Chiefs Chiefs lead Broncos 56-49 (All Time)

**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.

Prison Bitch · 11-12-2013, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

**Rain Man** · 11-12-2013, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

Tombstone RJ · 11-12-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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.