Chiefs Chiefs lead Broncos 56-49 (All Time)

**Rain Man** · 11-12-2013, 01:33 PM

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.

Chiefs Pantalones · 11-12-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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

John Madden coming out of retirement eh?

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Rain Man** · 11-12-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

**Rain Man** · 11-12-2013, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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 · 11-12-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

**Rain Man** · 11-12-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

vailpass · 11-12-2013, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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** · 11-12-2013, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

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

I only agree with half of that statement.

vailpass · 11-12-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I only agree with half of that statement.

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

htismaqe · 11-12-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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?

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

htismaqe · 11-12-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

cosmo20002 · 11-12-2013, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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

Interesting theory

11-12-2013, 01:33 PM	#1
Rain Man Seize life. Be an ermine. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $-712449 VARSITY	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. __________________ Active fan of the greatest team in NFL history.
Posts: 145,539