt and Bruce. That's some serious long term memory loss.

 
LOL at people claiming DT and Welker are a better combo than Holt and Bruce. That's some serious long term memory loss.
Somebody is having long-term memory loss, or just selective memory - 1999 Holt had 788 yards receiving, and ranked 44th in the NFL, Bruce had 1165 and ranked 12th, Hakim was the 3rd WR for StL, and ranked 49th. Faulk was the king of the dump off, and had 1048 yards, good for 21st.

D. Thomas 5th >>>>>>> Bruce 12th

E. Decker 18th >>>>>>> Faulk 21st

J. Thomas 38th >>>>>> Holt 44th

W. Welker 39th >>>>>>> Hakim 49th

 
Offenses, in general, are better in 2013 than they were in 1999. The rules are more favorable, the athletes are better. It stands to reason that the best offense of 2013 will be much better than the best offense of 1999.

People have a romantic notion of the "Greatest Show on Turf", and little question that it was the best offense of its era, but the Bronco's offense, right now, is head and shoulders above what the Rams did. The only question is whether the Broncos can sustain it for an entire year.

 
LOL at people claiming DT and Welker are a better combo than Holt and Bruce. That's some serious long term memory loss.
Somebody is having long-term memory loss, or just selective memory - 1999 Holt had 788 yards receiving, and ranked 44th in the NFL, Bruce had 1165 and ranked 12th, Hakim was the 3rd WR for StL, and ranked 49th. Faulk was the king of the dump off, and had 1048 yards, good for 21st.D. Thomas 5th >>>>>>> Bruce 12th

E. Decker 18th >>>>>>> Faulk 21st

J. Thomas 38th >>>>>> Holt 44th

W. Welker 39th >>>>>>> Hakim 49th
Is that the only year they played together? I don't have the specifics you do, but I would bet 2000 was a different story. Also, you are trying to downgrade Faulk because he had 1000 yards and was 21st... He was a RB.
 
Offenses, in general, are better in 2013 than they were in 1999. The rules are more favorable, the athletes are better. It stands to reason that the best offense of 2013 will be much better than the best offense of 1999.

People have a romantic notion of the "Greatest Show on Turf", and little question that it was the best offense of its era, but the Bronco's offense, right now, is head and shoulders above what the Rams did. The only question is whether the Broncos can sustain it for an entire year.
The GSOT was great for really only one season though. The next two following seasons Warner's TD to INT ratio jumped to where he was throwing over 50 percent - 18 to 12, then 36 to 22. Post 1999, the Martz offense was INT prone. Sure they could score, but they also turned the ball over just as much as they did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Offenses, in general, are better in 2013 than they were in 1999. The rules are more favorable, the athletes are better. It stands to reason that the best offense of 2013 will be much better than the best offense of 1999.

People have a romantic notion of the "Greatest Show on Turf", and little question that it was the best offense of its era, but the Bronco's offense, right now, is head and shoulders above what the Rams did. The only question is whether the Broncos can sustain it for an entire year.
The GSOT was great for really only one season though. The next two following seasons Warner's TD to INT ratio jumped to where he was throwing over 50 percent - 18 to 12, then 36 to 22. Post 1999, the Martz offense was INT prone. Sure they could score, but they also turned the ball over just as much as they did.
Good point, maybe the WR numbers were more gaudy, but overall play wasn't as good. They had the most yards in the league by a wide margin though.

 
Came into this topic expecting a lot of Manning hate. Sure enough, I wasn't disappointed.

Anything to discredit greatness. Goes with the territory I guess.

 
LOL at people claiming DT and Welker are a better combo than Holt and Bruce. That's some serious long term memory loss.
Somebody is having long-term memory loss, or just selective memory - 1999 Holt had 788 yards receiving, and ranked 44th in the NFL, Bruce had 1165 and ranked 12th, Hakim was the 3rd WR for StL, and ranked 49th. Faulk was the king of the dump off, and had 1048 yards, good for 21st.D. Thomas 5th >>>>>>> Bruce 12th

E. Decker 18th >>>>>>> Faulk 21st

J. Thomas 38th >>>>>> Holt 44th

W. Welker 39th >>>>>>> Hakim 49th
Is that the only year they played together? I don't have the specifics you do, but I would bet 2000 was a different story. Also, you are trying to downgrade Faulk because he had 1000 yards and was 21st... He was a RB.
The comparison was this year's Bronco's to the 1999 Rams. :shrug:

How am I down grading Faulk? He had the 21st most receiving yards, and was the second leading receiver on the Rams.

Statistically, the Broncos are averaging 493 yards of offense/game. The 1999 Rams averaged 414 - they are not in the same zip code as the 2013 Broncos offensively.

Again, I don't know if the Broncos can keep this pace for 13 more games, but right now, they are significantly better, on offense, than the 1999 Rams.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
They broke the record, but they're in 4th now, behind the '07 and '12 Patriots and the '11 Packers.

The Denver Mannings are tied for 2nd in points through the first 2 games (behind the '68 Cowboys, tied with the '66 Cowboys). Don't know how many of those points might have been defensive.

They're 4th in total yards through 3 games, after the '11 Pats, the '98 49ers and the 2000 Rams.

There's a long way to go.

 
This is probably not even the best Manning offense. His offense the year he threw for 49 TDs was silly. Edge was legit back then.

 
LOL at people claiming DT and Welker are a better combo than Holt and Bruce. That's some serious long term memory loss.
Somebody is having long-term memory loss, or just selective memory - 1999 Holt had 788 yards receiving, and ranked 44th in the NFL, Bruce had 1165 and ranked 12th, Hakim was the 3rd WR for StL, and ranked 49th. Faulk was the king of the dump off, and had 1048 yards, good for 21st.D. Thomas 5th >>>>>>> Bruce 12th

E. Decker 18th >>>>>>> Faulk 21st

J. Thomas 38th >>>>>> Holt 44th

W. Welker 39th >>>>>>> Hakim 49th
Is that the only year they played together? I don't have the specifics you do, but I would bet 2000 was a different story. Also, you are trying to downgrade Faulk because he had 1000 yards and was 21st... He was a RB.
The comparison was this year's Bronco's to the 1999 Rams. :shrug:

How am I down grading Faulk? He had the 21st most receiving yards, and was the second leading receiver on the Rams.

Statistically, the Broncos are averaging 493 yards of offense/game. The 1999 Rams averaged 414 - they are not in the same zip code as the 2013 Broncos offensively.

Again, I don't know if the Broncos can keep this pace for 13 more games, but right now, they are significantly better, on offense, than the 1999 Rams.
Looking at Faulk, there isn't a RB or likely even a trio of RBs that will put up the total numbers Faulk did. Also, I am less interested in total yards than numbers relative to the league. Finally, I never specified 99 when I made my original post here... Atleast I don't think I did.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
07 pats scored most points per game ever.. That 98 Vikes team was awesome though with Moss as a Rookie and Randall Cunningham, Cris carter. I still think the rams offense was better because Minn didn't have a back Like FAULK.
Robert Smith was no chump. 84.8 yards per game at a 4.8 ypc rate. Not an all-timer like Faulk, but probably a top-10 back in the league at the time.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
07 pats scored most points per game ever.. That 98 Vikes team was awesome though with Moss as a Rookie and Randall Cunningham, Cris carter. I still think the rams offense was better because Minn didn't have a back Like FAULK.
Robert Smith was no chump. 84.8 yards per game at a 4.8 ypc rate. Not an all-timer like Faulk, but probably a top-10 back in the league at the time.
He was really great, but Faulk is arguably one of the 5 best non QB offensive players in NFL history.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
07 pats scored most points per game ever.. That 98 Vikes team was awesome though with Moss as a Rookie and Randall Cunningham, Cris carter. I still think the rams offense was better because Minn didn't have a back Like FAULK.
Robert Smith was no chump. 84.8 yards per game at a 4.8 ypc rate. Not an all-timer like Faulk, but probably a top-10 back in the league at the time.
Loved Smith. Retired too early IMO, but props to him for his reasons why.

 
Can't believe 98 Vike's not mention. Most points per fame ever I believe, 35. That team was unstoppable. Much better than St. L IMO.
07 pats scored most points per game ever.. That 98 Vikes team was awesome though with Moss as a Rookie and Randall Cunningham, Cris carter. I still think the rams offense was better because Minn didn't have a back Like FAULK.
Robert Smith was no chump. 84.8 yards per game at a 4.8 ypc rate. Not an all-timer like Faulk, but probably a top-10 back in the league at the time.
He was really great, but Faulk is arguably one of the 5 best non QB offensive players in NFL history.
Debatable - in no particular order Brown, Payton, Sanders, Rice - those 4 are in... The 5th spot is up for debate.

 
Um, yeah, but, like, I still prefer the '99 Rams and the '07 Pats and like at least five other teams, you know, just because...

 
To be fair they played the Ravens, Giants, Raiders and Eagles. Not exactly the strongest schedule. Whats their combined record? 4-12?

 
To be fair they played the Ravens, Giants, Raiders and Eagles. Not exactly the strongest schedule. Whats their combined record? 4-12?
Have you seen the rest of the schedule? I see 1 loss, maybe 2, and that's just because they may bench Peyton at the end of the season.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top