Chiefs lead Broncos 56-49 (All Time)
 

With an average score of KC 23-20. Only one matchup was in the plaoyffs (:banghead:) They both are original AFL franchises in 1960. Kansas City raced out to a 25-2 lead in the series before Denver started turning it around in 1973. Since then it's of course 31-47 in their favor.

Does anyone know why they were so bad early on? Or maybe it's just that we were so good during that time.

Denver was a terrible team for many years. I think the main reason was that they had no good players.

I don't think there's really a modern equivalent of the 1960s and 1970s Broncos. They were just so bad year after year that you didn't really pay attention to them. They started putting together a pretty decent core of players in the mid-70s, but it was still kind of a shock when they made the Super Bowl in 1977. I'm not sure why they turned the corner at that point, though, because they didn't have consistent coaching. I think they changed owners, but the owners were for the most part hands off. They just started getting decent players. Once they turned the corner they became a consistently strong team.

Other than of course long-term mediocrity at quarterback.

If you look at the AFL success, it was Chiefs, Oilers, and Bills who were the top teams. At the time Lamar Hunt, Bud Adams, and Ralph Wilson were the richest owners. Denver didn't have the cash to compete.

LMAO

John Madden coming out of retirement eh?

Because Denver didn't sold their soul to Satan yet.

It's all about ownership and the direction.

Bowlen bought the team and changed the mindset. This last victory was his 300th victory and I believe that is the 2nd fastest for an owner to #300, right behind Al Davis.

It almost seems to me that John Elway is the only reason they've ever had any sustained success. He went 148-82 (64.3%) as a starter. They are only 279-294 (48.6) without him starting. That's the difference between going 10-6 each year instead of 8-8. One guy.


Obviously his numbers count, he's a HOF, and he did play almost 1/3 of their seasons but still, that difference is startling. They are 111-97 since he left until Manning arrived. Their fans act like they're the Cowboys or Steelers but without a HOF quarterback, they're no different than the Chiefs historically.

Bowlen bought the team in 1984 when Elway had just arrived. He didn't change jack squat, all he did was ride the Horse-Face to success. His "mindset" is ineffective without a HOF quarterback at the helm.

Ah ok. Since 1984, I think Denver has only had 5 losing seasons and 7 exactly at .500. I think that's 30 seasons in total... not bad, and they had success post Elway, just no titles.

Interesting theory

Actually, they were a 10-win team for 4 of the 5 non-strike seasons prior to purchasing the #1 pick in 1983. If you look at the stats, they climbed to a .500 level from 1973 to 1975, which was a huge accomplishment for that franchise. In their first 13 years they never had a season above .500. Then once they got to that level they rose again and were a consistent winner from 1976 through 1982 (excluding the weird strike season).

In the five non-strike seasons prior to purchasing Elway, they won 64% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. In the five non-strike seasons after purchasing Elway, they won 65% of their games and lost one Super Bowl. He was a non-factor for them.

It took a long time to develop it.

What do you define as "success"? Since Horse-Face left they've played 14 seasons. They made the playoffs 6 times going 2-6 being outscored a woeful 155-264.

Quite frankly, the Cowboys and Steelers aren't the Cowboys or Steelers without a HOF QB, are they?

We probably shouldn't go there.