Playoff Droughts

[iknowftbll]

Okay, so here's the thread I was going to start on when I got sidetracked by the reality that since 2002 the Browns have been a better team than the Raiders. I didn't cherry pick that year: I used it as a fixed point because it was the last time that either of those teams made the playoffs.

Now this probably could be on the general NFL board because it really doesn't have as much to do with the Broncos so much as the big picture across the league and over a span of a lot of seasons. There are a couple reasons I'm posting it here: There may be a similar thread on the general board and the general board is an intellectual wasteland. Threads get polluted with unmitigated idiocy while threads on this page stay pretty true to their subject. We have a lot of great guys here and even fans of other teams who drop in seem to be all right as well. I consider that as an endorsement of the group of Broncos fans we have here: other fans like chatting with us and are able to do so without it turning ugly.

I love talking about the Broncos, but there's only so much "Miller contract talks" and "OTA" news I can handle. Fortunately for me I also enjoy general league discussion, random trivia and wide scale speculation. And as I mentioned on the "Browns > Raiders" thread, new Browns and former Raiders HC Hue Jackson is at the center of the genesis of this thread.

I live in the Redskins market, and anything RGIII related is still big news here. Of course, Griffin is now with the Browns, where the afore mentioned Hue Jackson made comments about him "still developing." So the sports radio channels here have been talking about Griffin, Jackson and the Browns and the week 4 matchup between the Browns and Redskins. Comments on Jackson are generally favorable. He seems like a great guy, a good QB mentor, an accomplished assistant, and his only gig as a head coach he took a hapless Raiders roster full of re-treads, busts/near-busts, major injuries everywhere and bad money contracts and coaxed them to an 8-8 finish. I was stunned that Reggie McKenzie fired him and to this day believe the Raiders would be a better team had McKenzie retained Jackson's services.

So as these discussions are unfolding on the local channels here in the DC area, and given my memories of what Jackson did in Oakland in 2011 in a situation not dissimilar to Cleveland now, I thought "wouldn't it be funny if Cleveland broke their playoff drought before Oakland did?" Which in turn got me to thinking about the longest active droughts in the NFL.

Here they are:

Buffalo Bills: 16 seasons. The Bills last playoff appearance featured the "Music City Miracle." The Bills (11-5) lost to the Tennessee Titans (13-3) who would go on to lose SB XXIV to the Rams. (Fun fact/trivia question: The 1999 Titans are one of only two teams to finish 13-3 and still have to play in the WC Round. Without looking at the "When teams finish 13-3" thread, who was the other one?) Since then the Bills have been a major disappointment, with only two winning seasons (9-7 in 2004 and 2014).

Oakland Raiders: 13 seasons. At least the Raiders can say their last playoff appearance was a Super Bowl season. While they did get crushed I will always maintain that a season in which a team gets crushed in the Super Bowl is still better than a season in which a team doesn't reach the Super Bowl. The Raiders finished 11-5 in 2002, and the #1 playoff seed. They made quick work of the Jets (9-7) and Titans (11-5) before being dispatched by the Bucs (12-4) and their old pal Chucky. Since then the Raiders have not posted a single winning season, reaching 8-8 only twice (2010 and 2011). They set a record for consecutive double digit loss seasons from 2003-2009. It's easy to see why Raiders fans are excited about last year's 7-9 finish.

Cleveland Browns: 13 seasons. In 2002 the Browns reached the playoffs for the first and only time since the brand resumed play in 1999. That year they finished 9-7 and played a thriller in the WC round against the Steelers (10-5-1). The Browns actually led 24-7 late in the third, then they remembered they were the Browns and started playing accordingly. The Steelers would win the game 36-33. As if that wasn't bad enough, the last play of the game was a (Browns QB) Holcomb completion to Andre King at the 29 yard line. He couldn't get out of bounds and time expired. The Browns would have been in game tying FG range. Only the Browns can pull off that kind of heartbreak. Since then, the Browns have posted just one winning season, a 10-6 finish in 2007. Tie breakers favored the Steelers so even in a 10-6 season the Browns were losers.

St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams: 11 seasons. I put both cities because while the Rams are now L.A. the drought came during the St. Louis years. The Rams last made the playoffs in 2004, despite finishing 8-8 that year. They beat the 9-7 Seahawks in Seattle in WC weekend before the Falcons (11-5) put a 47-17 beat down on them in the Divisional Round. Since then it's been dismal for the Rams. Almost Oakland Raiders level dismal. They've hit 8 wins just once (2006) and been sub .500 every other year since, including a 3 year span (2007-2009) in which they averaged 2-14 three straight seasons. Since Jeff Fisher arrived they've improved, but that should only go to show you how bad they were. If Fisher's 27-36-1 record with them is an improvement then it speaks volumes of the ineptitude prior to his arrival. With the Rams now playing in Los Angeles the expectations will be a lot higher. Los Angeles fans will not support a team that is not a perennial contender. The novelty of the team returning to the city will last a couple seasons, and maybe they'll get a boost when the new stadium opens, but if the Rams don't start winning and making deep playoff runs they'll quickly render themselves an L.A. afterthought.

Next: My assessment on each team's chances to break their playoff droughts.

 

[Voltaire26]

I don't know if it's exactly a drought, but the Lions have had one playoff win in 58 years. I wonder if any other team (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL) can match that.

 

[iknowftbll]

Buffalo Bills:

Rumor has it Rex Ryan will get the ax if the Bills don't reach the playoffs in 2016. Last year the Bills were a pretty feisty team that scrapped its way to an 8-8 finish, but they had their issues on both sides of the ball. Rex Ryan is a respected defensive mind but the Bills defense did not live up to the hype. Ryan has hired his brother Rob to run the defense. They also have a golden opportunity to catch the Patriots without Brady in week 4 assuming Brady's 4 game suspension is upheld. With the Brady suspension and the Jets as of now still without the QB that made their 10-6 finish from last year possible, the Bill really do have a legit shot in the AFC East. While the Patriots have ruled that division, their dominance is decreasing: teams like the Jets and Dolphins score wins against them. I can see a scenario in which all 4 teams finish from 9-7 to 7-9 and the Bills tie at 9-7. But it's hard enough to predict W-L for teams, much less tie breakers. And ultimately I think the Pats still win it at 11-5 in 2016. It's hard to predict what the Bills fate would be after that. Let Ryan go and hope some new guy catches lightening in a bottle or stick with Ryan and trust the process? Either way, I don't think the team with the longest active drought is going to be the next to break it.

Oakland Raiders:

I'm already on record as predicting the Raiders end their playoff drought in 2016 so there's that. I think they've got a confident team with some players coming online that are talented and hungry. But I'm skeptical about JDR's ability to keep them in playoff shape every year. To be fair, Reggie MacKenzie APPEARS to be a far better GM than JDR ever had in Jacksonville, but let's not pretend JDR didn't have some pretty talented players with the Jags in his time there. Also, while I am not walking back my prediction I will acknowledge it's a risky prediction. The Raiders suck. They have for a long time and do not deserve the benefit of the doubt I'm showing them. They play in a division that is pretty competitive: with the Broncos defending SB champs and the Chiefs enjoying their most successful multi-season run since the early 1990s. Even the Chargers were a "strong" 4-12, losing a lot of close and competitive games. It's a safe prediction to say the Raiders can easily be swept by both the Broncos and Chiefs and split with the Chargers. If that's the case, a 1-5 division record is probably not getting them into the playoffs. Unless they play lights out outside the division. Ultimately I think they do just enough, and of these four teams will be the first to end their drought. Given the Raiders track record of futility, this is a fairly bold prediction.

Cleveland Browns:

I have a good friend and co-worker who is a Browns fan. He was "meh" about the Hue Jackson hire until I told him to read up on the 2011 Raiders season. Afterward he was thrilled at the potential. With that said, I honestly don't think the Browns are a playoff contender in 2016. I don't think they're a 6-10 contender. The key is this: they've got to give Jackson more than 2 seasons. Especially since they play in a tough division. Say what you will about the Bengals in the playoffs, but they're getting there. The Steelers are a respected powerhouse and don't be fooled by an injury-plagued down year for the Ravens: that's a well run and solid team. Then there's the Browns. If they want to break their streak of futility they need to give Jackson the kind of maneuver space that Lewis has received in Cincy. And with the front office restructuring, adding DePodesta, etc... the Browns could be in a spot to really build something over the coming 4-5 years. The key is sticking with something long enough to see if it will work. If the Browns go 4-12 in 2016 and 5-11 in 2017 and they sack Jackson and the front office again, look for the futility to continue well into the future. Stick with it and something good may come of it, especially as 4-5 years out, Roethlisberger will be gone from Pittsburgh. Dalton and Flacco will still be around and should still have some serious tread on the tires, but by then the Browns may have a good QB of their own who can hang. But for 2016, look for the Browns to add another year to their drought.

Los Angeles Rams:

Of these four teams, the Rams strike me as the most interesting. Since Fisher came on board they've been much improved compared to the years before 2012, but still a sub .500 team. Part of this is the Rams are unfortunate enough to be playing in what has become an incredibly stout division since 2012. The NFC West has sent a team to the playoffs as a wild card every years since 2012. In 2013 they had a third place team finish 10-6 (Cardinals). The NFC West has represented the NFC in the Super Bowl three times in that span, and in the year they did not (2015) an NFC West team reached the NFCCG. And just as the 49ers fell apart, the Cardinals got their shit together, so instead of the Rams moving up they watched as the traffic ahead of them reshuffled. They've had a decent defense during this time but seem perennially plagued by poor QB play. With that said, they have the makings of a decent offense with RB Todd Gurley and rookie Jared Goff. But throwing a rookie QB against defenses like Seattle's and Arizona's twice each a year? That's a recipe for rendering the kid a "bust." I get the Rams don't have a lot of options at the position, and you don't mortgage the future to trade into the #1 spot to have a rookie "sit and watch" but the Rams would be wise to do just that. Bring in Fitzpatrick or even Hoyer. So what if they fail to reach their mandatory 7-9 finish? Let a vet or journeyman take the hits that your long term solution otherwise would be. This is probably not how the Rams management sees it, and to be fair, those guys know a hell of a lot more about football than I do. The Rams won't end their playoff drought this year. And even with some of the additions they've made, considering who they're up against in that division, it really is tough to speculate when they actually will.

 

[Mingo]

Great work Ikno. I must confess - I do not know that much about other teams in a general sense anymore - very glad to breeze through your takes.

 

[iknowftbll]

Great work Ikno. I must confess - I do not know that much about other teams in a general sense anymore - very glad to breeze through your takes.

It's really just basic trivia and football history. I like this kind of stuff. It gets me by in the off season. Some fans know their team and only their team. Some college fans who are not big NFL fans know the careers of their college stars across the league. My FiL is a good example of this: he's a big Sooners fan and can tell you everything about just about any Oklahoma player's NFL career, and he's a Broncos fan on a distant secondary level, probably more so now than ever before because of me. Then there's guys like me: I don't get into the business side of the NFL all that much (haven't once logged onto Overthecap.com or whatever that site is) and because I do data analysis for work (market research for the USMC) I don't really enjoy advanced analytics applied to the NFL (though I do see their value). I love the history and tradition of the game, the Broncos, and enjoy comparing historical significance of one franchise vs another.

On a related note, SB Nation's "Silver and Black Pride" featured this write-up:

POLL: Raiders main AFC West main rival?

The article itself is "meh." Just some snot nosed millennial telling his tale of becoming a Raiders fan. The comments are where it's at on this one.

What's hilarious (and I've seen this from several Raiders fans both on this article and others) is this notion that the Broncos three SB titles are somehow inferior to the Raiders three due to it taking the Broncos longer to win them than it took the Raiders to win theirs. Of course, the Raiders won theirs following the 1976, 1980, and 1983 seasons, having begun play in 1960, same as the Broncos. It's hilarious though, because they've been at best, marginally relevant since 1983, with just 8 playoff seasons over that 32 season span. I'd argue if it weren't for the ass pounding they took in SB XXXVII they'd be considered largely irrelevant by most spectators. But a SB appearance counts for something.

That the Broncos were a bad franchise early just makes the history of this club more rich. It has grown from a franchise that many tried to stop from existing to one of the most prestigious teams in the NFL, and easily the most prestigious in the AFC West. That it took the Broncos 50 years (counting from the first SB, not 1960) to win their third does not make it any less incredible. Especially when you consider the AFC Conference titles: the Broncos have 8 compared to the Raiders 5.

The one trump card the Raiders still have is they still own the all-time W-L record over the Broncos at 61-50-2 including playoffs. But the Broncos have surpassed the Raiders in franchise wins. The Raiders 25-18 playoff record is still better than the Broncos 23-19, but when you consider 8 Conference Titles to 5 and an equal number of Super Bowl wins, Raider fans really can't go anywhere with that one.

The Raiders are a great rival, but by no means do I subscribe to the narrative that the NFL is better when the Raiders are good. The Raiders have had about a mile's worth of cock in their mouths for over 10 years now and the league has been just fine. If the Raiders reach the playoffs in 2016, great. If not, I'll not enjoy the Broncos or the league as a whole any less. The success or failure of a franchise that has been irrelevant more often than not for over 30 years now has no bearing whatsoever on my enjoyment of the league.

 

[cdumler7]

It's really just basic trivia and football history. I like this kind of stuff. It gets me by in the off season. Some fans know their team and only their team. Some college fans who are not big NFL fans know the careers of their college stars across the league. My FiL is a good example of this: he's a big Sooners fan and can tell you everything about just about any Oklahoma player's NFL career, and he's a Broncos fan on a distant secondary level, probably more so now than ever before because of me. Then there's guys like me: I don't get into the business side of the NFL all that much (haven't once logged onto Overthecap.com or whatever that site is) and because I do data analysis for work (market research for the USMC) I don't really enjoy advanced analytics applied to the NFL (though I do see their value). I love the history and tradition of the game, the Broncos, and enjoy comparing historical significance of one franchise vs another.

On a related note, SB Nation's "Silver and Black Pride" featured this write-up:

POLL: Raiders main AFC West main rival?

The article itself is "meh." Just some snot nosed millennial telling his tale of becoming a Raiders fan. The comments are where it's at on this one.

What's hilarious (and I've seen this from several Raiders fans both on this article and others) is this notion that the Broncos three SB titles are somehow inferior to the Raiders three due to it taking the Broncos longer to win them than it took the Raiders to win theirs. Of course, the Raiders won theirs following the 1976, 1980, and 1983 seasons, having begun play in 1960, same as the Broncos. It's hilarious though, because they've been at best, marginally relevant since 1983, with just 8 playoff seasons over that 32 season span. I'd argue if it weren't for the ass pounding they took in SB XXXVII they'd be considered largely irrelevant by most spectators. But a SB appearance counts for something.

That the Broncos were a bad franchise early just makes the history of this club more rich. It has grown from a franchise that many tried to stop from existing to one of the most prestigious teams in the NFL, and easily the most prestigious in the AFC West. That it took the Broncos 50 years (counting from the first SB, not 1960) to win their third does not make it any less incredible. Especially when you consider the AFC Conference titles: the Broncos have 8 compared to the Raiders 5.

The one trump card the Raiders still have is they still own the all-time W-L record over the Broncos at 61-50-2 including playoffs. But the Broncos have surpassed the Raiders in franchise wins. The Raiders 25-18 playoff record is still better than the Broncos 23-19, but when you consider 8 Conference Titles to 5 and an equal number of Super Bowl wins, Raider fans really can't go anywhere with that one.

The Raiders are a great rival, but by no means do I subscribe to the narrative that the NFL is better when the Raiders are good. The Raiders have had about a mile's worth of cock in their mouths for over 10 years now and the league has been just fine. If the Raiders reach the playoffs in 2016, great. If not, I'll not enjoy the Broncos or the league as a whole any less. The success or failure of a franchise that has been irrelevant more often than not for over 30 years now has no bearing whatsoever on my enjoyment of the league.

For me I was born after the Raiders won their last Super Bowl (1986). So for me the Raiders really have been about as irrelevant as can be. I still love the rivalry and still love my dad talking about some of the old games but I do think a lot of the old characters from those rivalries are gone. No more Al Davis and really Shanahan was the guy that kept fans really excited about beating the Raiders. I still love winning the game but for sure been much more interested in the games against the Chargers and Chiefs for quite some time since they have been our biggest threat to actually losing the division.

To me the Raiders still have a lot to prove. They added a lot of big name FA's but we have seen way too many times that just because you paid huge money to a guy doesn't mean they actually come in and perform. I look at a guy like Sean Smith who is going from a press man style defense in KC where he had great safety help over the top to now Oakland where they play off man/zone coverage and are trying to get 2 new safeties adjusted to their system. To me I don't think he is a great fit and I do think there will be some struggles for him in that style of defense. Same with Bruce Irvin where the Seahawks stopped using him as a pass rush guy because he just wasn't great. He wasn't terrible by any means but he wasn't great either. They started liking him more in coverage than getting after the QB. So what does Oakland do but pay him to come in and be a pass rusher. I just don't think the high priced FA's are going to be as big of a boom in playmaking ability as Oakland fans are hoping.