Pats draft

[amfootball]

The colts were atleast trying to win ONE game to avoid being 0-16 at the end of the season. but i agree the colts were thinking Andrew Luck or RG3 by the time they were 0-10. that is if they were not already thinking it when it was stated in august of 2011 Manning may not be back until december the earliest. 

I agree. They were thinking Luck for sure by the time the season was lost at 0-10. They def. did not want to go 0-16. And by then the Vikes and Rams had two wins.

 

Yes, regarding your other post about trades. That was my point. By the time they were 0-13 they were assured of either Luck or RG either outright or by trading with Vikes/Rams who did not need a franchise QB.

[amfootball]

Mameluc! Good to see ya.

 

Supposedly they're pretty high on (Tavon) Wilson. Not sure what the deal is, he didn't seem to make much of an impact last year. Safety seems like a better, more natural position for McCourty, so they'll probably keep him there. Talib is a good #1 corner and Dennard played really well last year and looks solid. Kyle Arrington was resigned as their slot corner, so it's really just that safety position that seems up in the air.

 

Supposedly T. Wilson is being penciled in as the starter, but A. Wilson's cover skills are, from what I read anyway, in decline. So if anything, I'd expect Adrian in on first and second down, and Tavon coming in with the sub-packages, at least to start with. Maybe at some point - even as early as camp - Tavon passes Adrian on the depth chart.

 

They also drafted a CB and S out of Rutgers, which I'm now referring to as the Patriots' triple-A affiliate. ;)

Yes, I think that is the plan. It is the other safety spot that is still up in the air with Tavon, Adrian, and the safety they drafted. Injuries always back there too so at least they have some depth. I am glad Chung is gone to be honest. The guy barely ever played. McCourtney at least seems durable.

 

I like Talib and Dennard as our CBs. Might be the best grouping since 2007.

 

Not only is Rutgers our triple A affiliate, Schiano keeps handing us quality guys for bags of potatoes - Talib, Blount.

[Superman]

No one is suggesting, at least I am not, that the Colts set out to be 2-14. Once Manning had his fourth surgery in Sept and they knew they were going to be without him for the season with a slight hope that he may return in Dec which is why they didn't put him on IR, they acquired Kerry Collins. When Collins did not win a game and Painter went winless that is when Luck became the focal point. The team was 0-13 before it won its first game. If you believe for one second with a season lost and Manning suffering a severe neck injury that required four surgeries, that the Colts were NOT thinking about Andrew Luck when the team was 0-8, 0-9, 0-10 than you must believe the Colts are dumbest org on the face of the earth. They inserted Orloskvy and won two games which at that point were meaningless as neither the Vikes or Rams were going to take a Qb so the Colts were already in position to get Luck with the first pick or acquire him from either the Vikes or the Rams on draft day. 

 

Polian and company were fired not because of the 2-14 season but precisely because the Colts were going to draft Luck and not build the team around him the way Polian did with Manning which only resulted in one ring. To think a FO that was named the second best team of the decade behind the Pats in 00's was fired for one bad season with Manning on the bench is absurd.

 

 

So Polian wasn't fired for doing a bad job, which led to a terrible season -- 0-4, 0-8, 0-11, 0-13, all terrible, so when is it that you say the team started thinking about Luck? -- but was fired because Irsay didn't want to build the team around the quarterback like they did with Manning?

 

This is so off, I don't really know what to say. :: sighs ::

 

First of all, the Colts are very much going to build around Luck like they did with Manning. Every team with a good quarterback does. They just hope to do a better job of it than Polian did for the last couple of years, and they hope they get similar success out of it. Eventually, if Luck is as good as we all hope he will be, he'll be one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and the team will have a smaller margin of error when it comes to building the roster around him. (See: Saints, Packers, Giants, Patriots, Broncos, Ravens, etc.)

 

Secondly, without regard for how good the Colts front office was in a classical sense, they began to slide well before 2011. So no, this didn't come down to one bad season. But that one bad season -- and it was really, really bad -- was absolutely the biggest factor. The entire operation was exposed. Simply put, the Colts weren't an NFL caliber team without Manning, and that included the coaching staff. All that was the fault of the front office. They all had to go.

 

Third, Orlovsky was given the starting job in Week 13, against the Patriots. That's the same week Coyer was fired and Murphy was given the defensive coordinator job for the rest of the season. We were 0-11. The Vikings and Rams both only had two wins at that point, so the #1 seed wasn't secured; in fact, it wasn't secured until Week 17. So two of the biggest changes the team could have made at that point, if they paid off, could have cost the Colts the #1 pick in the draft, that you claim they had already decided they wanted. Why not keep Painter in there? Why get rid of Coyer? If that's when Luck became the focal point, why would the team mess with a winning (read: losing) formula?

 

It doesn't make any sense.

 

You're getting right back into "I think this is what happened, now prove it didn't" territory. Your entire argument is based on speculation and conjecture.

[amfootball]

 

So Polian wasn't fired for doing a bad job, which led to a terrible season -- 0-4, 0-8, 0-11, 0-13, all terrible, so when is it that you say the team started thinking about Luck? -- but was fired because Irsay didn't want to build the team around the quarterback like they did with Manning?

 

This is so off, I don't really know what to say. :: sighs ::

 

First of all, the Colts are very much going to build around Luck like they did with Manning. Every team with a good quarterback does. They just hope to do a better job of it than Polian did for the last couple of years, and they hope they get similar success out of it. Eventually, if Luck is as good as we all hope he will be, he'll be one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and the team will have a smaller margin of error when it comes to building the roster around him. (See: Saints, Packers, Giants, Patriots, Broncos, Ravens, etc.)

 

Secondly, without regard for how good the Colts front office was in a classical sense, they began to slide well before 2011. So no, this didn't come down to one bad season. But that one bad season -- and it was really, really bad -- was absolutely the biggest factor. The entire operation was exposed. Simply put, the Colts weren't an NFL caliber team without Manning, and that included the coaching staff. All that was the fault of the front office. They all had to go.

 

Third, Orlovsky was given the starting job in Week 13, against the Patriots. That's the same week Coyer was fired and Murphy was given the defensive coordinator job for the rest of the season. We were 0-11. The Vikings and Rams both only had two wins at that point, so the #1 seed wasn't secured; in fact, it wasn't secured until Week 17. So two of the biggest changes the team could have made at that point, if they paid off, could have cost the Colts the #1 pick in the draft, that you claim they had already decided they wanted. Why not keep Painter in there? Why get rid of Coyer? If that's when Luck became the focal point, why would the team mess with a winning (read: losing) formula?

 

It doesn't make any sense.

 

You're getting right back into "I think this is what happened, now prove it didn't" territory. Your entire argument is based on speculation and conjecture.

Now who is being facetious? You know what I mean about building the team around Manning. Polian's philosophy was to stack the O around Manning and have a smallish D to run with the lead. Hard to say this was a terrible way to build around Manning given, like I said, the Colts were named the second best team of the decade in '00s behind the Pats.

 

The Colts had just won the division the season prior and almost went undefeated in 2009 had Caldwell let the starters finish the season, so to say they were declining or a bad team is simply not true and a straw man argument to try to defend your crumbling case.

 

Polian was shown the door because of a difference in philosophy. The Colts no longer wanted to build their team around the QB but begin building the team from the lines out. Polian's excellence is unquestioned. The Colts were not his first go around. He would not have been fired for one bad season even if the Colts had gone 0-16. Not with Manning hurt so late in the off-season.

 

Like I said, my point was not that the Colts tanked the season from the get go but that they def. had Luck and RG in their sights by the time they were 0-9, 0-10. To deny this is to basically say Colts mgmt are complete bafoons which I know you don't believe this and neither do I.

 

And as I said before, at 0-13, they were trying to win a game and not go 0-16. They were already in position to get Luck or RG outright or trading with Rams and Vikes who did not need a franchise QB which is what the Skins ended up doing.

[Superman]

Now who is being facetious?

 

You catch on quick...

 

You know what I mean about building the team around Manning. Polian's philosophy was to stack the O around Manning and have a smallish D to run with the lead. Hard to say this was a terrible way to build around Manning given, like I said, the Colts were named the second best team of the decade in '00s behind the Pats.

 

The Colts had just won the division the season prior and almost went undefeated in 2009 had Caldwell let the starters finish the season, so to say they were declining or a bad team is simply not true and a straw man argument to try to defend your crumbling case.

 

Polian was shown the door because of a difference in philosophy. The Colts no longer wanted to build their team around the QB but begin building the team from the lines out. Polian's excellence is unquestioned. The Colts were not his first go around. He would not have been fired for one bad season even if the Colts had gone 0-16. Not with Manning hurt so late in the off-season.

 

Like I said, my point was not that the Colts tanked the season from the get go but that they def. had Luck and RG in their sights by the time they were 0-9, 0-10. To deny this is to basically say Colts mgmt are complete bafoons which I know you don't believe this and neither do I.

 

And as I said before, at 0-13, they were trying to win a game and not go 0-16. They were already in position to get Luck or RG outright or trading with Rams and Vikes who did not need a franchise QB which is what the Skins ended up doing.

 

 

I wonder if you know what a straw man argument is.

 

The Colts won 10 games in 2010 on Manning's back, plain and simple. Polian's drafting had already begun to falter, and the team had no depth. Despite starting 14-0 in 2009, the team wasn't balanced or complete. You have to go back to 2006 to find a relatively successful first rounder. Despite the successes the team had, for which Polian deserves credit, he hadn't been doing a good job of building a team. It was being held together by Manning, and it was exposed in 2011.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, Polian didn't ignore the offensive and defensive lines in the draft. This wasn't a case of simple neglect. He just failed to improve them, despite committing significant resources to them. We had several high to mid round draft picks on both lines over a course of four or five years, with virtually none of them performing up to expectations. Irsay didn't need someone with a different philosophy. He needed someone who could better execute whatever the philosophy was going to be, because Polian hadn't been doing a good job of it.

 

Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter. It's auxiliary. The point is that Polian was fired after 2011, and it's really strange that anyone would suggest that the disastrous results of that season had nothing to do with it. Again, your argument is based on speculation and conjecture. Saying Polian "would not have been fired for one bad season even if the Colts had gone 0-16" is a prime example.

 

You're also changing your tune. Earlier in this thread, you said: "The fact that the FO thought a washed Kerry Collins could actually do something pretty much tells you they were tossing the season. It's not like they didn't know the best draft pick since Elway was coming out at the perfect time when they were ready to move on from an injured and aging Manning." Now that holes have been poked in that argument, you're saying the team decided they wanted to secure the #1 pick around the time they were 0-9, 0-10. I guess we're making progress, but you're still trying to carry a pretty heavy argument in a wet paper bag.

 

Speaking of which, according to what rationale did the Vikings not need a franchise quarterback in 2012? Wouldn't they have been better with Luck or Griffin? And what's to say that some other team couldn't have traded up to one of the top two spots just like the Redskins did, with the Colts being left on the outside looking in? If the Colts wanted to secure their right to draft Luck or Griffin (and it was pretty much just Luck, by the way), the best way to do that would have been to keep losing. Replacing Painter and Coyer after 11 games would have been entirely counter-productive.

[amfootball]

You catch on quick...

 

 

I wonder if you know what a straw man argument is.

 

The Colts won 10 games in 2010 on Manning's back, plain and simple. Polian's drafting had already begun to falter, and the team had no depth. Despite starting 14-0 in 2009, the team wasn't balanced or complete. You have to go back to 2006 to find a relatively successful first rounder. Despite the successes the team had, for which Polian deserves credit, he hadn't been doing a good job of building a team. It was being held together by Manning, and it was exposed in 2011.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, Polian didn't ignore the offensive and defensive lines in the draft. This wasn't a case of simple neglect. He just failed to improve them, despite committing significant resources to them. We had several high to mid round draft picks on both lines over a course of four or five years, with virtually none of them performing up to expectations. Irsay didn't need someone with a different philosophy. He needed someone who could better execute whatever the philosophy was going to be, because Polian hadn't been doing a good job of it.

 

Whether you agree with that or not doesn't really matter. It's auxiliary. The point is that Polian was fired after 2011, and it's really strange that anyone would suggest that the disastrous results of that season had nothing to do with it. Again, your argument is based on speculation and conjecture. Saying Polian "would not have been fired for one bad season even if the Colts had gone 0-16" is a prime example.

 

You're also changing your tune. Earlier in this thread, you said: "The fact that the FO thought a washed Kerry Collins could actually do something pretty much tells you they were tossing the season. It's not like they didn't know the best draft pick since Elway was coming out at the perfect time when they were ready to move on from an injured and aging Manning." Now that holes have been poked in that argument, you're saying the team decided they wanted to secure the #1 pick around the time they were 0-9, 0-10. I guess we're making progress, but you're still trying to carry a pretty heavy argument in a wet paper bag.

 

Speaking of which, according to what rationale did the Vikings not need a franchise quarterback in 2012? Wouldn't they have been better with Luck or Griffin? And what's to say that some other team couldn't have traded up to one of the top two spots just like the Redskins did, with the Colts being left on the outside looking in? If the Colts wanted to secure their right to draft Luck or Griffin (and it was pretty much just Luck, by the way), the best way to do that would have been to keep losing. Replacing Painter and Coyer after 11 games would have been entirely counter-productive.

Ho hum, back to Manning is god line of thinking. Unbelieveable. Just when I thought you were not one of them, turns out you are. You know what you are right, that entire 14-0 team was ALL Manning. Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday, Clark, Freeney, Mathias, all bums. Polian? All he ever did prior to the Colts was resurrect the Bills and took the Panthers to an NFC title game in his second year as GM. His two executive of the year awards mean nothing either. I mean clearly he lost it as his Colts teams were only perennial SB contenders but that was all Manning covering up all his mistakes.

 

How can anything you say be credible at this point? It can't.

 

If you really believe the Colts mgmt did not think of Luck or RG at all during the 2011 season when they could not win a game until Dec, than that is your own private mystery. I give them more credit for being one of the most well run orgs of the last 15 years and believe they had the foresight and intellect to ensure they had a chance at selecting the best pick of the draft since Elway especially with their season tanking and their current franchise QB on the sidelines with four neck surgeries at age 36 due a $28 mil roster bonus for not playing the season. 

[Jules]

[Superman]

Ho hum, back to Manning is god line of thinking. Unbelieveable. Just when I thought you were not one of them, turns out you are. You know what you are right, that entire 14-0 team was ALL Manning. Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday, Clark, Freeney, Mathias, all bums. Polian? All he ever did prior to the Colts was resurrect the Bills and took the Panthers to an NFC title game in his second year as GM. His two executive of the year awards mean nothing either. I mean clearly he lost it as his Colts teams were only perennial SB contenders but that was all Manning covering up all his mistakes.

 

How can anything you say be credible at this point? It can't.

 

Maybe you do know what a straw man is. That's perfectly executed.

 

I'm one of the bigger Bill Polian defenders around here, but there's no question the team eroded, and it really started showing up in 2008.

 

 

If you really believe the Colts mgmt did not think of Luck or RG at all during the 2011 season when they could not win a game until Dec, than that is your own private mystery. I give them more credit for being one of the most well run orgs of the last 15 years and believe they had the foresight and intellect to ensure they had a chance at selecting the best pick of the draft since Elway especially with their season tanking and their current franchise QB on the sidelines with four neck surgeries at age 36 due a $28 mil roster bonus for not playing the season. 

 

 

Again, not your best effort.

[-JJ-]

+6 Superman

+1 amfootball

[shecolt]

 

 

Like I said, my point was not that the Colts tanked the season from the get go but that they def. had Luck and RG in their sights by the time they were 0-9, 0-10. To deny this is to basically say Colts mgmt are complete bafoons which I know you don't believe this and neither do I.

 

And as I said before, at 0-13, they were trying to win a game and not go 0-16. They were already in position to get Luck or RG outright or trading with Rams and Vikes who did not need a franchise QB which is what the Skins ended up doing.

 

Let me see if I can follow along. 

 

You are saying that the Colts didn't start the season with the intention of tanking it; but by the time their record became 0-9, 0-10, they realized that they may be in the running for the #1 or #2 draft pick and given that Luck and Griffin were great prospects that was a pretty good consolation prize.

 

However when the Colts were 0-13, they started to think; "Golly gee, guys!  We sure don't want to have a winless season.  We really should try to win a game." 

 

So, the Colts win the game vs. the Titans, avoid that winless season, and come away with the same record as the Rams and Vikings which meant that they hadn't wrapped up that #1 or #2 draft pick.

 

Yes, the Colts were still in a good postion to trade much as the Redskins did; but I think they (the Redskins) swapped #1's, gave up a #2, and also gave up a #1 in both 2013 and 2014 in order to draft Griffin.  So, it would make sense that the Colts wouldn't want to do that when it would be far better to just draft the QB of their choice outright.

 

But, what do those silly Colts do?  :slaphead: They had avoided the stigma of a winless season by finally trying to win a game; but Instead of going back to not trying to win a game, they go out and defeat the Texans meaning that they were still in jeopardy of losing that #1 or #2 draft pick. 

[dw49]

Ho hum, back to Manning is god line of thinking. Unbelieveable. Just when I thought you were not one of them, turns out you are. You know what you are right, that entire 14-0 team was ALL Manning. Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday, Clark, Freeney, Mathias, all bums. Polian? All he ever did prior to the Colts was resurrect the Bills and took the Panthers to an NFC title game in his second year as GM. His two executive of the year awards mean nothing either. I mean clearly he lost it as his Colts teams were only perennial SB contenders but that was all Manning covering up all his mistakes.

 

How can anything you say be credible at this point? It can't.

 

If you really believe the Colts mgmt did not think of Luck or RG at all during the 2011 season when they could not win a game until Dec, than that is your own private mystery. I give them more credit for being one of the most well run orgs of the last 15 years and believe they had the foresight and intellect to ensure they had a chance at selecting the best pick of the draft since Elway especially with their season tanking and their current franchise QB on the sidelines with four neck surgeries at age 36 due a $28 mil roster bonus for not playing the season. 

 

 

 

Where do you come up with all this nonsense. I love your remark in another post saying that Polian was fired because of a "difference in philosophy ."  Do you just pull all this ridiculous nonsense out of your coulee ? 

 

As far as Polian's tenure with the Bills and Panthers , did he have his boy running those franchises ? 

[dw49]

+6 Superman

+1 amfootball

 

 

For what could you possibly award him a point for ? He doesn't present one fact to support a jumbled , ridiculous , incoherent argument.

[Dustin]

For what could you possibly award him a point for ? He doesn't present one fact to support a jumbled , ridiculous , incoherent argument.

I'm guessing he get's a pity point?

[Superman]

Let me see if I can follow along.

You are saying that the Colts didn't start the season with the intention of tanking it; but by the time their record became 0-9, 0-10, they realized that they may be in the running for the #1 or #2 draft pick and given that Luck and Griffin were great prospects that was a pretty good consolation prize.

However when the Colts were 0-13, they started to think; "Golly gee, guys! We sure don't want to have a winless season. We really should try to win a game."

So, the Colts win the game vs. the Titans, avoid that winless season, and come away with the same record as the Rams and Vikings which meant that they hadn't wrapped up that #1 or #2 draft pick.

Yes, the Colts were still in a good postion to trade much as the Redskins did; but I think they (the Redskins) swapped #1's, gave up a #2, and also gave up a #1 in both 2013 and 2014 in order to draft Griffin. So, it would make sense that the Colts wouldn't want to do that when it would be far better to just draft the QB of their choice outright.

But, what do those silly Colts do? :slaphead: They had avoided the stigma of a winless season by finally trying to win a game; but Instead of going back to not trying to win a game, they go out and defeat the Texans meaning that they were still in jeopardy of losing that #1 or #2 draft pick.

And then, almost every coach and front office person got fired. Plan well executed, right?

[Jules]

OT (but then again this whole thread got off topic) but GO CELTICS!!!!! Yeah, I developed a soft spot for those guys last year a bit. :ashamed: If you can give the Heat a tough time, you win over Jules. *wipes tear from eye*

 

I hope they make history and beat the Knicks, shades of Red Sox/Yankees....

 

Right now I definitely think they can do it too.

[amfootball]

Maybe you do know what a straw man is. That's perfectly executed.

 

I'm one of the bigger Bill Polian defenders around here, but there's no question the team eroded, and it really started showing up in 2008.

 

 

 

 

Again, not your best effort.

Guess you have given up man. A pity as I generally enjoy our debates but honestly your "Manning is god, Polian was delcining" is by far the worst argument you have ever used to defend anyting. Usually you are better than this.

 

I will leave you with one hypothetical that you can chew on and get back to me. What if Manning had hurt his knee in week 1 and was out for the season but expected to be back starting healthy in 2012? The Colts still go 2-14. Is Polian fired and Manning released?

 

I can give you countless examples of GM after GM who don't have a smidge of Polian's stacked resume that were kept on board after a losing season. Especially one in whihch their superstar QB was injured late in the off-season....

[amfootball]

Where do you come up with all this nonsense. I love your remark in another post saying that Polian was fired because of a "difference in philosophy ."  Do you just pull all this ridiculous nonsense out of your coulee ? 

 

As far as Polian's tenure with the Bills and Panthers , did he have his boy running those franchises ? 

No, and he still took the Bills to SBs and took the Kerry Collins led Panthers to the NFC champ game in his second year. Honestly to rank on Polian is the lowest I have seen Colts fan go. It is stunning but I suppose not surprising as I know some will go to great lengths on #18's behalf...

[chad72]

Bill Polian and his son were let go because of the difficult atmosphere they had created in the 56th St. office of the Colts. Promoting his son to GM and apparently, the way his son dealt with staff was not up to Irsay's liking. Plus, the fact that the team's draft pick talent was eroding and Irsay was not getting bang for his buck with the contracts of Brackett, Hayden, Sanders still on the books for injured players (not to mention Peyton sucking $23 mil. + ) and hurting the team considerably. Very much like the Panthers GM doling out big contracts to 3 different RBs and getting fired in the middle of the season, it just was a prolonged effect that resulted in $40 + mil. dead cap space for 1 season.

 

In this case, Irsay had made up his mind that he wanted Luck once he knew what he could get i.e. at the end of the season. Irsay saw the chance to seize on a 2-14 season, released the Polians first, and Peyton next. It was very much Irsay stating that he wanted the slate clean for Luck, and he wanted a better environment for his staff to work with without the tension the Polians had induced. It wasn't just about Peyton, it wasn't just about the Polians, it was about truly starting a new chapter in Colts history and the franchise considerations trumped Peyton or the Polians at that point in time, rightfully so. Where Irsay truly was indecisive was Jim Caldwell, and that was the first task left to Grigson, who let him go eventually.

 

All of the above were the right decisions from the franchise point of view. It would have been more difficult for Irsay to fire the Polians after a (say) 8-8 season but Luck being available along with a 2-14 season was the perfect storm for Irsay to go about doing it his way. It was a bit of on the field and off the field decision to fire the Polians. Irsay is a generous man. Peyton's $23 mil. + for sitting in 2011, and Freeney's $19 mil. for his contributions in 2012 were all Irsay's way of thanking those players for what they did for the franchise, at least that is what I firmly believe. He thanked them first, and then graciously showed them the door . No matter who botched what publicly, eventually it was well executed from the franchise point of view.

 

At least that is how I see it.

[dw49]

No, and he still took the Bills to SBs and took the Kerry Collins led Panthers to the NFC champ game in his second year. Honestly to rank on Polian is the lowest I have seen Colts fan go. It is stunning but I suppose not surprising as I know some will go to great lengths on #18's behalf...

 

 

 

No one here is "ranting on Polian." We are only trying to help you out as to why he was fired. You are unable to even follow the discussion through in a logical manner . 

[-JJ-]

For what could you possibly award him a point for ? He doesn't present one fact to support a jumbled , ridiculous , incoherent argument.

I found some spots that he or she had made sense.   maybe won one battle abeit lose the war:)

[amfootball]

No one here is "ranting on Polian." We are only trying to help you out as to why he was fired. You are unable to even follow the discussion through in a logical manner . 

I have seen a lot of Polian bashing in my short time especially on the Colts forum. To suggest that the 2-14 season was the main impetus behind his firing is the part I have issue with. He may have missed on some drafts which is pretty much par for the course IMO. It has been years since Belichick has drafted a quality CB or WR. The draft is only 1/3  responsible for how a team is constucted. You have FA and trades as well not to mention undrafted players. Polian constructed a power house franchise for more than a decade - that is not debatable. And he had a pretty stellar resume BEFORE the colts.

 

Once the season was tanked and Luck was sitting there, Irsay knew he was moving on from Manning and by extension Polian. Like I posted earlier, had Manning had a knee injury that would have kept him out in 2011 but he came back in 2012 healthy, there is no way Polian is fired even with the team going 2-14 in Manning's absence. The whole org was going in a different direction with Luck and they did everything they could do make sure they got Luck. Even your own writer, Kravitz said the Colts team was tanking by putting Painter in. GoPats posted the link to that. Other teams like the Ravens and Saints said the Colts were not trying. I don't blame them. I would have done anything to get Luck as well.

[Superman]

Guess you have given up man. A pity as I generally enjoy our debates but honestly your "Manning is god, Polian was delcining" is by far the worst argument you have ever used to defend anyting. Usually you are better than this.

 

This is "laugh out loud" funny. I haven't given up, because I never expected you to admit that you were wrong. I can hit you with facts all day long, but they just slide off of you like you're made of Teflon. You're fact-resistant. And I knew that already, but at least I can hope that someone else has read this and recognized how senseless your entire accusation is.

 

And now, you're in full logical fallacy mode, and that's where this usually goes. You're attributing to me arguments that I never made, you're obfuscating, you're doubling down on debunked reasonings, and I'm not interested in reformatting an argument that you're only interested in derailing. I've said my piece. I'd type slower if I thought it would help, but your glitchy logic has a "Call him a Peyton Lover" fail safe that invariably kicks in whenever it's in danger of being debugged. I guess I got pretty close this time, because you lurched into that lane pretty aggressively.

 

 

I will leave you with one hypothetical that you can chew on and get back to me. What if Manning had hurt his knee in week 1 and was out for the season but expected to be back starting healthy in 2012? The Colts still go 2-14. Is Polian fired and Manning released?

 

I can give you countless examples of GM after GM who don't have a smidge of Polian's stacked resume that were kept on board after a losing season. Especially one in whihch their superstar QB was injured late in the off-season....

 

 

None of that is germane to the discussion. Either the Colts front office and coaching staff was more interested in getting the #1 pick than they were in winning, or they weren't. Like I said from the outset, the argument that they tanked requires flat out denial of fact and Olympic-level leaps in logic, and even then, it's still flimsy and conjecture based.

 

If you want to have a discussion about why Polian was really fired, I'm game. But I'm not interested in making this "tanked" discussion anymore opaque than it's already become.

[amfootball]

This is "laugh out loud" funny. I haven't given up, because I never expected you to admit that you were wrong. I can hit you with facts all day long, but they just slide off of you like you're made of Teflon. You're fact-resistant. And I knew that already, but at least I can hope that someone else has read this and recognized how senseless your entire accusation is.

 

And now, you're in full logical fallacy mode, and that's where this usually goes. You're attributing to me arguments that I never made, you're obfuscating, you're doubling down on debunked reasonings, and I'm not interested in reformatting an argument that you're only interested in derailing. I've said my piece. I'd type slower if I thought it would help, but your glitchy logic has a "Call him a Peyton Lover" fail safe that invariably kicks in whenever it's in danger of being debugged. I guess I got pretty close this time, because you lurched into that lane pretty aggressively.

 

 

None of that is germane to the discussion. Either the Colts front office and coaching staff was more interested in getting the #1 pick than they were in winning, or they weren't. Like I said from the outset, the argument that they tanked requires flat out denial of fact and Olympic-level leaps in logic, and even then, it's still flimsy and conjecture based.

 

If you want to have a discussion about why Polian was really fired, I'm game. But I'm not interested in making this "tanked" discussion anymore opaque than it's already become.

You know what is ironic about this whole "debate?" I am the one defending the Colts mgmt given them credit for having the foresight to know they had to move in another direction as soon as Peyton had his neck fused, and acutely understanding just what they had waiting in Luck. I mean look what the Jets got one season later - Geno Smith.

 

I am willing to give Irsay credit for seeing the writing on the wall - they weren't going anywhere in 2011 so why not play for the best draft pick to come out in decades? I actually think the Colts were smart and savvy while you truly believe they were playing for something other than Luck in 2011. Makes no sense but to each his own. Like I said, your own reporter, Kravitz said the Colts were tanking when they inserted Painter.

 

And then to top if off, here I am defending Polian - on a Colts board!  What has happened to you guys? Do you like the kool-aid that much?

[Superman]

You know what is ironic about this whole "debate?" I am the one defending the Colts mgmt given them credit for having the foresight to know they had to move in another direction as soon as Peyton had his neck fused, and acutely understanding just what they had waiting in Luck. I mean look what the Jets got one season later - Geno Smith.

 

I am willing to give Irsay credit for seeing the writing on the wall - they weren't going anywhere in 2011 so why not play for the best draft pick to come out in decades? I actually think the Colts were smart and savvy while you truly believe they were playing for something other than Luck in 2011. Makes no sense but to each his own. Like I said, your own reporter, Kravitz said the Colts were tanking when they inserted Painter.

 

And then to top if off, here I am defending Polian - on a Colts board!  What has happened to you guys? Do you like the kool-aid that much?

 

You're so all over the place...

 

First you said the Colts signing Collins was proof that they didn't want to win. Then you said they started looking to secure the #1 pick around the time the were 0-9, 0-10. Now you're co-signing Kravitz -- who is most definitely NOT my reporter -- who says that putting Painter in was the signal the team was tanking, but Painter got his first start in Week 4. Which is it? Preseason, when Collins was signed, or two thirds through the season, or early on when Painter went in? (I won't bore you with the fact that Painter was inserted because Collins got hurt, or the fact that when Painter went in, the offense actually started playing better...)

 

 

having the foresight to know they had to move in another direction as soon as Peyton had his neck fused

 

Oh wait, now you're going back to your original argument that the Colts decided to secure the #1 pick once Manning had another operation, which was right before the season started. So the team was tanking all along? Then why sign Collins, especially to a two year deal? Why not -- if Painter's insertion was proof the team was tanking (still don't follow that one, by the way) -- just go with Painter? And why, in Week 13, bench Painter, when the #1 pick still wasn't secured? Why not just keep losing until you have what you've been angling for over the last three months?

 

(I'm getting ready to blow your mind with this one: Do you realize that Luck had another year of eligibility? He very well could have stayed at Stanford for another season. And then the team would have tanked for a player that wasn't even available to them. How's that for foresight?)

 

It just doesn't make sense.

 

But to entertain your hypothetical, what if the Colts hadn't secured a top two pick? Irsay suggested in an interview a couple months ago that the team would have stuck with Manning in that case. And that's not a terrible Plan B; he did come back in 2012 and have his second best statistical season, despite still not being 100%. The Redskins paid a hefty price to go from #6 to #2, but they didn't have Manning, so it makes sense. I doubt Irsay would have wanted to give up three first rounders and a second rounder. Perhaps, but that's an extreme hypothetical.

 

Taking it a step further, if the Colts hadn't secured a top two pick, it would mean they had won more games, which changes the discussion regarding Polian and Caldwell. Let's say they won five games like the Redskins did, that's actually not too bad considering the state of the roster in 2011, especially if they don't go winless for the first three months of the season. Maybe that's enough to save their jobs.

 

That takes us back into why they were fired territory. I'm not saying they were fired just because they had a poor season, and I'm not saying their firing had nothing to do with the team's transition from Manning. The decision was not made in a vacuum. But you have to acknowledge that this very significant transition wasn't going to be self-contained. If they willingly contributed to the circumstances that triggered the transition -- namely, going 2-14 and getting the #1 pick -- then they dug their own graves. With or without the #1 pick and a new quarterback, when you start 0-13, and when you get beat 62-7 on national TV, and when you only win two games, you are jeopardizing your own job security, and that of your staff.

 

Again, it does not make sense.

 

Lastly, Polian has plenty of defenders around here, and I'm one of the more vocal ones. I've been called a Polian kool-aid drinker on this very forum, so imagine how strange it is that you're supposedly defending him against me. I'm not a Polian basher. But an objective analysis of his drafting and team building over his last five years or so -- including the way Chris Polian and Jim Caldwell were promoted -- shows that he had his flaws. There were fans here calling for him to be fired back in 2008. The cries were loudest after The Decision of 2009. Nothing has "happened" to us; there's been an anti-Polian segment among Colts fans for many years already. I was never among that crowd, but it was obvious at the end of the 2011 season that changes needed to be made. (Read this fan feature I wrote right after the season ended, and then come back and call me a "Manning is god" fan or a Polian hater.)

 

Just understand, you can't engage me in a debate and expect to get away with gimmicky arguments, or think I'm going to ignore the fallacies in your logic. And this particular argument is severely flawed. I said that from the beginning.

[-JJ-]

 

And then to top if off, here I am defending Polian - on a Colts board!  What has happened to you guys? Do you like the kool-aid that much?

Your military advisor says perform a tactical retreat.

[amfootball]

 

Just understand, you can't engage me in a debate and expect to get away with gimmicky arguments, or think I'm going to ignore the fallacies in your logic. And this particular argument is severely flawed. I said that from the beginning.

And back peddle, back peddle, back peddle. lol. You lost this argument long ago man. Of course Kravitz is not YOUR reporter as he does not agree with you yet he is the beat guy for your Colts and may just know more about the team and its intentions than you.

 

It is laughable that you say I am the one with the gimmicky arguments and unsound logic. Manning was the one covering Polian's mistakes yet your his biggest supporter. Ok. I believe that. lol.

[chad72]

 

And then to top if off, here I am defending Polian - on a Colts board!  What has happened to you guys? Do you like the kool-aid that much?

 

You lump all Colts fans into one, that is a mistake. Just address the person you are addressing without making generalizations. I am certain all the Pats fans don't want to be lumped into what you are. ;)

[Superman]

And back peddle, back peddle, back peddle. lol. You lost this argument long ago man. Of course Kravitz is not YOUR reporter as he does not agree with you yet he is the beat guy for your Colts and may just know more about the team and its intentions than you.

 

It is laughable that you say I am the one with the gimmicky arguments and unsound logic. Manning was the one covering Polian's mistakes yet your his biggest supporter. Ok. I believe that. lol.

 

http://forums.colts.com/gallery/image/1785-mindy-and-buttons-meme/

[amfootball]

 

What if I don't want to hunt?  :thmsup:

[dw49]

I have seen a lot of Polian bashing in my short time especially on the Colts forum. To suggest that the 2-14 season was the main impetus behind his firing is the part I have issue with. He may have missed on some drafts which is pretty much par for the course IMO. It has been years since Belichick has drafted a quality CB or WR. The draft is only 1/3  responsible for how a team is constucted. You have FA and trades as well not to mention undrafted players. Polian constructed a power house franchise for more than a decade - that is not debatable. And he had a pretty stellar resume BEFORE the colts.

 

Once the season was tanked and Luck was sitting there, Irsay knew he was moving on from Manning and by extension Polian. Like I posted earlier, had Manning had a knee injury that would have kept him out in 2011 but he came back in 2012 healthy, there is no way Polian is fired even with the team going 2-14 in Manning's absence. The whole org was going in a different direction with Luck and they did everything they could do make sure they got Luck. Even your own writer, Kravitz said the Colts team was tanking by putting Painter in. GoPats posted the link to that. Other teams like the Ravens and Saints said the Colts were not trying. I don't blame them. I would have done anything to get Luck as well.

 

 

In one post you say Polian was a great general manager and Painter was bad enough to tank a season single handedly. Well that seems to be a bit of a paradox. Painter was Polian's guy and I'm sure he could have spent a late round pick on another QB or spent a few of Irsay's bucks if he thought Painter was a disaster. 

[shecolt]

And then, almost every coach and front office person got fired. Plan well executed, right?

 

Yes, that plan was so well executed that I never believed there was such a plan.

 

But, how can we fight the words of Bob Kravitz (Bill Polian's bosom buddy)?  If Kravitz said the Colts were tanking, it has to be true.

 

As Patriot fans can attest to, a sport's beat writer (like say one for the Boston Herald named John Tomase) would never print anything that wasn't 100% factual.  ;)

[ViriLudant]

Kerry Collins was a 2 time pro bowler, almost 200 starts, and finished off 2010 on a high note. What other QBs were available who were better? Would you like to try again?

Also, where do we get all this cap money to go sign starters? We had something like $7 mill going into the season, then we spent I believe 4 on Collins. That leaves 3 left. We're paying Erik Walden more than that. Would you like to try again?

The VERY FO you're saying tanked is the VERY FO that got fired,, HUH. ODD.

Such ignorance of reality from Pats fans.

Collins was RETIRED.

Yeah, great signing.

The fact that the FO was fired does nothing to dispute the idea that they tanked. Polian had done a fairly mediocre job drafting/signing players.

Or do you want to conveniently forget the whole "Peyton carried this team for YEARS!" argument?

[amfootball]

In one post you say Polian was a great general manager and Painter was bad enough to tank a season single handedly. Well that seems to be a bit of a paradox. Painter was Polian's guy and I'm sure he could have spent a late round pick on another QB or spent a few of Irsay's bucks if he thought Painter was a disaster. 

Polian was and is a great GM that is not debatable. His resume before and after the Colts supports that.

 

In terms of Painter, most elite QBs making $20 mil don't have a great back up behind them as the team can't afford to pay both. Look at Eli as a great example. His back up has been David Carr who probably should not even be allowed on an NFL field.

 

I think what hurt Polian and the Colts is the fact that Manning got hurt so late in the off-season. I remember that they still thought he would start in August until he decided to have his neck fused in Sept. I think had Polian had more time, he would have tried to get a better back up. That is why I say when Collins failed they were tanking by putting Painter in. They knew just how awful he was and still started him for the majority of the season. At 0-13 they were pretty much assured of getting a top QB in the draft.

[amfootball]

Yes, that plan was so well executed that I never believed there was such a plan.

 

But, how can we fight the words of Bob Kravitz (Bill Polian's bosom buddy)?  If Kravitz said the Colts were tanking, it has to be true.

 

As Patriot fans can attest to, a sport's beat writer (like say one for the Boston Herald named John Tomase) would never print anything that wasn't 100% factual.  ;)

Why would Kravitz lie? What would be the benefit of it? He was giving his opinion after watching the Colts play on the field and the decision to start Painter. Much the same way we are doing right now. The writing was pretty much on the wall for everyone to see except for you guys apparently.

 

And Kravitz wasn't the only one saying it. GoPats posted links to other writers and players from the Ravens and Saints as well. I mean when you lose 62-7 it is easy to tell the team is tanking, no?

[House]

Some posters on this board must really get a sick kick out of merry-go-rounds.

[Dustin]

ITT: Logic flies out the window and Patriots fans can't admit they're wrong.

[dw49]

Polian was and is a great GM that is not debatable. His resume before and after the Colts supports that.

 

In terms of Painter, most elite QBs making $20 mil don't have a great back up behind them as the team can't afford to pay both. Look at Eli as a great example. His back up has been David Carr who probably should not even be allowed on an NFL field.

 

I think what hurt Polian and the Colts is the fact that Manning got hurt so late in the off-season. I remember that they still thought he would start in August until he decided to have his neck fused in Sept. I think had Polian had more time, he would have tried to get a better back up. That is why I say when Collins failed they were tanking by putting Painter in. They knew just how awful he was and still started him for the majority of the season. At 0-13 they were pretty much assured of getting a top QB in the draft.

 

 

What you choose to leave out of the equation is that Polian was a nepotistic , power crazy bully. Maybe you know different as your an expert on everything , but didn't he promote his son to the GM position ? Isn't that about when the Colt drafts began to be bad every year ? As far as Painter goes , most thought he was not a legit No. 2 QB but he was Bill's guy and that was that. And after Painter failed , wouldn't his logical choice be to play the guy he had groomed as Manning's back up? Arguing with you is impossible as either your knowledge of the subject is lacking or more likely you are not able to process the info you have. 

[Mameluc]

Guess you have given up man. A pity as I generally enjoy our debates but honestly your "Manning is god, Polian was delcining" is by far the worst argument you have ever used to defend anyting. Usually you are better than this.

 

I will leave you with one hypothetical that you can chew on and get back to me. What if Manning had hurt his knee in week 1 and was out for the season but expected to be back starting healthy in 2012? The Colts still go 2-14. Is Polian fired and Manning released?

 

I can give you countless examples of GM after GM who don't have a smidge of Polian's stacked resume that were kept on board after a losing season. Especially one in whihch their superstar QB was injured late in the off-season....

oh god...you ar e calling someone for "Manning is god" dear lord what about all those "this jsut confirms what i tought about brady that he is the best qb ever" etc etc etc ...how can you call ANYONE on that when you keep talking of brady as a god...smh

[amfootball]

What you choose to leave out of the equation is that Polian was a nepotistic , power crazy bully. Maybe you know different as your an expert on everything , but didn't he promote his son to the GM position ? Isn't that about when the Colt drafts began to be bad every year ? As far as Painter goes , most thought he was not a legit No. 2 QB but he was Bill's guy and that was that. And after Painter failed , wouldn't his logical choice be to play the guy he had groomed as Manning's back up? Arguing with you is impossible as either your knowledge of the subject is lacking or more likely you are not able to process the info you have. 

i think most GMs are that way. I did not say Polian was perfect but that his resume as a GM speaks for itself. I don't think that can be questioned but I know some here do.

 

I think I lost you. There was no other guy after Painter but Orlosky who they picked up during the season and who also was the  one that won two games. That was my point. You know Painter is terrible than why not go with Orlosky sooner?

[amfootball]

oh god...you ar e calling someone for "Manning is god" dear lord what about all those "this jsut confirms what i tought about brady that he is the best qb ever" etc etc etc ...how can you call ANYONE on that when you keep talking of brady as a god...smh

I have not mentioned Brady at all in this discussion...