PDA

View Full Version : Be careful what you wish for -- not as bad as we thought -- spoiled fans



Tned
08-23-2009, 02:48 PM
Ok, here is a compilation of a few past posts that seem applicable here, with the "we have been horrible the past 10 years" mindset that many have.


How were the Denver Broncos doing before the "offensive" experiment with the offense?

Many fans looked at the AFCCG loss as time to hit the panic button, and unfortunately, in hindsight, the Broncos coaching staff did the same. We have been talking in the Ryan Torain thread about how (I believe, some don't agree) the Broncos made significant changes in their play calling, formations, etc. (offensive scheme) starting week 1 of 2006.

I thought it would be good to 'remind' all of us exactly what Denver had accomplished prior to the AFCCG loss and for them to realize that the over-reaction and misguided changes (Heimerdinger/Bates - offensive and defensive scheme changes in '06 (offense) and '07 (defense) ruined a pretty good run.

To start out, I thought I would recap how the Broncos ranked during the three years '03, '04 and '05 in some stats, prior to Heimerdinger changing the offensive scheme and play calling in week 1 of '06.

Most wins between '03 - '05

3rd – 11 wins per season (NE & Ind tied for 1st w/ 12.7)

Most playoff appearances '03 - '05

Tied 1st – 3 (tied for 1st w/ Indy, Sea & NE)

Total playoff games, playoff wins, winning %, Super Bowl Appearances and SB Wins '03 - '05

Playoff games: Tied 7th – 4 (NE - 8, Car – 7, Pit/Ind - 6)
Playoff Wins: Tied 7th – 1 (NE - 7, Car/Pit – 5)
Playoff Winning%: 14th – 25% (NE 88%, Pit 83%, Car 71%)
Super Bowl Appearances: N/A (NE – 2, 4 teams tied with 1 appearance)
Super Bowl Wins: N/A – 2 (NE – 3, Pitt -1)

General observations about the three year period '03 - '05

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

Of those:

Denver is ONE of only FOUR teams to make the playoffs each of the three years
Denver is one of only 13 teams to win at least one playoff game during those 3 years. Six teams of the 32 had more than one playoff win over the three year period.
Denver is ONE of only THREE teams in the NFL to have 33 or more regular season wins in the three years from '03 - '05.


Winning isn't a birthright in Denver


Winning in Denver Isn't a birthright

It would seem that somewhere along the way, the Denver fans have begun to believe that having winning seasons is some kind of birthright that has been bestowed upon the Denver Broncos. That while for 'other' franchises, simply having a winning record, or getting to the playoffs is a major feat, in Denver anything short of a Super Bowl appearance, or more accurately a win, is a 'bad' season.

While winning seasons have historically been the benchmark for how good an NFL franchise is, with Denver fans the normal NFL rules don't apply. Denver is 'different', just ask a Denver fan, they will tell you.

Maybe it's because many of the younger Denver fans were first introduced to the Broncos and became Denver fans in the late '90s, when John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, Shannon Sharpe and the rest of the Super Bowl winning teams put together three great seasons and won two Super Bowls.

Maybe it is because 15 years of John Elway and his five Super Bowl appearances have spoiled us all. That while remembering the Drive and "this one's for John" and then the icing of another Super Bowl win, we forgot about the rough years after the last Super Bowl blowout and the 'lean' years that followed.

Somewhere along the way, we forgot about the fact that nearly half (7) of Elway's 16 seasons were 9 wins or less. This included an eight year stretch of inconsistency that began in '88 with a .500 season, followed by a Super Bowl blowout loss to San Francisco, and then six years of futility, with only two seasons over .500, both of which resulted in first round losses in the playoffs.

Maybe because Elway brought us to three Super Bowls in the late '80s, which Denver had no business being in, not to mention having no chance to win, we began to think that we had been 'granted' a special right to appear in Super Bowls far more frequently than any other NFL club.

Maybe because all the pieces fell in place -- a nobody 6th round running back with Hall of Fame talent; a fireplug of an offensive line coach who took a group of undersized linemen and created a well oiled buzz saw that cut the legs out from underneath every opposing defensive line we faced, opening holes for that 'nobody' running back; a hall of fame quarterback that for the first time in his long career had both a group of receivers and a running game, along with a coach that taught him the power of the west coast offense.

While this borders on sacrilegious among Denver fans, 'maybe' the Super Bowl appearances, not to mention the wins, were the aberration, rather than the birth right that so many fans seem to believe they were.

When you consider what it took to get to the three Super Bowls of the '80s, be it the Drive or the Fumble, or simply the super human play of John Elway, combined with the blowout losses.

When you consider the 'average' seasons both before and after the glory years of the late '90s, and that great "this one's for John" moment, you begin to see that many Denver fans have a distorted sense of reality. A belief that for Denver, anything short of the Super Bowl is a failure. That unlike every other franchise in the NFL, in Denver having a winning season is meaningless accomplishment -- simply making the playoffs is no better than a losing season.

It might seem like pumping out winning seasons is a simple feat, due to the Superman like play of John Elway, and Shanahan's ability to rebuild and completely turn over a team's roster multiple times without back to back losing seasons, not to mention avoiding the dreaded two to five win seasons that most franchises have every 5-10 years as they 'rebuild'.

However, the fact is that as fans we were 'lucky' to have a Hall of Fame quarterback carrying us to Super Bowl appearances, and regular season wins, that we had no right achieving, and a head coach that in 14 years has accomplished more than many coaches do in an entire career.

In Shanahan's 14 years, he has two Super Bowl wins, 7 playoff appearances and only two losing seasons. A stat line that few head coaches can match over any 14 year time frame.

Winning seasons might seem like a 'simple feat', because it has occurred so often in Denver over the last 26 years. While the franchise has been fortunate enough to have two great men responsible for those wins, just because Elway and Shanahan have been far more successful than their peers, shouldn't be confused with a belief that Denver is 'different' than other franchises.

Instead of falsely believing Denver has somehow been granted a divine right of superiority over other NFL franchises, Denver fans need to relish these eight and nine win seasons, not to mention any playoff appearances that we may have, regardless of the final outcome, because while Denver has experienced an amazing 25 year run of success, it will someday come to an end. At some point, the normal NFL cycles will once again apply to Denver. Just as they have applied to the once great Niners, the up and down "America's team", the darling Patriots, the NY Giants who have won the Super Bowl twice in the last 22 years, but have had eight losing seasons in between those wins (including six seasons of 6 or fewer wins).

The list goes on.

It seems the vicious cycle of losing applies to every NFL team except Denver.

Somehow Denver has been granted a 'right' to win every year, unlike every other team. A birthright, it would seem.

Unfortunately, while the last twenty five years might have lulled us into this false belief, it simply isn't true. There has been no divine birthright placed upon the Mile High city, but instead we have had one hell of a run that far too many fans have taken for granted.

Enjoy these good times while you have them, even if you don't 'realize' they are in fact good times. Contrary to what you might believe...

Winning in Denver Isn't a birthright.

Tned
08-23-2009, 02:49 PM
Note the bolded part in the "birthright" essay. Under Elway, nearly half of our seasons were 9-7 or worse.

Tned
08-23-2009, 02:53 PM
Posted on Mania prior to the last three years off .500 ball, when people were screaming about how bad the years with Plummer and Griese at QB were.


I have posted on several occasions that Denver Broncos fans are among the most spoiled in the NFL and they don’t realize how well they have had things. I decided to prove my point.

In addition to the obvious (John Elway was Denver’s QB), I have decided to put together some stats from the last 20 years to prove the point about how good Denver fans have had it.

My contention is that because Denver fans have had it so good the last 20 years that they are spoiled and have much higher expectation for their team than other fans.

I will be posting some additional rankings over the next day or so, but I am starting with regular season wins.

The following is how the Broncos rank in regular season wins over various periods of the last 20 years.

20 years:
2nd – 9.8 wins per season (SF 1st w/ 10.1 & Pit 3rd w/9.1)

10 Years:
1st – 10.6 wins per season (GB 2nd w/ 10.2 & NE 3rd w/10.1)

5 Years:
5th – 10 wins per season (NE 1st w/ 11.6 - Pit 2nd w/11 - Ind 3rd(tied) w/10.8 - Phi 3rd(tied) w/10.8)

3 Years (Plummer Years):
3rd – 11 wins per season (NE & Ind tied for 1st w/ 12.7)

Elway last 3 years (best period in franchise history) for comparison:
1st – 13 wins per season (GB & SF tied for 2nd w/ 12.)

Griese Years (aka the dark years) for comparison:
13th – 8.5 wins per season (Ten & Stl tied for 1st w/ 11)

Losing seasons over last 20 years:
Tied for 2nd – 3 sub .500 seasons (Mia 1st w/ 2 & Min tied 2nd w/ 3)

Ok, that about does it for the regular season win totals.

As you can see, over the last 20 years, the Broncos have been arguably the best team in football. Even with the dark years of the Griese era, the Broncos are among the leaders in wins over the last 20, 10, 5 and 3 years. Yet, at the same time, they have the second fewest losing seasons during the last 20 years.

For comparison purposes, some of the other teams with high average wins over various time periods in this 20 year snapshot and there number of losing seasons over the last 20 years are:
SF - 5
GB - 6
Pit - 6
Phi - 7
NE - 7
Indy - 7

So, the Broncos have accomplished a rare feat over the last 20 years. They have been able to have a great many high win seasons, but didn’t have to constantly mortgage their future and go through rebuilding phases, as SF, GB, NE and other teams did.

This is installment number 1 in why the Bronco fans are among the most spoiled in the NFL.



Ok, here is installment number two of why Denver has among the most spoiled fans in the NFL.

This installment looks at playoff appearances.

Ok, first, we look at where Denver ranks in playoff appearances over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years:

Tied 2nd – 12 seasons going to the playoffs (1st SF - 14, Tied 2nd Min – 12, tied for 3rd Stl, Pit, Phi)

Last 10 years:

Tied 1st – 7 (tied for 1st GB, NE, IND, tied 5th Min, TB, Pit, Phi - 6)

Last 5 years:

Tied 6th – 3 (tied for 1st GB, Ind, Pit, Phi, NE – 4, Tied 6th Sea, TB, NYJ, Stl)

Last 3 years:

Tied 1st – 3 (tied for 1st w/ Indy, Sea & NE)

Griese Years (Dark era):

Tied 15th – 1 (1st TB - 1, Tied 2nd Oak, Ten, Stl, Ind, Mia, Phi w/ 3)

Elway last three years (Golden years):

Tied 1st – 3 (tied with Jac, SF, NE, Min, GB)


Again, except for the dark years of the Griese era, we are have been among the top teams in playoff appearances.

However, once again we find that many of the other teams that are consistently among the teams that go to the playoffs have had many down seasons. In these years, they didn’t just miss the playoffs, but didn’t even have a winning season. So, we will refer back to a list from installment one:

Mia – 2 (10% losing seasons)
Den – 3 (15% losing seasons)
Min – 3
SF – 5 (25% losing seasons)
GB – 6 (30% losing seasons)
Pit – 6
Phi – 7 (35% losing seasons)
NE – 7
Indy - 7
KC – 7
Buf – 7
Sea – 7

So, if we focus on our list of losing season for a moment, you will see that Miami has had the fewest losing seasons, only having one losing season out of every 10 years. Min and Denver are close behind, at 15% or one losing season every 6.7 years.

Of these three teams that are head and shoulders above the rest in their lack of losing seasons, Minnesota and Denver have each made 12 playoff appearances in the last 20 years (once every 1.7 years) , while Miami has only made 9 (once every 2.2 years).

How about the teams that have won the Super Bowl the last five years?

Pittsburgh has a losing season every 3.3 years and went to the playoffs every 1.8 years.
New England has had a losing season every 2.9 years and went to playoffs every 2.2 years.
Tampa Bay has had a losing season every 1.5 years and went to playoffs every 3.3 years.

So, once again we see the incredible consistency that Denver has shown. Not only do they get to the playoffs with great frequency, but they also very rarely have down seasons. This shows an incredible management of the team. The ability to rebuild on the fly, rather than the typical NFL rollercoaster, which is for a team to be on top for a few years, and then to have several losing seasons while the team rebuilds.

The next installment(s) will look at playoff wins, Super Bowl appearances and SB wins.

Tned
08-23-2009, 02:54 PM
More from the Mania "Broncos Fans are among the most spoiled fans in the NFL thread"


Ok, here is installment three (and the final one I believe). For each era, I will look at several stats, such as total playoff games, playoff wins, winning %, Super Bowl Appearances and SB Wins.

Last 20 Years:

Playoff games: 2nd – 25 (SF 1st – 27, Pit 3rd – 23, Buf 4th – 21)
Playoff Wins: 2nd – 15 (SF 1st – 16, Pit/NE 3rd – 13)
Playoff Winning%: 7th – 60% (Dal 73%, Bal 71%, Was 71%, NE 86%, Car 67%)
Super Bowl Appearances: 1st – 5 (NE – 4, Buf – 4, Dal -3, NYG – 3, SF – 3)
Super Bowl Wins: Tied 4th – 2 (NE, Dal, SF – 3, Was, NYG – 2)

Last 10 Years:

Playoff games: Tied 3rd – 13 (NE - 17, Pit – 14, Phi/GB - 13)
Playoff Wins: 3rd – 8 (NE – 13, Pit – 9)
Playoff Winning%: 5th – 62% (NE 77%, Bal 71%, Car 67%, Pit 64%)
Super Bowl Appearances: Tied 2nd – 2 (NE – 4, GB/Stl – 2)
Super Bowl Wins: 2nd – 2 (NE - 3)

Last 5 Years:

Playoff games: Tied 12th – 4 (NE - 11, Pit/Phi – 10, Ind/Car - 7)
Playoff Wins: Tied 14th – 1 (NE - 10, Pit – 7, Phi – 6, Car - 5)
Playoff Winning%: 18th – 25% (NE 91%, Car 71%, Pit 70%)
Super Bowl Appearances: N/A (NE – 3, 7 teams tied with 1 appearance)
Super Bowl Wins: N/A – 2 (NE – 3, TB -1, Pitt -1)

Last 3 Years:

Playoff games: Tied 7th – 4 (NE - 8, Car – 7, Pit/Ind - 6)
Playoff Wins: Tied 7th – 1 (NE - 7, Car/Pit – 5)
Playoff Winning%: 14th – 25% (NE 88%, Pit 83%, Car 71%)
Super Bowl Appearances: N/A (NE – 2, 4 teams tied with 1 appearance)
Super Bowl Wins: N/A – 2 (NE – 3, Pitt -1)

Griese Years:

Playoff games: Tied 20th – 1 (Ten/TB/Stl/Phi/Oak - 7, Bal – 6)
Playoff Wins: N/A– 0 tied with 6 others at 0 wins (Stl/Bal – 5)
Playoff Winning%: N/A (NE 100%, Bal 83%, Stl 71%)
Super Bowl Appearances: N/A (Stl – 2, 6 teams tied with 1 appearance)
Super Bowl Wins: N/A – 2 (NE/Bal/Stl/TB – 1)

Elway Last 3 Years:

Playoff games: 1st– 8 (GB - 7, Jac/SF/NE – 6)
Playoff Wins: Tied 1st – 7 (GB - 5, Jac/SF/NE – 3)
Playoff Winning%: 1st – 88% (GB 71%, Atl - 67)
Super Bowl Appearances: Tied 1st – 1 (GB – 2, NE/Atl - 1)
Super Bowl Wins: 1st – 2 (GB – 1)

Ok, so what does all of this tell us?

First:
The final years of Elway’s career were truly dominant.
The Griese years were truly abysmal
The Plummer years fall somewhere in between

Second:
Once again, The Broncos have been very dominant over the last 20 years. 2nd in playoff games and playoff wins, 1st in Super Bowl appearances and tied for 4th in Super Bowl Wins.

After hours of screwing with these numbers, I am not really sure what they tell me, other than confirming what I already knew. That is that there are few franchises in the NFL that have had as much success and as little failure as the Denver Broncos over the last 20 years.

It is my belief, that as a result of all of this success and lack of failure, the Denver Broncos’ fans have come to expect much more from their team than the average fan. Having a winning season or making it to the playoffs is not enough. Anything less than a Super Bowl trip and victory is perceived as a bad season.

There is no doubt that there has been a severe tail off since Elway retired, with the Griese era being by far the worst, but the Broncos are still among the few teams that have consistantly had winning seasons and made it to the playoffs. There are an awful lot of fans that wish they could say that about their team over the last seven years.


Ok, a followup tidbit. One of the knocks on Plummer is that he can't win in the playoffs.

I am already on record stating that I don't think you can blame the two Indy losses and the Pit loss on Jake. The Indy losses were so bad that Shanny spent two offseasons revamping virtually his whole defense, including three picks on DB's in last years draft.

That aside, some thoughts on the last three years.

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

Of those:

Denver is ONE of only FOUR teams to make the playoffs each of the last three years
Denver is one of only 13 teams to win at least one playoff game the last 3 years. Six teams of the 32 have had more than one playoff win total over the last three years
Denver is ONE of only THREE teams in the NFL to have 33 or more regular season wins over the last three years.


So, it is possible that Jake Plummer is not John Elway, and that this team is not as good as the one that played from '96 to '98, but it still is one of the top teams in the NFL.

LRtagger
08-23-2009, 02:55 PM
Shanny was a great coach and he was always able to keep us in the thick of things every year, but I think that was his downfall to be honest. We always seemed to be competitive every year so he never realized how terribly bad off we were. He always thought we were one coach or one FA away from being elite, but it just wasn't true.

I appreciate what he did for the Broncos in that he never gave us the types of seasons you see from most other organizations...

Oh well hopefully we can learn from our mistakes...Time to start anew.

We are not as bad off this year as some would lead us to believe. If a person who had not paid any attention to football came onto this board, they would assume we are the worst team in football.

Tned
08-23-2009, 02:57 PM
Shanny was a great coach and he was always able to keep us in the thick of things every year, but I think that was his downfall to be honest. We always seemed to be competitive every year so he never realized how terribly bad off we were. He always thought we were one coach or one FA away from being elite, but it just wasn't true.

I appreciate what he did for the Broncos in that he never gave us the types of seasons you see from most other organizations...

Oh well hopefully we can learn from our mistakes...Time to start anew.

And, on the flip side, because he fielded a competitive team every year, the fans began to forget the reality that fans of all other franchises deal with, and lost sight of how good we had it with so few losing seasons, so many playoff appearances.

NightTrainLayne
08-23-2009, 02:59 PM
:D

This is the season where we separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nomad
08-23-2009, 03:01 PM
Shanny was a great coach and he was always able to keep us in the thick of things every year, but I think that was his downfall to be honest. We always seemed to be competitive every year so he never realized how terribly bad off we were. He always thought we were one coach or one FA away from being elite, but it just wasn't true.

I appreciate what he did for the Broncos in that he never gave us the types of seasons you see from most other organizations...

Oh well hopefully we can learn from our mistakes...Time to start anew.

We are not as bad off this year as some would lead us to believe. If a person who had not paid any attention to football came onto this board, they would assume we are the worst team in football.


Shanny's downfall was letting a personal friendship get in the way of looking for another way to better the team.

Tned
08-23-2009, 03:01 PM
:D

This is the season where we separate the wheat from the chaff.

A lot of our fans have either never known a REAL bad stretch, or forgotted how much they suck. I hope we go out and win 9-10 games this season, but there is a pretty good chance we will see who jumps ship for a 'winning' team this season.

LRtagger
08-23-2009, 03:04 PM
Shanny's downfall was letting a personal friendship get in the way of looking for another way to better the team.

I disagree...Slowik was not Shanny's lone mistake that led to his downfall. It was a culmination of several mistakes.

Nomad
08-23-2009, 03:06 PM
A lot of our fans have either never known a REAL bad stretch, or forgotted how much they suck. I hope we go out and win 9-10 games this season, but there is a pretty good chance we will see who jumps ship for a 'winning' team this season.

I know it's not pro ball but I remember LSU of the early to mid 90s......awful:tsk:!!

Elway was such an influence that no matter how bad a game or season, he was forgiven. We haven't found anyone like him since whether at QB or any other position with that passion, plus i agree with DN (Carol) alot of the BRONCOS magic left with Mile High. JMO!

Tned
08-23-2009, 03:17 PM
I know it's not pro ball but I remember LSU of the early to mid 90s......awful:tsk:!!

Elway was such an influence that no matter how bad a game or season, he was forgiven. We haven't found anyone like him since whether at QB or any other position with that passion, plus i agree with DN (Carol) alot of the BRONCOS magic left with Mile High. JMO!

The early '90s were lean years. The head coach used a first round pick to draft a QB to replace Elway while he was in his prime, many fans complained about how Elway couldn't win the big one. It wasn't all rosey.

While a Raider fan would never admit that the Broncos last six years would be better, they have gotten to enjoy a total of 24 wins in the last six years (if my memory serves me correctly), while we have had 24 in the last 3 years, and 57 over that same six year period, again going by memory.

A team like the Cardinals might have gone to the SB last season (with a 9 win season), but only had ONE, that's right ONE, winning season in the previous 23 years. Guess who the QB was for that one winning season, Jake Plummer (just as an ironic side note).

The Bengals, ONE winning season in the last 18 years.

The Falcons, three winning seasons in the last 10 years.

The list goes on. There are only a small handful of teams that did any better over the last 10 years than the Broncos, and in almost every case, they did it coming out of a dismal rebuilding period (one or more low, single digit win seasons).

Dean
08-23-2009, 03:44 PM
This was my post in that thread from 2008. I believe it is just as true today.


Nomad Broncofan and T-ned both made references to good coaching. While I was lurking on this board three and four years ago there were more people wanting Mike Shanahan and Gary Kubiak fired than presently want Jake tarred, feathered, and run out of town. At that time the mantra was we can't get to the play-offs. Now, we consistently make the play-offs and the rallying call is we can't win the Superbowl.

Yes, we are spoiled. Whatever good things happen they aren't quite good enough. I appreciate your time and effort in obtaining the numbers to illustrate that mind set exists but it won't change the perspective of Bronco fans. IMO even if we win a superbowl this year there will be those who still want some player fired, some new guy to replace a proven veteran, or the offense or defensive scheme changed to suit their personal likes and dislikes.

That's part of being a fan and once again, yes, we are spoiled. When you win you begin to expect and sometimes demand to win. Whether that is resonable or not.

Now, when we are 8-8 the staff, front office, and team are torched. We should be in the play-offs,.no- in the Super Bowl, no-win the Super Bowl almost every year.

Denver Native (Carol)
08-23-2009, 03:45 PM
Note the bolded part in the "birthright" essay. Under Elway, nearly half of our seasons were 9-7 or worse.

That's because, under Elway, for half of our seasons Elway was a "one man show".

DenBronx
08-23-2009, 04:11 PM
Shanahans downfall was not fixing the defense the past 4 years. Things might of been differant if he would have got a good DC and stuck with him! Also getting the right type of players to fit the scheme is also important. He had too many hybrid type of players and let the good ones go...like pass rushers Berry, Hayward and Pryce.

Tned
08-23-2009, 04:15 PM
Shanahans downfall was not fixing the defense the past 4 years. Things might of been differant if he would have got a good DC and stuck with him! Also getting the right type of players to fit the scheme is also important. He had too many hybrid type of players and let the good ones go...like pass rushers like Berry, Hayward and Pryce.

My point in posting this had nothing to do with Shanahan's firing, it has to do with unrealistic fan expectations.

Fans were screaming about how bad we were after we lost the AFCCG, but the fact is we had been one of the best teams in the NFL the previous 5 years, and especially so the previous three years. Then, when we were completely unhapy with being third in the league in wins, because we didn't win it all -- winning with smoke and mirrors wasn't good enough, we needed change.

We got change to the tune of being .500 over the next three seasons. Now we scream about how horrible three season of .500 ball is, but we lose site of how many franchises have fans that would KILL to have three seasons where they averate 8 wins per season, forget about averaging 11 wins per season like we did from '02-'05.

silkamilkamonico
08-23-2009, 05:05 PM
It is a good point.

We can't all be blessed with organizations like new England and Pittsburgh.

Dreadnought
08-23-2009, 05:12 PM
Excellent points - this is why I simply tune out the folks who whine incessantly about the "futility" of the past three years or any such nonsense. At the time I read a post like that I can safely assume that they don't know what they are talking about, and have no understanding at all of the word "Futility." My dad is a Browns fan, and my brother a Saints fan. They could teach postgraduate courses in fan frustration, and in fan loyalty, and in what futility actually looks like.

I'm getting a feeling like the football Gods have decided to punish us for our arrogance, ingratitude, and spoiled brat petulance this year. So be it. We earned it. And some fans thought Cutler acted like a spoiled baby?!

Ravage!!!
08-23-2009, 05:16 PM
It is a good point.

We can't all be blessed with organizations like new England and Pittsburgh.

yet before this last 9 years, the Patriots won how many Super Bowls? Most teams go through their time of being a 'top team'... and that usually follows a period in which they have a top QB. Pittsburgh didn't win a Super Bowl in 26 years before their win in '06

Dreadnought
08-23-2009, 05:22 PM
yet before this last 9 years, the Patriots won how many Super Bowls? Most teams go through their time of being a 'top team'... and that usually follows a period in which they have a top QB. Pittsburgh didn't win a Super Bowl in 26 years before their win in '06

The Pats were a perennial Sad Sack team until 2001. They will be again. And you're right about the Steelers, though I'm sure they have enough of those hokey yellow towels to issue to additional bandwagon fans as needed.

Tned
08-23-2009, 05:30 PM
It is a good point.

We can't all be blessed with organizations like new England and Pittsburgh.

Yes, NE is in the midst of a good 'run', but since '89 (20 seasons) they have had 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins, including a 1 and 2 wins season

That means that 35% of NE's seasons have been 6 or fewer seasons, including two seasons (10%) of 2 or fewer wins.

The Broncos during that 20 year span have 2 seasons (10%) with 6 or fewer wins and no seasons below 5 wins.

Den 16 seasons .500 or better
NE 13 seasons .500 or better

So, yes, NE is in the middle of a great run right now, one of the best in NFL history, but not too long ago they were an average at best franchise and went through some very low years.

The Broncos haven't. We flip out of .500 seasons, and the world is coming to the end if we have a 6 win seaon.

When you talk about 1 and 2 win seasons, while the Pats have had two in the last decade, you have to expand the time frame to 44 years in order to come up with a 'range' where the Broncos have had two seasons of 2 or fewer wins.

If you narrow your time frame to the last three years, or even the last five or six, then yea, Broncos are ONLY middle of the pack, maybe top 1/3, but when you consider we are one of the winningest franchises in the NFL over the last 25 years, and have never had to suffer through a rebuilding period, it is VERY shortsighted to complain about the last few years, because we could be like the fans of the 25-30 other franchises that wish they had a 25 year run like us.

Dean
08-23-2009, 05:43 PM
I know that this is my opinion and there is no way to verify it. However, I think that Shanahan after the AFLCG in '05 decided that it was time to rebuild. Rather than going through the usual multiple 2 to 5 win seasons he chose to do the offensive side and then switch to the defense. Last year he had switched from free agents to the draft to obtain talent and had an offense with several weapons. IMO this was to be the start of an attempt to rebuild the defense.

If this was what he was attempting to do he overestimated the oraganization's loyalty.

Tned
08-23-2009, 05:48 PM
I know that this is my opinion and there is no way to verify it. However, I think that Shanahan after the AFLCG in '05 decided that it was time to rebuild. Rather than going through the usual multiple 2 to 5 win seasons he chose to do the offensive side and then switch to the defense. Last year he had switched from free agents to the draft to obtain talent and had an offense with several weapons. IMO this was to be the start of an attempt to rebuild the defense.

If this was what he was attempting to do he overestimated the oraganization's loyalty.

You are probably are right. He had managed to turn the roster over a couple times without a 'true' rebuilding period, and I think he was trying to do the same again.

I'm not going to say firing him was a mistake, because there is NO way to no. Even if the Broncos rall into Raiders' territory and only win 12 games over the next three seasons, there will be no way to no for sure it would have been better under Shanahan.

Regardless, we are in a new era, but I think it's important that people get some grasp on the fact that the last ten years, and even the last three years, have been FAR from horrible as many make them out to be.

As I said, most of the fans that are talking about how bad the Broncos have been either are too young to know what bad is, or have been a long time fan and have forgotten. People tend to forget memories after 30-40 years.

Ravage!!!
08-23-2009, 05:55 PM
As I said, most of the fans that are talking about how bad the Broncos have been either are too young to know what bad is, or have been a long time fan and have forgotten. People tend to forget memories after 30-40 years.

or they refuse to see the facts. There are some on here that were so 'convinced' that Shanahan was awful, that they don't want to see anything that counters or corrects that view, and will never allow themselves to see the truth because they WANT to hang onto that skewed perspective.

Tned
08-23-2009, 05:57 PM
or they refuse to see the facts. There are some on here that were so 'convinced' that Shanahan was awful, that they don't want to see anything that counters or corrects that view, and will never allow themselves to see the truth because they WANT to hang onto that skewed perspective.

Even before that, they were convinced Plummer was awful, and before Griese was awful, and if you go back far enough, Elway might be good, but he can't win the big one, maybe we need to trade him while he still has value...

All that happened through the years of these awful QBs or QBs that couldn't win the "big one" was that we won, won and won some more.

Mike
08-23-2009, 06:01 PM
or they refuse to see the facts. There are some on here that were so 'convinced' that Shanahan was awful, that they don't want to see anything that counters or corrects that view, and will never allow themselves to see the truth because they WANT to hang onto that skewed perspective.

I would argue this, but I just don't give a crap any more.

Seriously, it's done. Shanahan is gone. Cutler is gone. All that is left is the Broncos. The sooner we get beyond this the better this place will be.

Lonestar
08-23-2009, 06:03 PM
Having suffered thru the first 25 years as this team was a marginal winner except in 1977 when the football Gods smiled on the defense..

I take win loss records with a grain of salt..

While winning is the only way to get to the playoffs and I:d much rather be there than setting home in JAN, it is not everything in the whole world to me..

I just want my team to win them all at home and dominate the weaker teams and play well against the strong teams..

If we can do that then I'm a happy camper..

I dislike it when we have beat someone into the ground the first half and allow them to get back into the game to win or for us to win in a desperation FG attempt in the last seconds.. I realize that is a win.. but to me it is a cheap win.. almost not worthy of putting into the win column..

Lonestar
08-23-2009, 06:07 PM
or they refuse to see the facts. There are some on here that were so 'convinced' that Shanahan was awful, that they don't want to see anything that counters or corrects that view, and will never allow themselves to see the truth because they WANT to hang onto that skewed perspective.


and some do not wish to see that he was not all that either.. they also have a skewed perspective.. a great OC that got the reins to the entire wagon train.. and he drove it into Indian country without knowing what he was doing....

Tned
08-23-2009, 06:16 PM
and some do not wish to see that he was not all that either.. they also have a skewed perspective.. a great OC that got the reins to the entire wagon train.. and he drove it into Indian country without knowing what he was doing....

That would hold water if he was successful for a couple years and then the wheels fell off. When over the course of 14 or 15 years, he has one of the highest winning percentages as a head coach.

MOtorboat
08-23-2009, 06:19 PM
That would hold water if he was successful for a couple years and then the wheels fell off. When over the course of 14 or 15 years, he has one of the highest winning percentages as a head coach.

True, but, though I disagree with the assertion, Kubiak was with him in Denver from the start, until he took the Texans job. So the argument certainly does hold water.

Ravage!!!
08-23-2009, 06:20 PM
and some do not wish to see that he was not all that either.. they also have a skewed perspective.. a great OC that got the reins to the entire wagon train.. and he drove it into Indian country without knowing what he was doing....


That would hold water if he was successful for a couple years and then the wheels fell off. When over the course of 14 or 15 years, he has one of the highest winning percentages as a head coach.

Tned says it.

Not to mention.. .what we have now is an OC that has the wheels to the entire wagon train

Tned
08-23-2009, 06:21 PM
I'm doing this as a seperate post so that I am not quoting anyone.

I created this thread to try and point out how lucky we have been, and ARE, as Broncos fans, and focusing on what you 'think' is a horrible three years, or five years or ten years, is a fallacy if you consider what every other franchise goes through.

Listening to the Shanahan haters, and the Cutler haters and the McDaniels haters and the Orton haters, I find it Ironic.

I'm watching Freedom Writers right now. I saw it a couple years ago, but my wife never did, so we're watching it. As the movie starts, you have the Mexicans, and the African Americans, and the Cambodians and the whites and another group or so all screaming at each other. Drawing their lines in the sand, or the classroom, their little turf wars.

That's what we have now. We are so intent on 'proving' that it is rational to say Shanahan suckec, or Orton sucks, or McDaniel sucks, or Cutler sucked, or Plummer sucked, that we lose sight.

Lose sight of the fact that as Broncos fans, we have been very fortunate, whether it has been Dan Reeves coaching John Elway, or Shanahan coaching Elway/Griese/Plummer/Cutler, this franchise has just churned out winning seasons. The fact that we were able to have five Super Bowl appearances and a couple wins, is just icing on the cake. But, we got the cake and the icing, where most teams get NEITHER.

MOtorboat
08-23-2009, 06:26 PM
Listening to the Shanahan haters, and the Cutler haters and the McDaniels haters and the Orton haters, I find it Ironic.

Why is it that every time someone falls on one side of an argument they are labeled a hater? Why do we have to draw a line in the sand with everything?

I agree with everything else you have said in that post. Good post.

Ravage!!!
08-23-2009, 06:26 PM
Very true. THe fact is that we have been lucky. We have been spoiled. We are lucky as Bronco fans to have had such great success as a franchise. I guess just bring up 'recent' past coaches having been a part of that success is a natural follow.

But to be on the same page as the intent of the thread. Although I have noticed that we have VERY high expectations for this franchise, I am VERY willing to accept that we are going to go through some very thin years, very soon. I think the NFL is one that runs in cycles. Bad teams move to the front, then back to the back.... good to the front, go through thin years, and then to the forefront again (unless you are the browns, and you just stay stagnant! :lol: )

Tned
08-23-2009, 06:41 PM
Why is it that every time someone falls on one side of an argument they are labeled a hater? Why do we have to draw a line in the sand with everything?

I agree with everything else you have said in that post. Good post.

That's a very good question. Do you have any insight into why it happens so much, and so many of us are guilty of it?

I'm guilty of it, your guilty of it, so many of us are.

I think one reason is that some of the people are more focused on tearing someone down as a means to support another person -- somewhat human nature, unfortunately.

So, if you support McDaniels, you tend to attack Mike Shanahan and talk about all he did well. If you support Orton, you tend to attack Cutler and talk about all he has done wrong. If you angry about Cutler being traded, you tend to trash Orton.

Then what makes matters worse, is the 'defenders' of the player/coach being torn down, tends to take it personally that McDaniels, or Orton, or Cutler, or Shanahan is being 'attacked' and either lashes out at the poster or the counterpart (Shanahan if McDaniels is being attacked) or acts in some other defensive way, like posting a snied dig as a response to something that isn't liked.

It's why the people that aren't participating in these mini-feuds happening all over the message board are getting sick and tired and saying they are thinking abut taking breaks from the board.

As to why we do it, I honestly don't know. Maybe we all tend to take things to personally -- get offended or defensive when people don't see things exactly the same way we see it.

Tned
08-23-2009, 06:44 PM
Why do we have to draw a line in the sand with everything?

Also, that is why I said I found it Ironic that I was typing in this thread as I was watching Freedom writers, because in the beginning every one of those groups of kids drew their lines in the sand, and attacked anyone that fell outside of it.

Far too often, that's what happens among us fans, and yes, I am just as guilty as the next fan.

TXBRONC
08-23-2009, 06:56 PM
That's a very good question. Do you have any insight into why it happens so much, and so many of us are guilty of it?

I'm guilty of it, your guilty of it, so many of us are.

I think one reason is that some of the people are more focused on tearing someone down as a means to support another person -- somewhat human nature, unfortunately.

So, if you support McDaniels, you tend to attack Mike Shanahan and talk about all he did well. If you support Orton, you tend to attack Cutler and talk about all he has done wrong. If you angry about Cutler being traded, you tend to trash Orton.

Then what makes matters worse, is the 'defenders' of the player/coach being torn down, tends to take it personally that McDaniels, or Orton, or Cutler, or Shanahan is being 'attacked' and either lashes out at the poster or the counterpart (Shanahan if McDaniels is being attacked) or acts in some other defensive way, like posting a snied dig as a response to something that isn't liked.

It's why the people that aren't participating in these mini-feuds happening all over the message board are getting sick and tired and saying they are thinking abut taking breaks from the board.

As to why we do it, I honestly don't know. Maybe we all tend to take things to personally -- get offended or defensive when people don't see things exactly the same way we see it.

Maybe what we need to do is have a beer summit. :beer:

Tned
08-23-2009, 07:01 PM
Maybe what we need to do is have beer summit. :beer:

It couldn't hurt ;)

Dreadnought
08-23-2009, 07:40 PM
Maybe what we need to do is have a beer summit. :beer:

Idea of the Year. Beer makes all things better.

I guess in answer to the general question is that I am a fanatic. I destroyed a chair (granted a crappy one) when Olindo Mare hit two 55 yarders in the snow on Monday night. My shouts when John Mobley swatted away that 4th down pass of Favres are still travelling in space I think. I remeber September 11th 2001 as the day my country and state was attacked by fiends, and September 10th as the night Eddie Mac shattered his leg (and hung onto the pass.) I have followed this team alone for 40 years, never having actually met another Bronco fan IRL until i watched the Browns game with Yardog and Claymore last November. I spend lots of time here I suppose I could be doing other stuff with. In short, maybe I, like maybe most of us, take this maybe a bit too seriously. And I have no intention of stopping.

Now we had a lot of turmoil, and it feels like other people are screwing with a thing I love, and which is part of my identity, and there isn't crap I can do about it either - so I am intensely frustrated and here is a place to vent.

drewloc
08-23-2009, 07:51 PM
That's a very good question. Do you have any insight into why it happens so much, and so many of us are guilty of it?

I'm guilty of it, your guilty of it, so many of us are.

I think one reason is that some of the people are more focused on tearing someone down as a means to support another person -- somewhat human nature, unfortunately.

So, if you support McDaniels, you tend to attack Mike Shanahan and talk about all he did well. If you support Orton, you tend to attack Cutler and talk about all he has done wrong. If you angry about Cutler being traded, you tend to trash Orton.

Then what makes matters worse, is the 'defenders' of the player/coach being torn down, tends to take it personally that McDaniels, or Orton, or Cutler, or Shanahan is being 'attacked' and either lashes out at the poster or the counterpart (Shanahan if McDaniels is being attacked) or acts in some other defensive way, like posting a snied dig as a response to something that isn't liked.

It's why the people that aren't participating in these mini-feuds happening all over the message board are getting sick and tired and saying they are thinking abut taking breaks from the board.

As to why we do it, I honestly don't know. Maybe we all tend to take things to personally -- get offended or defensive when people don't see things exactly the same way we see it.

I think one of the big reasons that we are so spoiled, is just that the younger generation never experienced the pre-Elway years. I've learned to appreciate the Orange Crush and what they accomplished. Unfortunately that wasn't the era I was exposed to. We may know someone who is a Lions fan, but we never truly experienced our team being that bad.

Whats funny about this whole thing is that, like you said, people tend to pick sides. This is human nature to agree with one side or the other, but the problem lies when people refuse to listen to both sides. Maybe that's attributed to just football, I'm not sure about that though. Sometimes it would just be better if people just agree to disagree rather than try to change someones mind.

broncophan
08-24-2009, 12:53 AM
I agree......we have been spoiled.......although I never thought it was that bad to begin with...anyone who thought this team would do a whole lot better than .500 ball during kid Cutlers first 3 years or so was dreaming.Not a knock against Cutler.....I would say that about almost any qb's first 2 or 3 years in the league......esp. since he had no support on the other side of the ball......you need to have the rest of your team "set" when you start a young qb

.....I do remember some long years now and then though.....even with Elway.

I always thought Bowlen has been a big part of the organizations success as well.Most successful organizations have great owners/pres. etc....

obviously......hope we dont fall down to the lower end of the nfl for several years now......where at least consistantly we never have in a long....long time.

DenBronx
08-24-2009, 01:14 AM
My point in posting this had nothing to do with Shanahan's firing, it has to do with unrealistic fan expectations.

Fans were screaming about how bad we were after we lost the AFCCG, but the fact is we had been one of the best teams in the NFL the previous 5 years, and especially so the previous three years. Then, when we were completely unhapy with being third in the league in wins, because we didn't win it all -- winning with smoke and mirrors wasn't good enough, we needed change.

We got change to the tune of being .500 over the next three seasons. Now we scream about how horrible three season of .500 ball is, but we lose site of how many franchises have fans that would KILL to have three seasons where they averate 8 wins per season, forget about averaging 11 wins per season like we did from '02-'05.


sorry about missing your point. i didnt read the article and am probablly guilty of being on of the spoiled fans that were unhappy with the blow out losses in the playoffs.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2009, 12:58 PM
yet before this last 9 years, the Patriots won how many Super Bowls? Most teams go through their time of being a 'top team'... and that usually follows a period in which they have a top QB. Pittsburgh didn't win a Super Bowl in 26 years before their win in '06

Welcome to 2009.

Nobody cares what happened 10+ years ago, especially in a what have you done for me lately league. By your logic, the Oakland Raiders are still among the elite organzations in the NFL, and elite organizations don't run an orgtanization the way they are right now.

Tned
08-24-2009, 01:00 PM
Welcome to 2009.

Nobody cares what happened 10+ years ago, especially in a what have you done for me lately league. By your logic, the Oakland Raiders are still among the elite organzations in the NFL, and elite organizations don't run an orgtanization the way they are right now.

Funny you should mention that, last week, or the week before, a couple people on here were making the case that the Raiders have been a more successful team than the Broncos over the last 10 years, because they have been to the SB during that time, and we haven't. The fact that they have 24 wins in the last 6 years (average of 4, yes 4 a year) meant nothing, because they were trying to make the point that all that matters is going to the SB.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2009, 01:01 PM
Yes, NE is in the midst of a good 'run', but since '89 (20 seasons) they have had 7 seasons of 6 or fewer wins, including a 1 and 2 wins season

That means that 35% of NE's seasons have been 6 or fewer seasons, including two seasons (10%) of 2 or fewer wins.

The Broncos during that 20 year span have 2 seasons (10%) with 6 or fewer wins and no seasons below 5 wins.

Den 16 seasons .500 or better
NE 13 seasons .500 or better

So, yes, NE is in the middle of a great run right now, one of the best in NFL history, but not too long ago they were an average at best franchise and went through some very low years.

The Broncos haven't. We flip out of .500 seasons, and the world is coming to the end if we have a 6 win seaon.

When you talk about 1 and 2 win seasons, while the Pats have had two in the last decade, you have to expand the time frame to 44 years in order to come up with a 'range' where the Broncos have had two seasons of 2 or fewer wins.

If you narrow your time frame to the last three years, or even the last five or six, then yea, Broncos are ONLY middle of the pack, maybe top 1/3, but when you consider we are one of the winningest franchises in the NFL over the last 25 years, and have never had to suffer through a rebuilding period, it is VERY shortsighted to complain about the last few years, because we could be like the fans of the 25-30 other franchises that wish they had a 25 year run like us.

Are you areguing "ever", or are you arguing the last 10 years like you stated in the original post?

You have good points about the last 10 years and I agree with you. But they are organizations that have been better in the last 10 years, most certainly when you're bring playoff success into the mix.

This is what I expect. Progression. Progression from 1 season to another. There has been 0 progression from one season to another in the last 10 years ith the exception of the year. Hovering around .500 gets old when it happens year, after year, after year, after year.

But you make good points and I agree with you. There are more than enough organizations that have been worse off than Denver in the last 10 years.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2009, 01:03 PM
Funny you should mention that, last week, or the week before, a couple people on here were making the case that the Raiders have been a more successful team than the Broncos over the last 10 years, because they have been to the SB during that time, and we haven't. The fact that they have 24 wins in the last 6 years (average of 4, yes 4 a year) meant nothing, because they were trying to make the point that all that matters is going to the SB.

Well, I do think playoffs have a much grandeur arguament than regular season. Does Oakland have more AFCWC than Denver i nthe last 1o years? I don't know. They at least have as many.

The Denver competes in he regular season argument doesn't hold much weight for me because they have never progressed past that point.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 01:05 PM
Are you areguing "ever", or are you arguing the last 10 years like you stated in the original post?

You have good points about the last 10 years and I agree with you. But they are organizations that have been better in the last 10 years, most certainly when you're bring playoff success into the mix.

This is what I expect. Progression. Progression from 1 season to another. There has been 0 progression from one season to another in the last 10 years ith the exception of the year. Hovering around .500 gets old when it happens year, after year, after year, after year.

But you make good points and I agree with you. There are more than enough organizations that have been worse off than Denver in the last 10 years.


actually we have digressed since the HOF troop retired and many other palyers from those teams moved on.. with the exception of 2005 when there were no injuries to speak of and Jake was playing really well this team have slowly sunk into the west..

and I think we all know that the first SAN game while a win was a gift from Ed H.

Tned
08-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Are you areguing "ever", or are you arguing the last 10 years like you stated in the original post?

You have good points about the last 10 years and I agree with you. But they are organizations that have been better in the last 10 years, most certainly when you're bring playoff success into the mix.

This is what I expect. Progression. Progression from 1 season to another. There has been 0 progression from one season to another in the last 10 years ith the exception of the year. Hovering around .500 gets old when it happens year, after year, after year, after year.

But you make good points and I agree with you. There are more than enough organizations that have been worse off than Denver in the last 10 years.

I through out the 20 year stats, because it is easy to say, "look, we aren't as good as NE" and there is no doubt that they are in the middle of one of the better runs in NFL history, but it wasn't so long ago that they were a franchise that was pretty bad. I'm sure in the late '90s their fans were saying, "Why can't we be like Denver, they've been to five Superbowls in a little over 10 years and won 2, and NE has only been to the playoffs four times in the last 14 years and twice we were once and out. Yea, we made it to the SB once, but GB won, and now we're back to being a .500 team...."

The 'main' point I have tried to make in this thread is that the NFL is very cyclical, a team is good for 2-6 years, and then typically goes into rebuilding phase that typically has one or more low, single digit win seasons (2, 3, 5 wins).

Over the last 25 years, the Broncos have managed to escape a 'true' rebuilding period for the last 25 years. I'm not sure there is another team in the NFL that can make that claim. Pitt comes pretty close, but in the last 25 years they have had a 3 year stretch below .500 and in the late '80s early '90s, they had a 7 year stretch where they averaged 7 wins a season and only had one playoff appearance.

Also, it is important to understand the context of the original posts in this thread, which were posted originally in 2006, becaus at that time, people were talking about how horrible we were, and that "we might be a good regular season team, but we can't win in the playoffs", because in the previous three years we were 3rd in regular season wins, behind only Indy and NE, and had been to the playoffs in 4 of the previous 5 years and coming off an AFCCG loss.

A lot of times peopls thing it can't get any worse, but it can, hence "be careful what you wish for".

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 01:34 PM
what team doesn't regress when having a HoF Troop retire???

When you lose an Elway, Sharp, Davis, Atwater, Zimmerman, Griffith, Schlereth... and then throw in Alfred Williams, Neil Smith, Bill Romanowski, Keith Traylor and John Mobley.... not to mention Tom Nalen, Al Wilson, and Jason Elam later. Of course they regressed

Tned
08-24-2009, 01:40 PM
Well, I do think playoffs have a much grandeur arguament than regular season. Does Oakland have more AFCWC than Denver i nthe last 1o years? I don't know. They at least have as many.

The Denver competes in he regular season argument doesn't hold much weight for me because they have never progressed past that point.

No question that a playoff win is better than a regular season win, but if I was to tell you that you could be a fan of one of these two teams:

Over the next fourteen years your team will:


Team A: Have three winning seasons out of 14 (21%) , make three playoff appearances, which includes one AFCCG loss and one SB loss.

Of the non winning seasons, seven seasons with 6 or fewer wins (50%).


Team B: Have nine winning seasons out of 14 (64%), make seven playoff appearances, including two SB wins, and one AFCCG loss.

Of the non winning seasons, one season of 6 or fewer wins (7%).

Now, over the next 14 years, do you want to be a fan of Team A or Team B?

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 01:45 PM
what team doesn't regress when having a HoF Troop retire???

When you lose an Elway, Sharp, Davis, Atwater, Zimmerman, Griffith, Schlereth... and then throw in Alfred Williams, Neil Smith, Bill Romanowski, Keith Traylor and John Mobley.... not to mention Tom Nalen, Al Wilson, and Jason Elam later. Of course they regressed

wow that was easy..

so what players did we get to replaced those players during the 2000-05 time frame..


certainly none at that level.. and there is only one person you can credit to for that.

Tned
08-24-2009, 01:46 PM
wow that was easy..

so what players did we get to replaced those players during the 2000-05 time frame..


certainly none at that level.. and there is only one person you can credit to for that.

So, do you want to be a fan of Team A or Team B over the next 14 years?

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 01:47 PM
So, do you want to be a fan of Team A or Team B over the next 14 years?



sorry not in your conversation..

Tned
08-24-2009, 01:49 PM
sorry not in your conversation..

Yea, I figured you would dodge that question. ;)

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 01:59 PM
wow that was easy..

so what players did we get to replaced those players during the 2000-05 time frame..


certainly none at that level.. and there is only one person you can credit to for that.

what players did we get to replace all those HoF, or HoF caliber, players in that 5 years?? :lol:

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 02:01 PM
what players did we get to replace all those HoF, or HoF caliber, players in that 5 years?? :lol:


thought you would agree on this one..

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 02:04 PM
B of course but do not tell me NE who happens to be the standard right now was B over that past 14 years....

Tned
08-24-2009, 02:09 PM
B of course but do not tell me NE who happens to be the standard right now was B over that past 14 years....

You can't take a near historic run in the NFL, especially in the modern, free agent era, and use that as a standard. It is not only possible, but likely, that we could go 50 years without seeing a string of dominance like NE had.

If that is what you are waiting for, you will continue to be dissapointed by the Broncos.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 02:11 PM
You can't take a near historic run in the NFL, especially in the modern, free agent era, and use that as a standard. It is not only possible, but likely, that we could go 50 years without seeing a string of dominance like NE had.

If that is what you are waiting for, you will continue to be dissapointed by the Broncos.


I suspect that we are closer to something like that than most on here think.. if Josh is a disappointment indeed then it will not be the first of last HC that will have done so..

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
I suspect that we are closer to something like that than most on here think.. if Josh is a disappointment indeed then it will not be the first of last HC that will have done so..

you think we are closer to some historic run of victories and super bowls... but if McDaniels doesn't succeed and gets fired, he won't be the first coach to fail and get fired.

Well... that certainly covers all the bases.

Tned
08-24-2009, 02:24 PM
I suspect that we are closer to something like that than most on here think.. if Josh is a disappointment indeed then it will not be the first of last HC that will have done so..

I'm struggling with this. On the one hand you say we are at best a 5 win team, that nobody realized how bad we were under Shanahan, but here you are saying we are close to achieving what New England has achieved - which is unprecedented in the free agent era and nearly unprecedented prior to that?

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 02:38 PM
I'm struggling with this. On the one hand you say we are at best a 5 win team, that nobody realized how bad we were under Shanahan, but here you are saying we are close to achieving what New England has achieved - which is unprecedented in the free agent era and nearly unprecedented prior to that?


this year is most likely a 5-6 win season mostly because of the schedule and where we play.. then with all the newbies in place with a season underneath them, I think we have a dammed good chance of competing with the best of them...

Rome was not built in a day.. and this season SHOULD be brutal with the schedule although past performance dose not guarantee future success..

I think we all know that NE has been the standard to go by since craft took over 12-15 years ago.. Once he got his personnel in place it has been a pretty finely tuned machine..

Lets just hope we see this kind of success..

Tned
08-24-2009, 02:41 PM
this year is most likely a 5-6 win season mostly because of the schedule and where we play.. then with all the newbies in place with a season underneath them, I think we have a dammed good chance of competing with the best of them...

Rome was not built in a day.. and this season SHOULD be brutal with the schedule although past performance dose not guarantee future success..

I think we all know that NE has been the standard to go by since craft took over 12-15 years ago.. Once he got his personnel in place it has been a pretty finely tuned machine..

Lets just hope we see this kind of success..

Oh, I certainly hope for that kind of success, just like the fans of the other 30 franchises that aren't NE 'hope' for it.

However, there is nothing but hope that would indicate that we will be a NE any time soon.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Oh, I certainly hope for that kind of success, just like the fans of the other 30 franchises that aren't NE 'hope' for it.

However, there is nothing but hope that would indicate that we will be a NE any time soon.


with a disciple of the system now as HC, it is more than I had since 2003 or so..

I see something coming in this team that is good now lets see if he can be great..

TXBRONC
08-24-2009, 02:57 PM
with a disciple of the system now as HC, it is more than I had since 2003 or so..

I see something coming in this team that is good now lets see if he can be great..

As Tned said there is hope but that is at this point.

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
with a disciple of the system now as HC, it is more than I had since 2003 or so..

I see something coming in this team that is good now lets see if he can be great..

What about his other disciples, Mangini and the other guy I'm drawing a blank on.

Plus, if you are making a case that it's Kraft, we don't have him. We don't even have Pioli. We have the guy that was the OC the last few years.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I really like what I have heard reported from camp (for the most part), but there is no reason, other than "he came from NE and he isn't Mike" that would lead you to believe that we are soon to have a dynasty like NE.

I hope so, but there is no basis for hope, but hope itself.

Mike
08-24-2009, 03:12 PM
What about his other disciples, Mangini and the other guy I'm drawing a blank on.

Plus, if you are making a case that it's Kraft, we don't have him. We don't even have Pioli. We have the guy that was the OC the last few years.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I really like what I have heard reported from camp (for the most part), but there is no reason, other than "he came from NE and he isn't Mike" that would lead you to believe that we are soon to have a dynasty like NE.

I hope so, but there is no basis for hope, but hope itself.

Romeo Crennel, I think.

No doubt the jury is out on McD. But people at least need to give the guy room to fail. I just don't get the hating just to hate sentiment. The guy won't win the SB this year, he most likely won't next year. All the hate has to make watching/supporting the Broncos unenjoyable.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 03:17 PM
What about his other disciples, Mangini and the other guy I'm drawing a blank on.

Plus, if you are making a case that it's Kraft, we don't have him. We don't even have Pioli. We have the guy that was the OC the last few years.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I really like what I have heard reported from camp (for the most part), but there is no reason, other than "he came from NE and he isn't Mike" that would lead you to believe that we are soon to have a dynasty like NE.

I hope so, but there is no basis for hope, but hope itself.

but we do have Pat who has been the man for 25 years here and I see no reason why the combo of Josh and Pat a nd whomever else is running the show can' replicate the magic the NE has..

Weiss IIRC was the other one that went to ND..

I have rarely doubted what Josh has done the first was Leach/Paxton.. thought that was initially a bad move.. but since then almost everything I have seen leads me to have that hope that many do not have yet..

it is not going to be an overnight rebuild and that Tned is what we are do and When jay was brought in 3-4 years ago we started the rebuild then

But it was not really a rebuild it was "RELOAD":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:29 PM
Romeo Crennel, I think.

No doubt the jury is out on McD. But people at least need to give the guy room to fail. I just don't get the hating just to hate sentiment. The guy won't win the SB this year, he most likely won't next year. All the hate has to make watching/supporting the Broncos unenjoyable.

That's the guy.

I agree. The point of this thread, which had some current stuff and some past stuff, was that each step of the way we 'hate' something, whether it's plummer, cutler, shanahan, now McDaniels or Marshall, and lose sight of the fact that as fans of this franchise, we have been pretty damn fortunate.

We have had far more winning seasons than losing seasons. Have gone to the SB more in the last 25 times more than any other team. Have had only two losing seasons in the past decade.

Things aren't horrible, the last three years haven't been turrrrible as Barkley would say. Detroit going 0-16 was turrrible, Cincy and Cleveland who have a COMBINED 4 winning seasons in the last 16 years. That's turrrible.

St. Louis, who after their SB runs in the 1999-2001, have been .500 or lower in 6 of the last 7 years, including 2 and 3 wins the last two years. That's the team that won the SB after us, that's turrible.

San Fran, who dominated in the late '80s and through the '90s, has 8 losing seasons in the last 10, including the last 6 seasons all be losing seasons, which included 2, 4 and 5 win seaons. That's turrrible.

The Broncos have not been turrible the last 10 years, nor the last three.

I want to get back to being 'great' just like the next person, and hope McDaniels brings us there, but we also need some perspective on what the last 10 years have been.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 03:32 PM
Mangini went to the Jets, Crennel to the Browns, Weis to Notre Dame.

Maybe I'm a "homer", but I think McD has a much better opportunity to succeed than the others did.

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:35 PM
but we do have Pat who has been the man for 25 years here and I see no reason why the combo of Josh and Pat a nd whomever else is running the show can' replicate the magic the NE has..


But then you can't use Kraft as the example, of why NE is 'now' the standard, when you say they became the standard when Kraft go the team. We didn't change owners, so we did not have an equivalent change.

We go NE's OC. What is a much better comparison is when we got another young OC, Mike Shanahan. I think most fans would agree that if McDaniels success is the same as Shanahan's they will be pretty pleased.



But it was not really a rebuild it was "RELOAD":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

It wasn't rebuilding, in the way the term rebuilding is typically used. What we did this year, trading away the QB for picks, replacing 7 or 8 starters on defense, bringing in 27 rookies (not sure how many will stick), having over half the guys on the 80 man roster being new, completely changing offensive and defensvie schemes --- this is rebuilding.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 03:36 PM
Mangini went to the Jets, Crennel to the Browns, Weis to Notre Dame.

Maybe I'm a "homer", but I think McD has a much better opportunity to succeed than the others did.


I forgot about Mangini (got raw deal in NY) and could not remember Crenell..

that folks is a lot of Coordinator talent lost from that team..

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:37 PM
Mangini went to the Jets, Crennel to the Browns, Weis to Notre Dame.

Maybe I'm a "homer", but I think McD has a much better opportunity to succeed than the others did.

Maybe I'm a homer too, but I agree.

My point to Jr was that using the fact we got one guy from NE, does not mean we will become an equivalent dynasty.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 03:44 PM
Maybe I'm a homer too, but I agree.

My point to Jr was that using the fact we got one guy from NE, does not mean we will become an equivalent dynasty.

I agree, but we could do worse than to have a guy that wants to instill accountability in the players and refuses to do anything less than winning.

GEM
08-24-2009, 03:46 PM
I agree, but we could do worse than to have a guy that wants to instill accountability in the players and refuses to do anything less than winning.

Add to the fact the guy knows the ins and outs of that system. If we can get the players and copy the system, we should be good for a few wins. As it stands, we may not have the players, but we have to use the tools we've been given. Next year we may add some more tools that better fit what we're trying to do....but if we don't give the coach a chance, we'll never know how good it could be.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 03:48 PM
But then you can't use Kraft as the example, of why NE is 'now' the standard, when you say they became the standard when Kraft go the team. We didn't change owners, so we did not have an equivalent change.

We go NE's OC. What is a much better comparison is when we got another young OC, Mike Shanahan. I think most fans would agree that if McDaniels success is the same as Shanahan's they will be pretty pleased.




It wasn't rebuilding, in the way the term rebuilding is typically used. What we did this year, trading away the QB for picks, replacing 7 or 8 starters on defense, bringing in 27 rookies (not sure how many will stick), having over half the guys on the 80 man roster being new, completely changing offensive and defensvie schemes --- this is rebuilding.



perhaps in the more traditional of meaning is was not..

IIRC we were the second youngest team in the NFL past year.. and have been since jay came to town..

You do not get that young without going into rebuild mode..

At least that is how I see it.. we have not been reloading since 06 draft the wholesale changes started that year..


here is the roster as of today..
players on the team before 06
Brought in since 06


99 Askew, Matthias DL 6' 5" 292 26 3rd Michigan State FA- '08
56 Ayers, Robert OLB/DE 6' 3" 274 23 R Tennessee D1b- '09
24 Bailey, Champ CB 6' 0" 192 31 11th Georgia T(Was)- '04
75 Baker, Chris DL 6' 2" 329 21 R Hampton CFA- '09
36 Barrett, Josh S 6' 2" 225 24 2nd Arizona State D7- '08
25 Bell, Joshua CB 5' 11" 177 24 2nd Baylor FA- '08
3 Brandstater, Tom QB 6' 5" 223 24 R Fresno State D6- '09
85 Branson, Marquez TE 6' 2" 241 22 R Central Arkansas CFA- '09
30 Bruton, David S 6' 2" 211 21 R Notre Dame D4a- '09
68 Bryant, Stanley T 6' 5" 303 24 R East Carolina CFA- '09
28 Buckhalter, Correll RB 6' 0" 223 30 9th Nebraska UFA(Phi)- '09
37 Carter, Tony CB 5' 9" 175 23 R Florida State CFA- '09
78 Clady, Ryan T 6' 6" 325 22 2nd Boise State D1- '08
93 Clemons, Nic DL 6' 6" 300 29 3rd Georgia FA- '08
4 Colquitt, Britton P 6' 3" 204 24 R Tennessee CFA- '09
96 Crowder, Tim OLB/DE 6' 4" 260 23 3rd Texas D2- '07
54 Davis, Andra ILB 6' 1" 251 30 8th Florida UFA(Cle)- '09
20 Dawkins, Brian S 6' 0" 210 35 14th Clemson UFA(Phi)- '09
92 Dumervil, Elvis OLB/DE 5' 11" 248 25 4th Louisville D4b-'06
61 Erickson, Mitch G 6' 5" 286 24 2nd South Dakota State CFA- '08
91 Fields, Ronald DL 6' 2" 314 27 5th Mississippi State UFA(SF)- '09
39 Fox, Vernon S 5' 10" 206 29 8th Fresno State FA- '08
10 Gaffney, Jabar WR 6' 2" 200 28 8th Florida UFA(NE)- '09
21 Goodman, Andre' CB 5' 10" 184 30 8th South Carolina UFA(Mia)- '09
77 Gorin, Brandon T 6' 6" 309 30 8th Purdue UFA(Stl)- '09
89 Graham, Daniel TE 6' 3" 257 30 8th Colorado UFA(NE)- '07
57 Haggan, Mario ILB 6' 3" 267 29 7th Mississippi State FA- '08
50 Hamilton, Ben G/C 6' 4" 290 31 9th Minnesota D4a- '01
74 Harris, Ryan T 6' 5" 300 24 3rd Notre Dame D3- '07
23 Hill, Renaldo S 5' 11" 205 30 9th Michigan State UFA(Mia)- '09
22 Hillis, Peyton RB 6' 1" 240 23 2nd Arkansas D7b- '08
16 Jackson, Chad WR 6' 1" 223 24 4th Florida FA- '08
35 Johnson, D.J. CB 6' 1" 191 23 R Jackson State CFA- '09
17 Jones, C.J. WR 5' 11" 195 28 3 Iowa FA-'09
32 Jordan, LaMont RB 5' 10" 242 30 9th Maryland UFA(NE)- '09
48 Kelley, Braxton LB 6' 0" 230 22 R Kentucky CFA- '09
1 Kern, Brett P 6' 2" 215 23 2nd Toledo CFA- '08

73 Kuper, Chris G 6' 4" 303 26 4th North Dakota D5- '06
46 Larsen, Spencer ILB/FB 6' 2" 243 25 2nd Arizona D6- '08
67 Lichtensteiger, Kory C 6' 2" 289 24 2nd Bowling Green D4a- '08
84 Lloyd, Brandon WR 6' 0" 194 27 7th Illinois FA- '09
15 Marshall, Brandon WR 6' 4" 230 25 4th Central Florida D4a- '06
31 McBath, Darcel S 6' 1" 198 23 R Texas Tech D2b- '09
98 McBean, Ryan DL 6' 5" 297 25 2nd Oklahoma State FA- '08
60 McChesney, Matt G 6' 4" 333 27 3rd Colorado FA-'09
11 McKinley, Kenny WR 6' 0" 183 22 R South Carolina D5- '09
27 Moreno, Knowshon RB 5' 11" 210 21 R Georgia D1a- '09
94 Moss, Jarvis OLB/DE 6' 7" 257 24 3rd Florida D1- '07
40 Moulton, Rashod CB 5' 11" 184 29 2nd Fort Valley State FA-'08
71 Oldenburg, Clint T 6' 5" 302 25 2nd Colorado State FA- '08
70 Olsen, Seth G 6' 5" 308 23 R Iowa D4b- '09
8 Orton, Kyle QB 6' 4" 225 26 5th Purdue T(Chi)- '09
66 Paxton, Lonie LS 6' 2" 281 31 10th Sacramento State UFA(NE)- '09
64 Pedescleaux, Everette DL 6' 4" 312 24 R Northern Iowa CFA- '09
90 Peterson, Kenny DL 6' 3" 295 30 7th Ohio State FA- '07
76 Polumbus, Tyler T 6' 8" 300 24 2nd Colorado CFA- '08
97 Powell, Carlton DL 6' 2" 312 23 2nd Virginia Tech D5b- '08
5 Prater, Matt K 5' 10" 187 24 3rd Central Florida PS(Miami)- '07
87 Putzier, Jeb TE 6' 5" 245 30 8th Boise State FA- '08
81 Quinn, Richard TE 6' 4" 255 22 R North Carolina D2c- '09
95 Reid, Darrell OLB/DE 6' 2" 270 27 5th Minnesota UFA (Ind)-'09
51 Robinson, Lee ILB 6' 2" 256 22 R Alcorn State CFA- '09
19 Royal, Eddie WR 5' 10" 180 23 2nd Virginia Tech D2- '08
88 Scheffler, Tony TE 6' 5" 255 26 4th Western Michigan D2- '06
63 Schlueter, Blake C 6' 2" 279 23 R Texas Christian D7- '09
13 Shelton, Travis WR 5' 11" 185 24 R Temple CFA- '09
2 Simms, Chris QB 6' 4" 230 28 7th Texas UFA(Ten)- '09
33 Smith, Alphonso CB 5' 9" 190 23 R Wake Forest D2a- '09
72 Smith, Le Kevin DL 6' 3" 308 27 4th Nebraska T (NEP)-'08
14 Stokley, Brandon WR 6' 0" 192 33 11th SW-Louisiana FA- '07
83 Swift, Nate WR 6' 2" 202 23 R Nebraska CFA- '09
38 Thigpen, Marcus RB 5' 9" 193 23 R Indiana FA-'09
29 Thomas, Marcus RB 6' 0" 215 25 2nd Texas El-Paso FA-'09
79 Thomas, Marcus DL 6' 3" 316 23 3rd Florida D4- '07
34 Walker, Darius RB 5' 11" 220 23 3rd Notre Dame FA- '09
62 Wiegmann, Casey C 6' 2" 285 35 14th Iowa UFA(KC)- '08
55 Williams, D.J. ILB 6' 1" 242 26 6th Miami (Fla.) D1- '04
26 Williams, Jack CB 5' 9" 183 24 2nd Kent State D4b- '08
12 Willis, Matthew WR 6' 0" 190 25 2nd UCLA FA- '08
59 Woodyard, Wesley ILB 6' 0" 222 22 2nd Kentucky CFA- '08
Reserve/Injured
Number Name Pos. Ht. Wt. Age Exp. College How Acq.
58 Greisen, Nick ILB 6' 1" 242 29 8th Wisconsin FA- '09
69 Parker, J'Vonne DL 6' 5" 338 27 5th Rutgers FA- '09


now I know that we lost good players in 06-07 lynch, Elam to name a few and there are more but it only adds to the theory of rebuilding instead of reloading..

NightTrainLayne
08-24-2009, 03:49 PM
But then you can't use Kraft as the example, of why NE is 'now' the standard, when you say they became the standard when Kraft go the team. We didn't change owners, so we did not have an equivalent change.

We go NE's OC. What is a much better comparison is when we got another young OC, Mike Shanahan. I think most fans would agree that if McDaniels success is the same as Shanahan's they will be pretty pleased.


It wasn't rebuilding, in the way the term rebuilding is typically used. What we did this year, trading away the QB for picks, replacing 7 or 8 starters on defense, bringing in 27 rookies (not sure how many will stick), having over half the guys on the 80 man roster being new, completely changing offensive and defensvie schemes --- this is rebuilding.

I totally agree that Shanahan is the appropriate comparison.

What was Shanny's record that first year again in '94?

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:54 PM
Add to the fact the guy knows the ins and outs of that system. If we can get the players and copy the system, we should be good for a few wins. As it stands, we may not have the players, but we have to use the tools we've been given. Next year we may add some more tools that better fit what we're trying to do....but if we don't give the coach a chance, we'll never know how good it could be.


I agree, but we could do worse than to have a guy that wants to instill accountability in the players and refuses to do anything less than winning.

I agree. As I have posted many times, I am impressed with almost everything I hear coming out of camp (obviously, I have some concerns about the handling of Marshall/Cutler), and I believe that we will have the most fundamentally sound team in recent memory.

I am hoping the days of our LB's launching themselves through the air at runners, only to bounce off of the runner with no impact, hopefully are behind us. The camp reports that talk about he tackling drills and the emphasis on staying on your feet and driving through tackles sounds very exciting to me.

I just get irritated when people talk about our last ten years as if we have been one of the worst teams in the league, when in reality we haven't been close to the bottom dwellers in the league.

Tned
08-24-2009, 03:57 PM
I totally agree that Shanahan is the appropriate comparison.

What was Shanny's record that first year again in '94?

Shanahan took over in '95 and the team was 8-8. In '94 the team was 7-9 and the three years before Shanny were .500 overall, just like the three years before McDaniels took over.

TXBRONC
08-24-2009, 04:27 PM
What about his other disciples, Mangini and the other guy I'm drawing a blank on.

Plus, if you are making a case that it's Kraft, we don't have him. We don't even have Pioli. We have the guy that was the OC the last few years.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I really like what I have heard reported from camp (for the most part), but there is no reason, other than "he came from NE and he isn't Mike" that would lead you to believe that we are soon to have a dynasty like NE.

I hope so, but there is no basis for hope, but hope itself.

Romeo Crennel is the guy you're thinking of.

TXBRONC
08-24-2009, 04:35 PM
I agree. As I have posted many times, I am impressed with almost everything I hear coming out of camp (obviously, I have some concerns about the handling of Marshall/Cutler), and I believe that we will have the most fundamentally sound team in recent memory.

I am hoping the days of our LB's launching themselves through the air at runners, only to bounce off of the runner with no impact, hopefully are behind us. The camp reports that talk about he tackling drills and the emphasis on staying on your feet and driving through tackles sounds very exciting to me.

I just get irritated when people talk about our last ten years as if we have been one of the worst teams in the league, when in reality we haven't been close to the bottom dwellers in the league.

You're excatly right the ten previous years were not horrible by any stretch.

Tned
10-07-2011, 11:56 AM
In light of my recent Tned's Take post, it seemed a good time to bump this. Make sure to read the first handful of posts in this thread.

Dreadnought
10-07-2011, 12:30 PM
Excellent points - this is why I simply tune out the folks who whine incessantly about the "futility" of the past three years or any such nonsense. At the time I read a post like that I can safely assume that they don't know what they are talking about, and have no understanding at all of the word "Futility." My dad is a Browns fan, and my brother a Saints fan. They could teach postgraduate courses in fan frustration, and in fan loyalty, and in what futility actually looks like.

I'm getting a feeling like the football Gods have decided to punish us for our arrogance, ingratitude, and spoiled brat petulance this year. So be it. We earned it. And some fans thought Cutler acted like a spoiled baby?!

Well, I called my shot there :lol:

GEM
10-07-2011, 01:33 PM
I want to shoot myself for the freaking posts regarding McDumbass in this thread. Bozo the clown had me fooled. :tsk:

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 01:46 PM
with a disciple of the system now as HC, it is more than I had since 2003 or so..

I see something coming in this team that is good now lets see if he can be great..

oops...

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 01:48 PM
Add to the fact the guy knows the ins and outs of that system. If we can get the players and copy the system, we should be good for a few wins. As it stands, we may not have the players, but we have to use the tools we've been given. Next year we may add some more tools that better fit what we're trying to do....but if we don't give the coach a chance, we'll never know how good it could be.

Sorry GEM, just HAD to quote it!! :beer:

Ravage!!!
10-07-2011, 01:50 PM
Very true. THe fact is that we have been lucky. We have been spoiled. We are lucky as Bronco fans to have had such great success as a franchise. I guess just bring up 'recent' past coaches having been a part of that success is a natural follow.

But to be on the same page as the intent of the thread. Although I have noticed that we have VERY high expectations for this franchise, I am VERY willing to accept that we are going to go through some very thin years, very soon. I think the NFL is one that runs in cycles. Bad teams move to the front, then back to the back.... good to the front, go through thin years, and then to the forefront again (unless you are the browns, and you just stay stagnant! :lol: )

Quoting myself for truth!

Buff
10-07-2011, 01:54 PM
Tned is going to great lengths to validate his opinion.

Tned
10-07-2011, 02:28 PM
Tned is going to great lengths to validate his opinion.

Actually, it only took one short search, but with that said...

I am firmly convinced that we didn't have forum award voting this year because nobody wanted me to win "Most Likely to Win an Argument" for the third straight year.....