Did we just set an all time Super Bowl record as a franchise?

[sneakers]

With losing our 5th Super Bowl?

That takes some talent, right?

[Shazam!]

Only team to lose 5 Super Bowls.

Argh.

[Northman]

Its bad but the fact that the at least this franchise has gotten there 7 times is a good sign as well. I think the biggest regret (outside of losing of course) is that we just didnt even compete. I think losing would of been easier to handle had we at least been competitive in it.

[BroncoJoe]

Its bad but the fact that the at least this franchise has gotten there 7 times is a good sign as well. I think the biggest regret (outside of losing of course) is that we just didnt even compete. I think losing would of been easier to handle had we at least been competitive in it.

True that on the appearances in the Super Bowl. There are plenty of teams/fans that would have killed to be in the big game that many times.

I've been wondering about your second statement though - at least we kind of knew pretty quick it wasn't going to go our way. A close, last second loss might have been worse.

[Nomad]

True that on the appearances in the Super Bowl. There are plenty of teams/fans that would have killed to be in the big game that many times.

I've been wondering about your second statement though - at least we kind of knew pretty quick it wasn't going to go our way. A close, last second loss might have been worse.

I would have rathered watch that instead of yesterday's effort:lol:

[Tned]

Its bad but the fact that the at least this franchise has gotten there 7 times is a good sign as well. I think the biggest regret (outside of losing of course) is that we just didnt even compete. I think losing would of been easier to handle had we at least been competitive in it.

Agreed on all counts. I really thought that the Broncos would either walk away with it, or more likely it would be a tight, low scoring game that either team could pull out.

On the seven appearances, with six of them being under Bowlen's ownership, I think it says a lot about this organization. There are virtually no teams that over the last 27 years or so have been as competitive as the Broncos. There have only been a handful of years when they haven't at least been a playoff contender, and few teams can say that. Even those that have said "who cares, if they don't win it all, it would be better to rebuild every few years and make a great team," well to that, I say, it just doesn't work that way in reality. Most of the teams that rebuild don't rise from the ashes a champion, but instead spend multiple years with low single digit wins, before firing their HC and trying again.

[Northman]

True that on the appearances in the Super Bowl. There are plenty of teams/fans that would have killed to be in the big game that many times.

I've been wondering about your second statement though - at least we kind of knew pretty quick it wasn't going to go our way. A close, last second loss might have been worse.

Yea, it would of still stung but man i just hate it when i feel like this team shows zero fire. Its just like they didnt really want to be out there and didnt look hungry. It was just sad to watch and deep down i kept hoping i would see some kind of desire to get back in the game and it just never transpired.

[blamkin86]

I disagree somewhat on "zero fire." Give the O-Line credit for slowing down Lynch. Without Harvin's two rushes, we hold the superbowl champs to 90 yards.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=340202007

[jlarsiii]

Its bad but the fact that the at least this franchise has gotten there 7 times is a good sign as well. I think the biggest regret (outside of losing of course) is that we just didnt even compete. I think losing would of been easier to handle had we at least been competitive in it.

Kind of along the lines I was thinking. I have been fortunate enough to see this team play in 6 superbowls. We all know that they only won 2 of those 6, but that almost is besides the point. How many fans haven't even seen their team play in a single super bowl? Overall we are pretty damn lucky...

[Joel]

Agreed on all counts. I really thought that the Broncos would either walk away with it, or more likely it would be a tight, low scoring game that either team could pull out.

On the seven appearances, with six of them being under Bowlen's ownership, I think it says a lot about this organization. There are virtually no teams that over the last 27 years or so have been as competitive as the Broncos. There have only been a handful of years when they haven't at least been a playoff contender, and few teams can say that. Even those that have said "who cares, if they don't win it all, it would be better to rebuild every few years and make a great team," well to that, I say, it just doesn't work that way in reality. Most of the teams that rebuild don't rise from the ashes a champion, but instead spend multiple years with low single digit wins, before firing their HC and trying again.
That's because of the obsession with instant gratification: Owners, fans and the press get impatient and frustrated if the GM and/or coach brought in to build a champion doesn't do it within 2-3 years. Well, teams get 7 draft picks/season; if they're savvy enough even HALF those picks are studs (which is rarely so) a dog team still can't upgrade a dozen or two scrub starters in just a couple years, not even if they throw in some good FA signings (who won't have enough good years left to sustain a dynasty anyway.)

It's a process, and not a quick one, so people uncommitted to it usually just set themselves up for a lot of heartbreak by pressuring coaches and GMs to get them to the second season before they've gotten enough players to succeed there. In the NFL, being competitive for decades without winning a championship just means a perpetually awful draft position.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance and impatience. Jimmy Johnson was hailed as a genius for taking Dallas from 1-15 to a SB win in "just" 4 years, and Carroll's being commended for taking a .500 team all the way in "just" 3 years, yet incoming NFL coaches are LUCKY to get 3 years to deliver a championship. Apparently there's no in between: If you take an average or worse team to a chamipionship in 3-4 years you're a genius; if you don't, you're an idiot.The only thing harder than finding the right man for the job is taking your lumps long enough for him to DO the job.

I'm not a huge Fox fan, but still believe teams should give coaches at least 4 years to build a team to their specs. If Pittsburgh had fired Cowher after we beat them in the '97 AFCCG (2 years after their 5th SB appearance) their ensuing decade of dominance would have never been. There's a thread on these very forums suggesting the Jets might've become respectable had they given Carroll more than a year, and that NE was lucky to get Belichick when they fired Carroll after just 3 years. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was any SB winner, ever.

Just for the record, I do make exceptions to that rule for arrogant, belligerent, lying, cheating disgraces to the game; hopefully we never again have another coach like THAT.

The reason I so badly wanted to win this one was that the second youngest SB team in history will probably get lots more chances, but our window is rapidly closing, particularly for Champ and Manning. Free agency will HURT the next two seasons, and not just because Phillips is >30 and both he and DRC just played the last game of their current contract. Knowing retirement and free agency are about to scatter this team to the four winds makes the loss hurt far more than watching the game did (painful as that was.)

Ultimately, we must ask whether just being present for the debacles that were SBs XII, XXI, XXII, XXIV and XLVIII is good enough, or do we demand the excellence of SBs XXXII and XXXIII? If it's the latter, the front office must do what's necessary to make that happen, which means building a core team with the strength and longevity that we don't have to play beat the clock every year, knowing that even one missed opportunity could leave us forever wondering what might've been.

[aberdien]

True that on the appearances in the Super Bowl. There are plenty of teams/fans that would have killed to be in the big game that many times.

I've been wondering about your second statement though - at least we kind of knew pretty quick it wasn't going to go our way. A close, last second loss might have been worse.

Yeah, last night's performance was embarrassing, but I was more in a state of apathy after the first quarter. Had it been a nailbiter game it would've been more fun absolutely and it would've hurt a lot more to lose. It was almost like watching a movie that halfway through you realize you don't really like or care about. Halfway through the game I was coming to terms with the loss, so I just kinda watched shocked and emotionless.

In regards to 5 super bowl losses, I bet the Browns would take 5 super bowl losses over their 0 super bowl appearances. Pat Bowlen is the best owner in the game.

[Joel]

I'll keep saying this as many times as necessary: We are not the freakin' BROWNS! The standards are just a BIT higher in Denver; our goal isn't to be better than the worst teams, but ALL teams.

[BroncoNut]

With losing our 5th Super Bowl?

That takes some talent, right?

shut up sneakers you dirtbag.

but to topic, that would be 3 consecutives in the 80's, this one, and sb24?

[Joel]

It wasn't 3 straight in the '80s; it was back-to-back, then a third after the '9ers won a close rematch with the Bengals. That's the problem with our record 5 SB losses: They weren't just losses, every last one was a total annihilation. 27-10 in SB XII was the (relatively) "close" one and Broncos fans who remember it wish they didn't. We matched that 10 pt score in 2 other losses, and only bettered it in one. When we lose, it's not a tight 20-19 game like NY over Buffalo, or One Yard Short, it's games that prompt a friend to ask me "the Broncos are an NFL team, right?"

Worst of all though, it's become a habit, and that's worrisome. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/vincelomba151245.html

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

The Dallas Cowboys hold the record for the most SB appearances, don't they?

[Joel]

The Dallas Cowboys hold the record for the most SB appearances, don't they?
Yeah, they're tied with Pitt for most SB appearances and most playoff wins. The difference is Pitt's 2-1 vs. Dallas in SBs, which makes them instead of Dallas the only team with 6 wins. It's probably the best post-merger rivalry, though Dallas-SF is also pretty good, what with SF ending the Landry Dynasty to win their first SB and beating the second Cowboys Dynasty to win their last, incidentally becoming the first team to get "one for the thumb."

Dallas matched that total the following year, but there can only ever be one first; that's why the trophy's named after Lombardi and not Landry. That 5th win made Dallas the first to play 8 SBs though, and it was all the more impressive since it was only SB XXX; out of the first 30 SBs, Dallas played 8, which is more than 1 out of every 4. Of course, they've just been average since.

We just tied NE for second most SB appearances, just one game behind Dallas and Pitt. When a team's been to that many there's a good chance they'll have lost more than anyone; Dallas is only a game above .500 in SBs, and NE has only lost one less than us.

[Apollo]

Damn, that's a record that really hurts.

[CrazyHorse]

We also set the record for most completions with Manning and Most receptions with Thomas.