Which approach would you rather have?

[omac]

(poll above)

The Broncos don't like rebuilding ... they've even rather used the term reloading. They always try to make the playoffs and always try to make the superbowl. Because of this approach, they've relied heavily on free agent acquisitions for current team needs. Also because of this approach, they've never really been a losing team, and have mostly late draft possitions, usually never having a chance at the best NFL prospects coming out of college. At the same time, those free agents, though proven, don't have as long a career left as unproven draftees.

On the other hand, you have the Chiefs who've gone from a consistently tough playoff team to one who's spent the last 2 years in a rebuilding project. Not only have they gone young, they've even gone so far as to jettison maybe the league's best DE in his physical prime, with lots of prime years to come, in order to get even more draft picks. Who knows, maybe soon, they'll get rid of LJ and Gonzales next to stockpile even more picks. Just when will the rebuilding end?

Which approach would you rather have, the Broncos, which seem to try their best to win now, every year, or the Chiefs who are content to have a few losing seasons, and even lose their best players, in order to stockpile more picks in order to build a Championship franchise.

I won't include the obvious SD, even though their solid team now is built on a lot of high draft picks. They've had several picks in the top 5 or 10, but it was just because they kept losing, similar to Oakland. SD made good with their great possition, while Oakland, not as much. The Chiefs, on the other hand, were already a solid team that made the decision to take some steps backward in order to move forward.

[silkamilkamonico]

In the last 7-9 years, neither has really worked, and both teams are at the same place in terms of success.

[r8rh8r]

I don't think Denver would have been so reliant on free agency the last several years if it hadn't been for a horrible draft run from 2001 - 2004.

Denver has the best winning percentage in the NFL since 1977 and we've won 20% of the AFC championships since 1977 including 2 SB's. Our system does not make us average. We are excellent.

I'd like to continue to strive to be excellent every year. In Denver, you go 7-9 and they want to see someone's head roll. In a city like Detroit or Atlanta, you go 7-9 and you're optimistic.

Next year won't be worse than last year was. We'll be healthier and we'll have D.J. and Foxworth back at there natural positions. Hopefully we'll get some fresh talent at MLB, DT, OL, and RB.

[TXBRONC]

With Herm Edwards being the head coach of the Chiefs I don't really fear what they are doing.

[omac]

In the last 7-9 years, neither has really worked, and both teams are at the same place in terms of success.

I think what we really lacked during those years was a good passing QB and a good pass rush. When they were younger, Denver's offensive line was pretty solid, as was our running game, and our run defense. Now that we seem to have the franchise QB and some good pass rushing DE's (at least one proven), we don't seem to have the lines to run or stop the run anymore.

[DenBronx]

i agree that we should try and win every year BUT i have to go with the chiefs on this one. tuff it out and lose guys like allen but when you start to stock pile young good players through the draft you will eventually rebuild and come back stronger. in the long run this way is better...but im not so sure bowlen likes that so much. i think you have to manage the cap and players very well and hit a home run through the draft, while signing young, cheap free agents that have alot of upside. then to top it all off, every team needs chemistry.

[omac]

With Herm Edwards being the head coach of the Chiefs I don't really fear what they are doing.

Me neither; if you have a superstar who plays his best for you all the time, you treat him like a superstar, keep him happy. The odds that that mid 1st round pick will match Allen's play is low. I wonder if they even have a timetable? 3 years? 5 years?

[omac]

I don't think Denver would have been so reliant on free agency the last several years if it hadn't been for a horrible draft run from 2001 - 2004.

Denver has the best winning percentage in the NFL since 1977 and we've won 20% of the AFC championships since 1977 including 2 SB's. Our system does not make us average. We are excellent.

I'd like to continue to strive to be excellent every year. In Denver, you go 7-9 and they want to see someone's head roll. In a city like Detroit or Atlanta, you go 7-9 and you're optimistic.

Next year won't be worse than last year was. We'll be healthier and we'll have D.J. and Foxworth back at there natural positions. Hopefully we'll get some fresh talent at MLB, DT, OL, and RB.

Yeah, I agree with you. Denver is a team that's used to winning and always wants to win. If they try to lose, or get comfortable with losing, they might end up with the culture Oakland had when Shell was there 2 seasons ago, where the players weren't even trying.

Denver will be better next season.

[omac]

i agree that we should try and win every year BUT i have to go with the chiefs on this one. tuff it out and lose guys like allen but when you start to stock pile young good players through the draft you will eventually rebuild and come back stronger. in the long run this way is better...but im not so sure bowlen likes that so much. i think you have to manage the cap and players very well and hit a home run through the draft, while signing young, cheap free agents that have alot of upside. then to top it all off, every team needs chemistry.

How many years would you allocate to rebuilding, meaning, how many 4-12 or 6-10 seasons are you willing to go through for this rebuilding? Problem with the rebuilding approach is initial rookie contracts are about 5 or 6 years, so that's kind of a small window. Rebuild 3 years, and hope to win the superbowl within the next 3 years, before losing your players to FA?

[DenBronx]

How many years would you allocate to rebuilding, meaning, how many 4-12 or 6-10 seasons are you willing to go through for this rebuilding? Problem with the rebuilding approach is initial rookie contracts are about 5 or 6 years, so that's kind of a small window. Rebuild 3 years, and hope to win the superbowl within the next 3 years, before losing your players to FA?

i think 4 years is a good number. i think a team that can draft well and develop those players in 4 years you should have a pretty strong core. rebuilding also consist of key free agents...but getting them the smart and cheap way. then when its time to resign your rookies the cap space will be there.

[broncosfanscott]

I have to go with the Chiefs approach on this one. Trying to win every year is the goal of every team, however drafting well for a few years in a row with good young talent will help in the long run. You don't want to have to keep re-loading every year in FA. I mean we are proof of that. Bad drafting sets you back a couple of years.

[Nature Boy]

The Broncos don't rebuild, we reload. That is til last year's defensive fiasco.

We should've kept Larry Coyer and his system, Gerard Warren, Myers were good DTs, Veal was a good sub with Marcus Thomas, Moss and Crowder coming in, Doomerville a year better with the addition of Dre Bly, the defense would have been a lot better that in 06 instead of getting worst with Jim Bates stop gap defense.

That was the biggest mistake the Broncos made in 2007 trying to implement a new defense, sending the team into a rebuilding mode now. However, we are way ahead of the Chiefs. We have a good QB and Henry will have a come back season. We just need to get some consistency from the O-Line and revamp the D-Line and we're contenders again.

[NameUsedBefore]

The Lions proved you can continously suck and never get better. The Patriots proved you can continously win games and still get better. Obviously it isn't where you draft, but who.

[Watchthemiddle]

ALthough I would have never gotten rid of Allen, however, taking a "cowboys" early 90's approach might come back to bite us harder the JA ever would have.

[Stargazer]

(poll above)

The Broncos don't like rebuilding ... they've even rather used the term reloading. They always try to make the playoffs and always try to make the superbowl. Because of this approach, they've relied heavily on free agent acquisitions for current team needs. Also because of this approach, they've never really been a losing team, and have mostly late draft possitions, usually never having a chance at the best NFL prospects coming out of college. At the same time, those free agents, though proven, don't have as long a career left as unproven draftees.

On the other hand, you have the Chiefs who've gone from a consistently tough playoff team to one who's spent the last 2 years in a rebuilding project. Not only have they gone young, they've even gone so far as to jettison maybe the league's best DE in his physical prime, with lots of prime years to come, in order to get even more draft picks. Who knows, maybe soon, they'll get rid of LJ and Gonzales next to stockpile even more picks. Just when will the rebuilding end?

Which approach would you rather have, the Broncos, which seem to try their best to win now, every year, or the Chiefs who are content to have a few losing seasons, and even lose their best players, in order to stockpile more picks in order to build a Championship franchise.

I won't include the obvious SD, even though their solid team now is built on a lot of high draft picks. They've had several picks in the top 5 or 10, but it was just because they kept losing, similar to Oakland. SD made good with their great possition, while Oakland, not as much. The Chiefs, on the other hand, were already a solid team that made the decision to take some steps backward in order to move forward.

This is simple for this thread. The Denver Broncos.

Off the top of my head, I believe the Chiefs last won a playoff game in 93(could be wrong). Now which would you rather have?

[Stargazer]

The Lions proved you can continously suck and never get better. The Patriots proved you can continously win games and still get better. Obviously it isn't where you draft, but who.

Which is very true. Elvis. 4th round. Marshall. 4th round. It all depends on who you draft, not how many picks you have.

[Stargazer]

It's hard to say the Chiefs are rebuilding for the future when you trade a 25 year old DE who lead the league in most sacks.

[Nature Boy]

How many years would you allocate to rebuilding, meaning, how many 4-12 or 6-10 seasons are you willing to go through for this rebuilding? Problem with the rebuilding approach is initial rookie contracts are about 5 or 6 years, so that's kind of a small window. Rebuild 3 years, and hope to win the superbowl within the next 3 years, before losing your players to FA?

That is the problem most football teams go through. This applies to all pro sports in general, especially those with a salary cap or cheap owners. You hit a home run or 2 or 3 through the draft but you are never really able to take off to become legit contenders and you run out of time. Those "home run" drafts after their rookie contract runs out, bolts out of town for greener pasture cause the franchise just can not develop the winning formula or cohesion as coach after coach are shown in and out the revolving door every 2-3 years.

I like what Mike Shanahan does, he never really rebuilds, he only reloads. He addresses the specific problem, either it be QB, Plummer for Greise, Cutler for Plummer to trading away a pro-bowl RB(Portis) for Champ while trying to fill the other specific needs thru free agency and the draft.

Sure the Broncos have missed with a bunch of high priced FA DTs(Gardener, Warren) and not many draft picks have panned out (Yes, Mike Shanahan needs to draft better and his missed FA's are the reason why this year Bowlen has tightened his belt and tighten the grip on his wallet), but the Broncos in no season under Shanahan have been counted completely out the race.

Yes we've missed the playoffs 2 yrs in a roll, I blame that on the QB transition and the Bates-defense fiasco, but don't feel discouraged or call this season a rebuilding year. In 2001 and 2002, we missed the playoffs back to back also, but we bounced back immediately into the playoffs and had a superb run in 2005. Had we stopped Ben Rothfinburger and the eventual champs the Steelers that year, the Broncos would have taken it all in 2005. The Broncos are considered an elite franchise and a dangerous opponent for any team to play any given weekend in the past and in the future to come.

Broncos fans have become spoiled from the 97 & 98 back 2 back Super Bowl rings and anything short of another ring, Broncos fans go out throwing internet board room tantrums calling for Coach Shanahan's job as though they are the know it all; creating their own Broncos analysis splinter internet sites speaking as though they themselves should be the one hired for millions to be the GM(you know who you are).

It can be worst guys, if you scrap the whole team to completely rebuild, you may end up like the Redskins, Raiders, 49ers, Bungles and Lions just to name a few.

Only way the Broncos will completely rebuild from ground up like the Chefs is if Pat Bowlen decides Mike Shanahan will not take him to total glory again and a new coach comes to town. For those that are proponents of replacing Mike Shanahan, please provide me with a better replacement or answer.

[Stargazer]

Broncos fans have become spoiled from the 97 & 98 back 2 back Super Bowl rings and anything short of another ring, Broncos fans go out throwing internet board room tantrums calling for Coach Shanahan's job as though they are the know it all; creating their own Broncos analysis splinter internet sites speaking as though they themselves should be the one hired for millions to be the GM(you know who you are).



And 3 SB's in th 1980's and 1 in the '70's. Fans are definately spoiled. And the ones calling for Shanny's head are completely ridiculous(and you know who you are).

[WARHORSE]

Losing franchises that spend their time 'rebuilding' really have no clue. Winning sells EVERYTHING. Losing sells NOTHING.

Seat tickets, jerseys, popcorn, corndogs, beer, scarfs, hats, jackets, keychains, belt buckles, nose rings and panties.


Rebuilding, means losing.

Losing means not having the money to rebuild.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


You NEVER know when youre going to put together the right combination of players and coaches, or get lucky, or get value well worked for. But one thing is true: If you think you have no chance of winning...........youre right. If you think youre in 'rebuilding' mode.........youre right.


And if youre trying to win a championship........then youre trying to reload.

Kiss my butt to all the rebuilders out there.


You use the draft, free agency, trades and good luck to try and load a winner into the chamber to fire. You use it ALL.


Being compared to the Chefs is like comparing a thoroughbred to a shetland.

The Chefs SUCK.

We WIN.

BRONCOS OR DIE.:salute:

[Stargazer]

I would never want to be a fan of the Chiefs approach. They traded away their best young talented player for draft picks.

[DenBronx]

Losing franchises that spend their time 'rebuilding' really have no clue. Winning sells EVERYTHING. Losing sells NOTHING.

Seat tickets, jerseys, popcorn, corndogs, beer, scarfs, hats, jackets, keychains, belt buckles, nose rings and panties.



nothing like a hot chick in bronco panties! :salute:

[omac]

i think 4 years is a good number. i think a team that can draft well and develop those players in 4 years you should have a pretty strong core. rebuilding also consist of key free agents...but getting them the smart and cheap way. then when its time to resign your rookies the cap space will be there.

Wow 4 bad years! But that does make sense if you're patient enough. The team had better look the Colts or the Pats when their done, and not like the Raiders. :D

[omac]

Losing franchises that spend their time 'rebuilding' really have no clue. Winning sells EVERYTHING. Losing sells NOTHING.

Seat tickets, jerseys, popcorn, corndogs, beer, scarfs, hats, jackets, keychains, belt buckles, nose rings and panties.


Rebuilding, means losing.

Losing means not having the money to rebuild.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


You NEVER know when youre going to put together the right combination of players and coaches, or get lucky, or get value well worked for. But one thing is true: If you think you have no chance of winning...........youre right. If you think youre in 'rebuilding' mode.........youre right.


And if youre trying to win a championship........then youre trying to reload.

Kiss my butt to all the rebuilders out there.


You use the draft, free agency, trades and good luck to try and load a winner into the chamber to fire. You use it ALL.


Being compared to the Chefs is like comparing a thoroughbred to a shetland.

The Chefs SUCK.

We WIN.

BRONCOS OR DIE.:salute:

:salute: I agree; when teams say they are rebuilding, it's like they're just giving their fans an excuse for sucking.

While some teams have been rebuilding for a long time, Kubes steps into Houston and in his 2nd year there, not only do they no longer have a losing record, but they are competitive even against some real good teams.

A team that gets too used to losing sometimes don't know how to win anymore.

[omac]

It's hard to say the Chiefs are rebuilding for the future when you trade a 25 year old DE who lead the league in most sacks.

Yeah, it's one thing if the guy was not too far from retirement, but it's another if he exemplifies the building from youth that your team is undergoing.

[Tned]

I voted for the first option. The fact is that there are no guarantees when a team enteres a rebuilding phase. Look at Oakland. Remember it wasn't that long ago they made it to the SB and have hit rock bottom since then. There is still barely a light at the end of the tunnel.

What about SF? They were a juggernaut in the late '80s and early '90s, but since have been rebuilding for a decade or so. There are many, many other similar versions of the same story in the league. The Bengals???

Just going by my gut/memory, I would say there are far more teams that enter a rebuilding phase and then get stuck there for years or decades than teams that rebuild for a year or two with bad records and high draft picks, and then emerge as a contender.

[Ziggy]

Denver plays for wins, not draft picks.

[LRtagger]

I like being competitive. I dont want to end up like the Dolphins, Cardinals, etc.