Thread: So who the final 4 teams do you want to see win the SB?

See my post above, Joel. Thanks for proving my point. I guess you missed the request to post in a white font though.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

See my post above, Joel. Thanks for proving my point. I guess you missed the request to post in a white font though.

No stacks of stats nor paperwork, just THREE SENTENCES as a reminder the Pats were a dumpster fire from the '60-'90s, while Denver went to SIX SBs and won two.

Originally Posted by Joel

Except Denver doesn't have a sucky history, only a sucky first DECADE before the first winning season in '73, first SB just 4 years later, and 6 years after that Elway (and Reeves) came along to make Denver annually legit contenders for most of two decades, then another down decade before five seasons of contending with Elway and Manning. The Patriots, conversely were garbage until Belicheats arrival: Their previous high points were getting blown out of two SBs a decade apart.

Denver didn't have their long history of abject failure, and they don't have Denvers long history of respectability and success.

So basically identical in terms of trajectory and an owner championing a franchise but off by a few years? Not like the Patriots didn't have some good runs too.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

So basically identical in terms of trajectory and an owner championing a franchise but off by a few years? Not like the Patriots didn't have some good runs too.

More like off by a few DECADES. In 40 years, the reached all of two SBs, and lost both badly: Denver WON as many in the same time, and reached FOUR others. Tends to happen when a team's a perennial contender for a generation. And I don't think Denver cheated our way to ANY of those games.

Denver's been a winning team and contender about as long as NE* was a cellar dweller—and vice versa: Those trajectories aren't equal, they're OPPOSITE.

Originally Posted by Joel

More like off by a few DECADES. In 40 years, the reached all of two SBs, and lost both badly: Denver WON as many in the same time, and reached FOUR others. Tends to happen when a team's a perennial contender for a generation. And I don't think Denver cheated our way to ANY of those games.

Denver's been a winning team and contender about as long as NE* was a cellar dweller—and vice versa: Those trajectories aren't equal, they're OPPOSITE.

The great thing about franchise performance is that it's measurable, so we can actually look at numbers to verify statements.

From 1960 to 1990:

Denver: 207-219-10, 47.5% winning percentage
New England: 207-220-9, 47.5% winning percentage

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

The great thing about franchise performance is that it's measurable, so we can actually look at numbers to verify statements.

From 1960 to 1990:

Denver: 207-219-10, 47.5% winning percentage
New England: 207-220-9, 47.5% winning percentage

1) That's through 1989, not 1990: Peyton Manning wasn't even in HS yet.
2) Next year we went to the AFCCG; NE* wouldn't even have another WINNING SEASON till Manning was starting for Tennessee.
3) That excludes our playoff record of 8-8—with FOUR SB appearances—and theirs of 4-6 (all but ONE win was when they lost the SB.)

I concede that ignoring 2 of our 3 World Championships makes us look more like the pre-Belicheat Patriots, but only slightly: 4 Conference Championships>1.

Originally Posted by Joel

Peyton Manning wasn't even in HS yet.

You got me!

If it can't be the Broncos, I'll always go for a team that's never won one. Fresh blood is better than watching NE, Pitt, or even GB (who is my second choice) win.

Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56

If it can't be the Broncos, I'll always go for a team that's never won one. Fresh blood is better than watching NE, Pitt, or even GB (who is my second choice) win.

Also a good point: Elways swan song's the only reason Atlanta's not one of only four teams to never even REACH a SB. For fans of underdogs and rags to riches stories, there are few better choices than the hard luck Falcons, whose greatest achievement in a half-century was losing 34-19 in SB XXXIII. In fact, while 13 teams have NEVER won a SB, 7 of those won their league championship before the SB era, leaving the Falcons one of just six to never win ANY Championship:

Texans, Jaguars, Panthers, Vikings, Bengals and Falcons.

The observant may note the Texans didn't exist until 2002, nor the Panthers nor Jags before 1995: Atlanta's been vainly awaiting even momentary bragging rights since 1966, longer than anyone but the Vikings (ironically, the '98 NFCCG opponent Atlanta beat, and the first 15-1 team to miss the seasons final game.)

Originally Posted by Joel

1) Peyton Manning wasn't even in HS yet.
2) [Next year we lose a Superbowl]
3) That excludes our playoff record of 8-8 and theirs of 4-6, [both never winning a Superbowl.]

[Losing Superbowls means your franchise is successful]

Broncos and Patriots have nearly identical records for the first 450 or so games.

Sucky history,

Then the Broncos win Superbowls in the late 90's, and then the Patriots start winning Superbowls in the early 2000's. Both have remained successful since then.

followed by a long stretch of success.

Joe nailed it.

My work is done here.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Broncos and Patriots have nearly identical records for the first 450 or so games.

Then the Broncos win Superbowls in the late 90's, and then the Patriots start winning Superbowls in the early 2000's. Both have remained successful since then.

Joe nailed it.

My work is done here.

There's a huge difference between reaching 4 SBs vs 1. And having TWICE as many playoff victories, because all but ONE of theirs was the same year as that lone SB appearance. The Patriots had no Orange Crush in the '70s or early '80s, and no Duke for the rest of the '80s and '90s. They were just a speed bump for Shulas Dolphins, then Kellys Bills, but by the time we'd won HALF A DOZEN Conference Championships and a pair of SBs, they'd only just managed to LOSE a pair of SBs.

Then the cheating started: And the rest is current events.

Losing SBs definitely means your franchise is more successful than the ones who can't win ANY playoff games (when they even manage to MAKE the playoffs.)

I don't like the two AFC teams for obvious reason I would think...I can't stand Rogers smug face, so for me that narrows it down to the Falcons really...