Why'd the Broncos get blown out in 3 straight Super Bowls?

[Hunter2_1]

On 06/06/2020 at 7:42 AM, Jakuvious said:

They really just weren't that good of teams, relative to what the NFC was putting in each superbowl in the 80s. Each of those years the Broncos were a 10 or 11 win team in a weak conference that made the superbowl then ran into an absolute buzz saw of a 14-2 kind of NFC Champion.

Do you think these conference dominating eras are just a product of luck/randomness, or are there specific reasons why a conference might dominate for a period of time?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

The NFC dominated for a while, but it's not like those AFC teams couldn't win against NFC teams. I feel like because of the streak people have tried to find meaning as to why, when in reality half of it was just happenstance. In 1988 the Bengals were 32 seconds away from winning the Super Bowl as the 49ers slipped by them. In 1990, the Bills lost on a missed field goal. The same Bills that beat the Giants on the road earlier that year. I do think the NFC had stacked teams that all happened to play in the same conference, but it's not like the AFC teams couldn't beat them as teams like Denver, Buffalo, or Cincinnati proved they could in the regular season. But because of the Super Bowl, even though it's a one game sample size, it's snowballed into this tall tale that the AFC was just completely dwarfed, and couldn't compete. The 1984 Dolphins, 1990 Bills, 1988 Bengals, or 1995 Steelers were capable of winning a championship. I don't subscribe to the theory that coaches and players in one conference were just inept compared to the other. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by PapaShogun

[lancerman]

9 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Do you think these conference dominating eras are just a product of luck/randomness, or are there specific reasons why a conference might dominate for a period of time?

Because of no salary cap and no real free agency, teams would get a strong core and they’d just build off it for a decade so 3 or 4 teams would just get stupid loaded and nobody could compete. 

[Jakuvious]

10 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Do you think these conference dominating eras are just a product of luck/randomness, or are there specific reasons why a conference might dominate for a period of time?

Like lancerman pointed out, the lack of a salary cap and robust free agent system made it more likely at the time. So if you happen to have two or three elite teams get built in the same conference, they're going to stay for a good while. So that extended the period of time more than if the same thing happened today. Modern day it's more likely you have a team or two on that dominant side get poached for talent, or they make poor decisions of who to keep who to let go, etc.

Otherwise, it's mostly randomness. No different than when you occasionally get a single division with two top teams. Each conference is equally likely to develop a top team. Probability wise it's ultimately going to be a bell curve kind of situation, where most of the time it'll be close to a 50/50 split in terms of conference power, but with enough time, you'll have times at each end of the curve where the AFC is just straight up better, or the NFC is. League structure just made it last a longer time.

[lancerman]

24 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Like lancerman pointed out, the lack of a salary cap and robust free agent system made it more likely at the time. So if you happen to have two or three elite teams get built in the same conference, they're going to stay for a good while. So that extended the period of time more than if the same thing happened today. Modern day it's more likely you have a team or two on that dominant side get poached for talent, or they make poor decisions of who to keep who to let go, etc.

Otherwise, it's mostly randomness. No different than when you occasionally get a single division with two top teams. Each conference is equally likely to develop a top team. Probability wise it's ultimately going to be a bell curve kind of situation, where most of the time it'll be close to a 50/50 split in terms of conference power, but with enough time, you'll have times at each end of the curve where the AFC is just straight up better, or the NFC is. League structure just made it last a longer time.

I think a good example of this is the 2010’s Seahawks. If that team was put together in the 70’s or 80’s, you basically have that team retain its core and maintain a dominant position within the NFC for a decade plus. 

[Hunter2_1]

15 minutes ago, lancerman said:

I think a good example of this is the 2010’s Seahawks. If that team was put together in the 70’s or 80’s, you basically have that team retain its core and maintain a dominant position within the NFC for a decade plus. 

So it was like soccer then. Bayern Munich winning the league like 9 times in a row or whatever. 

[August4th]

53 minutes ago, lancerman said:

I think a good example of this is the 2010’s Seahawks. If that team was put together in the 70’s or 80’s, you basically have that team retain its core and maintain a dominant position within the NFC for a decade plus. 

this got me wondering what some teams would of looked like under those old roster building rules

2005 steelers would still of had plax, but not James farrior for example

[kwolf68]

The Denver teams of that era were just not that good, there were 4 or 5 NFC teams that were typically better. Broncos so awful that Redskins Oline opened up the largest holes in NFL history as some guy named Timmy Smith ran for 200+. It was a pathetic performance. I give John Elway mad props for even getting that team to the big dance. You saw what he did when Denver finally put a quality defense and better supporting cast around him, even at the end of his career he proved to be a champion. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by kwolf68

[Hunter2_1]

12 hours ago, August4th said:

this got me wondering what some teams would of looked like under those old roster building rules

2005 steelers would still of had plax, but not James farrior for example

Really tough, you've probably got to think about sustained success and what it means on draft positions and the subsequent players teams get via that route.

Interesting though. I think it would end up like soccer leagues with the impressive franchises always keeping hold of success year in year out. AFC would, for example, would have a classic 'top 4' or top 5 of Pittsburgh, New England, Denver, Indi....maybe Miami get caught up in that....

[August4th]

4 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Really tough, you've probably got to think about sustained success and what it means on draft positions and the subsequent players teams get via that route.

Interesting though. I think it would end up like soccer leagues with the impressive franchises always keeping hold of success year in year out. AFC would, for example, would have a classic 'top 4' or top 5 of Pittsburgh, New England, Denver, Indi....maybe Miami get caught up in that....

true. it would be a headache trying to figure out what teams would look like if you put draft position into acount

but you're right, the well run franchises would just end up being better. the gap between NE, Indy, Pitt, Philly, Bal etc..of the 00s would of been wider with the rest of the NFL and we probably don't get so many close superbowls in the last 20 yrs.

[Mr Bad Example]

On 6/5/2020 at 6:01 PM, thebestever6 said:

I think Elway is one of the most underrated QBs ever his Superbowl wins he was managing a Ferrari imo. I think getting to the Superbowls with those offenses and teams was more impressive.

That's my take - lots of guys could've gotten the 97-98 Broncos to the SB. Not many could've carried the 86-87 teams past the WC round - there wasn't really a player aside from Elway on that offense that was better than a journeyman (the D had a solid bunch, though). The 89 team was better - better run game, at least. 

[FinSting]

On 6/6/2020 at 4:09 PM, Awsi Dooger said:

AFC football during that time frame was an absolute insult to anyone who was old enough to witness the physical run oriented '70s. That's why I've never been a Dan Marino fan and am flabbergasted that any Dolphins fan has positive memories or impressions of that era.

That era was the last time the Dolphins had league-wide respect. It's been a rough 21st century. Besides, it was fun watching Marino sling it all over the field. But it was a lot like watching Elway sling it all over the field, and neither one of them could beat the NFC in the '80s. At least Elway got revenge in the '90s. 

It was an odd streak. The NCAA would churn out NFL players like always. Yet somehow those same NCAA players would go on to keep the NFC winning the SB year after year. Just one of those things about football being a team sport not individual. Thankfully the Bills-Giants broke the streak of boring blowout games, even tho the NFC won yet again. 

 

[7DnBrnc53]

On 6/7/2020 at 4:20 AM, Hunter2_1 said:

Yeah but....flak jacket.

It's ironic because he was usually one of the first to stick the boot into Brady if the team lost. Double standards.

I never blamed Brady for NE's SB losses. However, NE lost twice in the SB to teams that they were better than (including a 9-7 2011 Giant team that didn't return to the playoffs for five years). And, while they did beat a team in 2001 that was way more talented than they were, that was more about the defense (forcing turnovers and getting away with late hits) than it was Brady.

As for the 80's Broncos, they were at a disadvantage physically in each of those SB losses. In those blowouts, the defense only forced one turnover, gave up a total of 136 points (45.3 ppg), and allowed 560 rushing yards (186 rush yards per game). I'm not saying that Elway played great, but with numbers like those, it's easy to see why those teams lost. Focusing on Elway's performance way too much after seeing those stats shows a clear agenda on your part.

[Hunter2_1]

3 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

I never blamed Brady for NE's SB losses. However, NE lost twice in the SB to teams that they were better than (including a 9-7 2011 Giant team that didn't return to the playoffs for five years). And, while they did beat a team in 2001 that was way more talented than they were, that was more about the defense (forcing turnovers and getting away with late hits) than it was Brady.

As for the 80's Broncos, they were at a disadvantage physically in each of those SB losses. In those blowouts, the defense only forced one turnover, gave up a total of 136 points (45.3 ppg), and allowed 560 rushing yards (186 rush yards per game). I'm not saying that Elway played great, but with numbers like those, it's easy to see why those teams lost. Focusing on Elway's performance way too much after seeing those stats shows a clear agenda on your part.

Show me a post I've made that focuses way too much on Elway's performance. 

Actually, you'll notice the first reason I gave for 89 (I haven't seen the other two, so won't comment) was because of Montana and the receivers being in unreakable sync. 

I do agree with Danny though, it would be nice to see SOME criticism of the QB during an offensive vacuum performance - regardless of how well the D played. In your initial post it seemed you were trying hard to blame everyone but John.

[7DnBrnc53]

8 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Show me a post I've made that focuses way too much on Elway's performance. 

Actually, you'll notice the first reason I gave for 89 (I haven't seen the other two, so won't comment) was because of Montana and the receivers being in unreakable sync. 

I do agree with Danny though, it would be nice to see SOME criticism of the QB during an offensive vacuum performance - regardless of how well the D played. In your initial post it seemed you were trying hard to blame everyone but John.

No, I wasn't. Elway didn't play great, but there are way more glaring reasons for those losses, as I said.