Chiefs lead Broncos 56-49 (All Time)

[Prison Bitch]

With an average score of KC 23-20. Only one matchup was in the plaoyffs (:banghead:) They both are original AFL franchises in 1960. Kansas City raced out to a 25-2 lead in the series before Denver started turning it around in 1973. Since then it's of course 31-47 in their favor.

Does anyone know why they were so bad early on? Or maybe it's just that we were so good during that time.

[Rain Man]

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.

I don't think there's really a modern equivalent of the 1960s and 1970s Broncos. They were just so bad year after year that you didn't really pay attention to them. They started putting together a pretty decent core of players in the mid-70s, but it was still kind of a shock when they made the Super Bowl in 1977. I'm not sure why they turned the corner at that point, though, because they didn't have consistent coaching. I think they changed owners, but the owners were for the most part hands off. They just started getting decent players. Once they turned the corner they became a consistently strong team.

Other than of course long-term mediocrity at quarterback.

[ChiefsCountry]

If you look at the AFL success, it was Chiefs, Oilers, and Bills who were the top teams. At the time Lamar Hunt, Bud Adams, and Ralph Wilson were the richest owners. Denver didn't have the cash to compete.

[Chiefs Pantalones]

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.

LMAO

John Madden coming out of retirement eh?

[big nasty kcnut]

Because Denver didn't sold their soul to Satan yet.

[Mile High Mania]

It's all about ownership and the direction.

Bowlen bought the team and changed the mindset. This last victory was his 300th victory and I believe that is the 2nd fastest for an owner to #300, right behind Al Davis.

[Prison Bitch]

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.

I don't think there's really a modern equivalent of the 1960s and 1970s Broncos. They were just so bad year after year that you didn't really pay attention to them. They started putting together a pretty decent core of players in the mid-70s, but it was still kind of a shock when they made the Super Bowl in 1977. I'm not sure why they turned the corner at that point, though, because they didn't have consistent coaching. I think they changed owners, but the owners were for the most part hands off. They just started getting decent players. Once they turned the corner they became a consistently strong team.

Other than of course long-term mediocrity at quarterback.


It almost seems to me that John Elway is the only reason they've ever had any sustained success. He went 148-82 (64.3%) as a starter. They are only 279-294 (48.6) without him starting. That's the difference between going 10-6 each year instead of 8-8. One guy.


Obviously his numbers count, he's a HOF, and he did play almost 1/3 of their seasons but still, that difference is startling. They are 111-97 since he left until Manning arrived. Their fans act like they're the Cowboys or Steelers but without a HOF quarterback, they're no different than the Chiefs historically.

[Prison Bitch]

It's all about ownership and the direction.

Bowlen bought the team and changed the mindset. This last victory was his 300th victory and I believe that is the 2nd fastest for an owner to #300, right behind Al Davis.

Bowlen bought the team in 1984 when Elway had just arrived. He didn't change jack squat, all he did was ride the Horse-Face to success. His "mindset" is ineffective without a HOF quarterback at the helm.

[Mile High Mania]

Bowlen bought the team in 1984 when Elway had just arrived. He didn't change jack squat, all he did was ride the Horse-Face to success. His "mindset" is ineffective without a HOF quarterback at the helm.

Ah ok. Since 1984, I think Denver has only had 5 losing seasons and 7 exactly at .500. I think that's 30 seasons in total... not bad, and they had success post Elway, just no titles.

[cosmo20002]

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.



Interesting theory

[Rain Man]

It almost seems to me that John Elway is the only reason they've ever had any sustained success. He went 148-82 (64.3%) as a starter. They are only 279-294 (48.6) without him starting. That's the difference between going 10-6 each year instead of 8-8. One guy.


Obviously his numbers count, he's a HOF, and he did play almost 1/3 of their seasons but still, that difference is startling. They are 111-97 since he left until Manning arrived. Their fans act like they're the Cowboys or Steelers but without a HOF quarterback, they're no different than the Chiefs historically.


Actually, they were a 10-win team for 4 of the 5 non-strike seasons prior to purchasing the #1 pick in 1983. If you look at the stats, they climbed to a .500 level from 1973 to 1975, which was a huge accomplishment for that franchise. In their first 13 years they never had a season above .500. Then once they got to that level they rose again and were a consistent winner from 1976 through 1982 (excluding the weird strike season).

In the five non-strike seasons prior to purchasing Elway, they won 64% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. In the five non-strike seasons after purchasing Elway, they won 65% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. He was a non-factor for them.

[Rain Man]

Interesting theory

It took a long time to develop it.

[Prison Bitch]

Ah ok. Since 1984, I think Denver has only had 5 losing seasons and 7 exactly at .500. I think that's 30 seasons in total... not bad, and they had success post Elway, just no titles.

What do you define as "success"? Since Horse-Face left they've played 14 seasons. They made the playoffs 6 times going 2-6 being outscored a woeful 155-264.

[htismaqe]

Their fans act like they're the Cowboys or Steelers but without a HOF quarterback, they're no different than the Chiefs historically.

Quite frankly, the Cowboys and Steelers aren't the Cowboys or Steelers without a HOF QB, are they?

[Rain Man]

What do you define as "success"? Since Horse-Face left they've played 14 seasons. They made the playoffs 6 times going 2-6.

We probably shouldn't go there.

[Prison Bitch]

Quite frankly, the Cowboys and Steelers aren't the Cowboys or Steelers without a HOF QB, are they?

I don't think that applies, because those teams have had success with multiple quarterbacks whereas the Broncos haven't. Denver is only 4-10 all time in the playoffs without him. 14-7 with.

[Prison Bitch]

He was a non-factor for them.

For the life of me I cannot understand why you'd say that given the stark contrast of their records in both the regular and post season with him vs without him.

[ciaomichael]

In the AFL years, the Broncos outright struggled. I don't believe they ever had a winning season.

Interesting, back then the AFL West was composed of exactly the same 4 teams as the AFC West is today. It was always the Chiefs and Raiders at the top, with the Chargers usually in third occasionally popping some offensive fireworks, then Denver bringing up the rear. Yes, there was an AFL draft, but that didn't matter so much. It was all about finding the talent and then having owners that could afford to out-bid the NFL for that talent. Denver was one of those AFL teams just struggling to survive. They had one good playmaker - his name was Floyd Little - and that was about it.

[Rain Man]

For the life of me I cannot understand why you'd say that given the stark contrast of their records in both the regular and post season with him vs without him.

I don't believe media hype and I look at the facts. See below.

This media myth rose around him because he was hyped coming out of school and he could throw the ball hard. But if you apply science and logic, it's clear that he made no difference in their success. They were a strong team before he arrived and got no better. See below.



In the five non-strike seasons prior to purchasing Elway, they won 64% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. In the five non-strike seasons after purchasing Elway, they won 65% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. He was a non-factor for them.

[Prison Bitch]

I don't believe media hype and I look at the facts. See below.

This media myth rose around him because he was hyped coming out of school and he could throw the ball hard. But if you apply science and logic, it's clear that he made no difference in their success. They were a strong team before he arrived and got no better. See below.

I provided the facts on the records with and without him, I guess I don't see what facts you're providing that dispute them. Your "5 non strike years before and after" is misleading since (a) it ignores the 2-7 strike record they did have before they got him and (b) Elway didn't play 5 years for them, he played 15 and (c) you arbitrarily start with their 1977 team.

[htismaqe]

I don't think that applies, because those teams have had success with multiple quarterbacks whereas the Broncos haven't. Denver is only 4-10 all time in the playoffs without him. 14-7 with.

The Broncos have only had 1, like the Chiefs. That's just sheer luck, or bad drafting, or whatever.

The only difference is that the Cowboys and Steelers have had TWO (or more).

You take Bradshaw and Ben out of the Steelers lineup and they're not Super Bowl champions. Hell, I don't think they even have a winning record.

[Prison Bitch]

It just seems to me if the Chiefs had been bold, knowing what we do now in hindsight, and made that trade instead of Denver it would've made all the difference. They had the 4th overall we were at 7th so it wasn't like Denver had assets we didn't. They got possibly the best QB ever for Chris Hinton, Ron Solt, and backup QB Mark Hermann. He of the lifetime 16-36 TD-INT ratio. Just an absurd trade.

[BlackHelicopters]

Who has success without consistent good QB play?

[htismaqe]

Who has success without consistent good QB play?

Exactly.

[ciaomichael]

The Broncos came of age in the mid-1970's with the Orange Crush defense. Under coach Red Miller, they put together a pretty good record and went to the Super Bowl in 1977. This was before Elway came along.

[htismaqe]

It just seems to me if the Chiefs had been bold, knowing what we do now in hindsight, and made that trade instead of Denver it would've made all the difference. They had the 4th overall we were at 7th so it wasn't like Denver had assets we didn't. They got possibly the best QB ever for Chris Hinton, Ron Solt, and backup QB Mark Hermann. He of the lifetime 16-36 TD-INT ratio. Just an absurd trade.

You're assuming he would have wanted to play in KC. After all, that's why the trade happened in the 1st place.

[Prison Bitch]

You're assuming he would have wanted to play in KC. After all, that's why the trade happened in the 1st place.

Very true, stipulated.

[Mile High Mania]

What do you define as "success"? Since Horse-Face left they've played 14 seasons. They made the playoffs 6 times going 2-6 being outscored a woeful 155-264.

If you're just counting SBs, then sure - they're not there without Elway.

If you're counting regular seasons where they didn't suck and advanced, whether they won in the playoffs are not, they've been pretty good.

A small # of teams have had sustained success over several eras.

[Fritz88]

2 superbowls vs 1 superbowl.

That's about enough.

[Mile High Mania]

Hell, Plummer almost got 'em there... gave Brady his first playoff lost and then they fell to Big Ben. :banghead:

[Molitoth]

Football forums are the adult version of "My dad can beat up your dad."

[RealSNR]

Who has success without consistent good QB play?

Chicago Bears?

[MileHighFish]

Football forums are the adult version of "My dad can beat up your dad."

:D So true! ROFL

[vailpass]

For the life of me I cannot understand why you'd say that given the stark contrast of their records in both the regular and post season with him vs without him.

You obviously aren't aware of the love-hate relationship Rain has with Elway.

[Rain Man]

You obviously aren't aware of the love-hate relationship Rain has with Elway.


I only agree with half of that statement.

[Prison Bitch]

Chicago Bears?

That's the best example, given they're #1 all time in win %. Baltimore is 6th but they're a bit light on years played. Browns are at 54% all time with a collection of complete garbage at the position.

[Tombstone RJ]

With an average score of KC 23-20. Only one matchup was in the plaoyffs (:banghead:) They both are original AFL franchises in 1960. Kansas City raced out to a 25-2 lead in the series before Denver started turning it around in 1973. Since then it's of course 31-47 in their favor.

Does anyone know why they were so bad early on? Or maybe it's just that we were so good during that time.

Broncos were quite arguably, the worst AFL franchise started. From my understanding, they were kind of a throw in franchise when Clark Hunt was starting the AFL. Denver was not a big town back in that time, very much still a kindof cow town. The team had lousy ownership and no budget and hence could not afford decent coaches or players.

But the Broncos fans always filled the stadium. Win or lose (and a heck of a lot more losing than winning) the stadium was always packed and so the team had to keep adding on to it. It was originally called Bear Stadium (I think, might be wrong) because it fielded the minor league Denver Bears baseball team. It was later changed into Mile High Stadium after many more seats were added.

Its really amazing the franchise survived the 1960s and even the early 1970s because they were so inept. When Floyd Little was drafted by the Broncos it very much helped the team establish some legitimacy and hence, Little is referred to as the franchise savor.

Anyhow, I'm proud of the Broncos history because they've gone from the worst team in the AFL to one of the better teams in the NFL and that is pretty amazing when you think about all the teams that have moved away to other cities.

[Prison Bitch]

No doubt, it's become a great NFL franchise in a huge geographic market. But I do still ask what it would be without Elway. Franchises have iconic players but he might be the most iconic of any out there. You can't really name one great that stands above all others with most franchises, but Elway is certainly the "Horse Face of the Franchise"

[Tombstone RJ]

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.

I don't think there's really a modern equivalent of the 1960s and 1970s Broncos. They were just so bad year after year that you didn't really pay attention to them. They started putting together a pretty decent core of players in the mid-70s, but it was still kind of a shock when they made the Super Bowl in 1977. I'm not sure why they turned the corner at that point, though, because they didn't have consistent coaching. I think they changed owners, but the owners were for the most part hands off. They just started getting decent players. Once they turned the corner they became a consistently strong team.

Other than of course long-term mediocrity at quarterback.

Pat Bowlen bought the team in 1983 when Elway was drafted and Dan Reeves was hired as HC. Ever since that time the Broncos have been a very consistent team as far as winning. Before this, the team had some good coaches but they never stayed very long, and the team (I believe, could be wrong) was on it's 3rd owner? So I think Bowlen is the 4th owner and he bought the team for $25 million.

Now the team is worth like $750m? Not a bad investment for Pat.

[Tombstone RJ]

My bad, Bowlen bought the team in 1984 right after Elway was drafted. But between Elway, Dan Reeves and Pat Bowlen, the team started heading in the right direction as far as winning consistently.

[Mile High Mania]

Yeah, Reeves was the HC in 1981.

[Coach]

Broncos were quite arguably, the worst AFL franchise started. From my understanding, they were kind of a throw in franchise when Clark Hunt was starting the AFL. Denver was not a big town back in that time, very much still a kindof cow town. The team had lousy ownership and no budget and hence could not afford decent coaches or players.

Right Hunt, wrong person....

[htismaqe]

That's the best example, given they're #1 all time in win %. Baltimore is 6th but they're a bit light on years played. Browns are at 54% all time with a collection of complete garbage at the position.

Both the Bears and the Browns have a significant team history prior to the advent of modern football with it's emphasis on QBs.

[Prison Bitch]

My bad, Bowlen bought the team in 1984 right after Elway was drafted. But between Elway, Dan Reeves and Pat Bowlen, the team started heading in the right direction as far as winning consistently.

Dan Reeves with Elway: 98-60 (62.0%)
Dan Reeves without: 92-105 (46.7%)


We already discussed Bowlen without Elway. I give those two virtually zero credit for anything Elway did.

[Tombstone RJ]

Yeah, Reeves was the HC in 1981.

yep, my bad.

[Tombstone RJ]

Dan Reeves with Elway: 98-60 (62.0%)
Dan Reeves without: 92-105 (46.7%)


We already discussed Bowlen without Elway. I give those two virtually zero credit for anything Elway did.

Well Bowlen did Pay Elway, at one time wasn't Elway the highest paid QB in the NFL? Also, when Elway and Reeves finally could not stand working together any longer (and Reeves drafted Tommy Maddox) Bowlen stuck with Elway and fired Reeves.

I think Bowlen was really instrumental in Elway staying with the Broncos because Reeves was talking about trading Elway to the Giants.

[Rain Man]

I provided the facts on the records with and without him, I guess I don't see what facts you're providing that dispute them. Your "5 non strike years before and after" is misleading since (a) it ignores the 2-7 strike record they did have before they got him and (b) Elway didn't play 5 years for them, he played 15 and (c) you arbitrarily start with their 1977 team.

So much changes over a 30-year span that you can't attribute any impact to one player. If I took the 15 years or whatever that Elway played and the 15 years before him, I can't really compare those eras. Too much changed. It's better to go with a shorter pre-/post-period where there was a more similar core of players.

However, if you take the entire history of Elway's tenure with the team, they won 63 percent of those games. In the five years before Elway showed up, they won 64 percent. It's pretty clear that Elway didn't turn the franchise around, but rather that the five previous years turned the franchise around.

[Prison Bitch]

However, if you take the entire history of Elway's tenure with the team, they won 63 percent of those games. In the five years before Elway showed up, they won 64 percent. It's pretty clear that Elway didn't turn the franchise around, but rather that the five previous years turned the franchise around.

Wow, I just don't know what to say then. They went 2-7 the year before he came, and you act like he stepped into the 49ers situation like Steve Young after Montana. Guess I'll just agree to disagree on this one.

[Prison Bitch]

Well Bowlen did Pay Elway, at one time wasn't Elway the highest paid QB in the NFL? Also, when Elway and Reeves finally could not stand working together any longer (and Reeves drafted Tommy Maddox) Bowlen stuck with Elway and fired Reeves. .


An owner decided to pay a perennial Pro Bowl QB, one of the elite players in the league, and kept him over a head coach? I can't tell you how gutsy and impressive that is. Goes totally against the grain.

[Tombstone RJ]

So much changes over a 30-year span that you can't attribute any impact to one player. If I took the 15 years or whatever that Elway played and the 15 years before him, I can't really compare those eras. Too much changed. It's better to go with a shorter pre-/post-period where there was a more similar core of players.

However, if you take the entire history of Elway's tenure with the team, they won 63 percent of those games. In the five years before Elway showed up, they won 64 percent. It's pretty clear that Elway didn't turn the franchise around, but rather that the five previous years turned the franchise around.

I think it was a few different factors that permantly change the Broncos into a winning franchise--Elway, an owner who wanted to win and spent the money to win (Pat Bowlen) and a good coach who provided stability and a formula for winning (Dan Reeves). Before these 3 guys came along, yes, the Broncos did have some good success in the mid to late 1970s but it was these guys who sustained the success into and through the 1980s.

Bowlen also hired Mike Shanahan at the right time and that paid off in spades.

[Tombstone RJ]

An owner decided to pay a perennial Pro Bowl QB, one of the elite players in the league, and kept him over a head coach? I can't tell you how gutsy and impressive that is. Goes totally against the grain.

Bowlen had to choose between Elway and Reeves and yes, Reeves had a lot of pull within the franchise. Also, it was Bowlen who flat out nixed the trade to the NYG for Elway.

Bowlen sure didn't protect Jay Cutler like he did Elway.

[Rain Man]

Wow, I just don't know what to say then. They went 2-7 the year before he came, and you act like he stepped into the 49ers situation like Steve Young after Montana. Guess I'll just agree to disagree on this one.

So you're arguing that a 9-game strike year should take precedence over the 58 games that preceded it? Were you around for the strike years? They were chaos. They shouldn't have even had Super Bowls in those years. People throw the strike years out of many discussions, and certainly don't give them precedence.

[Prison Bitch]

So you're arguing that a 9-game strike year should take precedence over the 58 games that preceded it? Were you around for the strike years? They were chaos. They shouldn't have even had Super Bowls in those years. People throw the strike years out of many discussions, and certainly don't give them precedence.

You can toss the strike year argument from this, it doesn't have any relevance really to any of the main points. According to Pro-football Reference, John Elway has a +30 "WAR" value. 2nd QB all time to Peyton Maggot.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1868


That implies he was the difference between 8 wins and 10 wins. This matches up perfectly to what Denver did since he left & also what Dan Reeves did without him. Elway was no regular player like you suggest, getting into a nice situation. Numerically, he created it for 15 years there.

[vailpass]

I only agree with half of that statement.

Heh. I meant you love to hate him; it clearly brings you joy.

[TribalElder]

KU thread

/Pajama Horse

[Prison Bitch]

I never hated Elway at all, he was fun to watch. He went big or he went home, he had spectacular successes and crushing failures. Kinda like Favre in a way. Didn't skate his entire career winning with great teams like Brady or Montana. I can't remember him ever taunting or acting like a bitch when he did lose. And the 1998 playoff game, he was at the end of his career and didn't do much to beat us anyway.

[Rain Man]

Heh. I meant you love to hate him; it clearly brings you joy.

We all have our hobbies.

[mike_b_284]

With an average score of KC 23-20. Only one matchup was in the plaoyffs (:banghead:) They both are original AFL franchises in 1960. Kansas City raced out to a 25-2 lead in the series before Denver started turning it around in 1973. Since then it's of course 31-47 in their favor.

Does anyone know why they were so bad early on? Or maybe it's just that we were so good during that time.

those damn socks

[Rain Man]

I never hated Elway at all, he was fun to watch. He went big or he went home, he had spectacular successes and crushing failures. Kinda like Favre in a way. Didn't skate his entire career winning with great teams like Brady or Montana. I can't remember him ever taunting or acting like a bitch when he did lose. And the 1998 playoff game, he was at the end of his career and didn't do much to beat us anyway.


Why don't you marry him, then? Why don't you marry John Elway? John Elway is marrying Prison Bitch, everyone.

(I only did that for the last sentence.)