Pats draft

[Mameluc]

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

so? thats not the point.

the point is you are mocking someone for liking his old QB and threating him godlike (and to be honest with you i didnt see superman doing it) while you do the exact same thing everytime you can.

complaining about something you also do, regardless if twas this thread or an old one...well you get my point.

[amfootball]

so? thats not the point.

the point is you are mocking someone for liking his old QB and threating him godlike (and to be honest with you i didnt see superman doing it) while you do the exact same thing everytime you can.

complaining about something you also do, regardless if twas this thread or an old one...well you get my point.

No, I really don't. I have never stated or insuinated that Brady has covered up for a declining Belichick...or that the 2007 team was actually a team in decline and Brady is the one that got it to 18-0 before losing in the SB.

[Mameluc]

No, I really don't. I have never stated or insuinated that Brady has covered up for a declining Belichick...or that the 2007 team was actually a team in decline and Brady is the one that got it to 18-0 before losing in the SB.

nevermind...

[dw49]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say Polian is a great GM

 

 I say great GM's are great evaluators of talent.

 

 You say "we know Painter is terrible."

 

If the above is all true , why wasn't Orlosky or a similar stiff already on the roster and ready to play before Painter ?

[amfootball]

You say Polian is a great GM

 

 I say great GM's are great evaluators of talent.

 

 You say "we know Painter is terrible."

 

If the above is all true , why wasn't Orlosky or a similar stiff already on the roster and ready to play before Painter ?

I said great not perfect. Perhaps Painter was there because Manning had not missed a game his whole career up to that point. His neck injury surfaced somewhat out of the blue and when the procedure he had done in May did not work than he was forced to get his neck fused at the start of the season. That is a tough hand for any GM.

 

Like I said before, Belichick has not drafted a quality WR or CB in years that does not mean he is not a great GM. You can't hit everytime and the draft is only 1/3 of how you build a team. There is FA, undrafted players and trades. And the draft is by far the most uncertain of all. The percentages of busts vs. quality starters is quite large especially at QB...that is why you tank to get Luck.

 

I still maintain that if Manning had an injury that he would have healed from and been healthy in 2012, Polian is still there even with the team going 2-14 in Manning's absence. He was let go precisely because the team was moving on from Manning to Luck...

[Superman]

I said great not perfect. Perhaps Painter was there because Manning had not missed a game his whole career up to that point. His neck injury surfaced somewhat out of the blue and when the procedure he had done in May did not work than he was forced to get his neck fused at the start of the season. That is a tough hand for any GM.

 

Like I said before, Belichick has not drafted a quality WR or CB in years that does not mean he is not a great GM. You can't hit everytime and the draft is only 1/3 of how you build a team. There is FA, undrafted players and trades. And the draft is by far the most uncertain of all. The percentages of busts vs. quality starters is quite large especially at QB...that is why you tank to get Luck.

 

(This is gonna be a long one, and yes, that's what she said...)

 

To the bolded, you keep saying that, but it wasn't true of Polian in later years. Polian almost exclusively relied on the draft, doing very little in free agency and virtually nothing by way of trade. And that's fine when you're drafting is top notch. Might be frustrating to your fans, but when you're paying your own free agents top dollar (Manning, Freeney, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Brackett, Sanders, Hayden, etc.), it makes sense.

 

Problem is, Polian's drafting began to be a problem, and the roster started to suffer from attrition. (I'll leave the Chris Polian issue out of it for now; it's unclear where Bill stopped and Chris started.) When guys like Tarik Glenn, Jake Scott, Booger McFarland, Ryan Lilja, Corey Simon, Montae Reagor, etc., started to leave or get injured, we didn't have quality replacements for them. Polian had drafted guys like Vincent Burns, Dylan Gandy, Robert Hunt, Michael Toudouze, Tony Ugoh (in a trade up, wound up being a terrible move), Quinn Pitcock (infamously quit before his second training camp, not Polian's fault, but it still contributed to the wearing down of the roster in the trenches), Mike Pollak, Steve Justice, Jamey Richard, Terrance Taylor (fourth round pick that never played a down in the regular season, for the Colts or anyone else), Jacques McClendon, and so on. That's from 2005-2010.

 

Now there are a lot of good picks in there as well; I'm not one who believes that Polian's drafting was absolutely terrible, nor am I one who thinks it's fair to go back with the benefit of hindsight and point out how we could have drafted Nick Kaczur instead of Vincent Burns, or Paul Soliai instead of Quinn Pitcock. The draft is an inexact science.

 

But, the point remains, the majority of Polian's picks along the offensive and defensive lines simply did not work out, and that's over the course of several years.

 

What other GMs do when their drafting falters and they have holes in critical spots -- including those that prefer to build through the draft -- is supplement their drafting with some smart free agent moves. Not always splashy signings, but they'll grab a second tier guy here, and third tier guy there. They'll swing a trade or two. Polian didn't do very much of that. (Why do you think this board goes nuts when we trade a fourth string lineman for a fullback?) Polian signed undrafted and undersized guys like Eric Foster to play defensive tackle. When Bob Sanders got hurt and couldn't stay healthy, we just stuck undrafted free agent Melvin Bullitt in there for two years. And when he got hurt, we stuck Aaron Francisco in there, and then we replaced him with undrafted free agents David Caldwell and Joe Lefeged. Thankfully we had Pat Angerer to take Brackett's place, but Polian had already tied himself to Brackett with a $10m signing bonus (which many of us protested at the time). Kelvin Hayden was also severely overpaid.

 

On top of that, several years in a row, we got little to nothing out of our first round picks. Some of this was due to injury (Gonzalez), but a lot of it was due to bad picks (Brown, Hughes, trading for Ugoh).

 

We can argue about the merits of Polian's moves all day long; like I said, I'm not calling him a bad GM. A lot of this wasn't his fault: injuries, retirements, losing players to free agency, the coaches' preference for smaller guys on the offensive and defensive lines, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that the roster began to deteriorate, in particular in the trenches.

 

What I DO blame Polian (or whoever was making the personnel decisions) for is allowing this to go on for so long without changing course. We had several roster management issues that contributed to this problem, and it got to the point that we were starting guys like Jeff Linkenbach and Kyle DeVan, and arguing whether unimpressive guys like Mike Pollak would be any better. I also blame Polian and Irsay equally for the way they allowed Jim Caldwell to succeed Tony Dungy. That's not the right way to hire a head coach.

 

Either way, the point is not that Polian had suddenly lost his ability to build a team. I'm not arguing that he was a bad GM. I'm not saying it's entirely his fault that we were suddenly a 2-14 team. He couldn't help what happened with Peyton Manning. But 2011 exposed the faults in the Colts system, from roster depth to coaching, and everything in between. The deficiencies on both lines and in the secondary were suddenly front and center; the coaching staff's inability to adjust to new circumstances was highlighted; the dearth of talent throughout the roster couldn't be denied. And that's on Bill Polian. Classically great GM, but viewed objectively, his last five years with the Colts weren't impressive. It all came to a head in 2011.

[GoPats]

nce to see you too...yea i mean i havent seen that much of wilson but i wasnt that impressed which is why i asked..

btw, whats the plan with the personnel you have on D? 3-4 or 4-3? i mean collins looks to me more of a OLB than a DE but then, the huge dude of last years draft looks like 4 3 DE...i envy your front 7:

Spikes - Mayo - Hightower and on DL that huge dude who i always forget his name + vince wilkfork (my favorite NT) ...and now Jamie collins.

im guessing you are going 4 3 right?

 

Yeah they'll mostly have 4 d-linemen out there, or the three "true" linemen with the hybrid DE/OLB who does what McGinest used to do. For some reason it's call the "Elephant" position in Belichick's defense.

 

Pats should be stronger in the front seven this year, and Collins seems to have coverage skills that the other guys lack. Spikes and Hightower both have issues in coverage.

[Superman]

Yeah they'll mostly have 4 d-linemen out there, or the three "true" linemen with the hybrid DE/OLB who does what McGinest used to do. For some reason it's call the "Elephant" position in Belichick's defense.

 

Pats should be stronger in the front seven this year, and Collins seems to have coverage skills that the other guys lack. Spikes and Hightower both have issues in coverage.

 

I read about that a few weeks ago. Sports terminology has always fascinated me.

 

Reminds me of the part in Coach Carter when he was installing their plays, and how they were all named after women. He'd tell a story -- about his mom, his sister, his girlfriend, whatever -- and then the story would relate to what the play was supposed to be. His sister Linda had a big afro, so "Linda" was their pick and roll offense.

 

I wonder where/why the Rush/Joker backer is called the "Elephant" in Belichick's system. There's got to be a story behind that.

[Mameluc]

Yeah they'll mostly have 4 d-linemen out there, or the three "true" linemen with the hybrid DE/OLB who does what McGinest used to do. For some reason it's call the "Elephant" position in Belichick's defense.

 

Pats should be stronger in the front seven this year, and Collins seems to have coverage skills that the other guys lack. Spikes and Hightower both have issues in coverage.

so collins might be used more as a OLB then? What i see with that personnell..is flexibility which is something Bellichikc likes i guess

[amfootball]

(This is gonna be a long one, and yes, that's what she said...)

 

To the bolded, you keep saying that, but it wasn't true of Polian in later years. Polian almost exclusively relied on the draft, doing very little in free agency and virtually nothing by way of trade. And that's fine when you're drafting is top notch. Might be frustrating to your fans, but when you're paying your own free agents top dollar (Manning, Freeney, Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Brackett, Sanders, Hayden, etc.), it makes sense.

 

Problem is, Polian's drafting began to be a problem, and the roster started to suffer from attrition. (I'll leave the Chris Polian issue out of it for now; it's unclear where Bill stopped and Chris started.) When guys like Tarik Glenn, Jake Scott, Booger McFarland, Ryan Lilja, Corey Simon, Montae Reagor, etc., started to leave or get injured, we didn't have quality replacements for them. Polian had drafted guys like Vincent Burns, Dylan Gandy, Robert Hunt, Michael Toudouze, Tony Ugoh (in a trade up, wound up being a terrible move), Quinn Pitcock (infamously quit before his second training camp, not Polian's fault, but it still contributed to the wearing down of the roster in the trenches), Mike Pollak, Steve Justice, Jamey Richard, Terrance Taylor (fourth round pick that never played a down in the regular season, for the Colts or anyone else), Jacques McClendon, and so on. That's from 2005-2010.

 

Now there are a lot of good picks in there as well; I'm not one who believes that Polian's drafting was absolutely terrible, nor am I one who thinks it's fair to go back with the benefit of hindsight and point out how we could have drafted Nick Kaczur instead of Vincent Burns, or Paul Soliai instead of Quinn Pitcock. The draft is an inexact science.

 

But, the point remains, the majority of Polian's picks along the offensive and defensive lines simply did not work out, and that's over the course of several years.

 

What other GMs do when their drafting falters and they have holes in critical spots -- including those that prefer to build through the draft -- is supplement their drafting with some smart free agent moves. Not always splashy signings, but they'll grab a second tier guy here, and third tier guy there. They'll swing a trade or two. Polian didn't do very much of that. (Why do you think this board goes nuts when we trade a fourth string lineman for a fullback?) Polian signed undrafted and undersized guys like Eric Foster to play defensive tackle. When Bob Sanders got hurt and couldn't stay healthy, we just stuck undrafted free agent Melvin Bullitt in there for two years. And when he got hurt, we stuck Aaron Francisco in there, and then we replaced him with undrafted free agents David Caldwell and Joe Lefeged. Thankfully we had Pat Angerer to take Brackett's place, but Polian had already tied himself to Brackett with a $10m signing bonus (which many of us protested at the time). Kelvin Hayden was also severely overpaid.

 

On top of that, several years in a row, we got little to nothing out of our first round picks. Some of this was due to injury (Gonzalez), but a lot of it was due to bad picks (Brown, Hughes, trading for Ugoh).

 

We can argue about the merits of Polian's moves all day long; like I said, I'm not calling him a bad GM. A lot of this wasn't his fault: injuries, retirements, losing players to free agency, the coaches' preference for smaller guys on the offensive and defensive lines, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that the roster began to deteriorate, in particular in the trenches.

 

What I DO blame Polian (or whoever was making the personnel decisions) for is allowing this to go on for so long without changing course. We had several roster management issues that contributed to this problem, and it got to the point that we were starting guys like Jeff Linkenbach and Kyle DeVan, and arguing whether unimpressive guys like Mike Pollak would be any better. I also blame Polian and Irsay equally for the way they allowed Jim Caldwell to succeed Tony Dungy. That's not the right way to hire a head coach.

 

Either way, the point is not that Polian had suddenly lost his ability to build a team. I'm not arguing that he was a bad GM. I'm not saying it's entirely his fault that we were suddenly a 2-14 team. He couldn't help what happened with Peyton Manning. But 2011 exposed the faults in the Colts system, from roster depth to coaching, and everything in between. The deficiencies on both lines and in the secondary were suddenly front and center; the coaching staff's inability to adjust to new circumstances was highlighted; the dearth of talent throughout the roster couldn't be denied. And that's on Bill Polian. Classically great GM, but viewed objectively, his last five years with the Colts weren't impressive. It all came to a head in 2011.

I did read all of this and appreciate you taking the time to put that all together. Like I siad, I didn't say the guy was perfect and I do know that a QB like Manning or any elite QB covers many mistakes from GM moves to poor coaching to poor player performances.

 

I do agree that everything came to a head in 2011. I just don't believe the impetus behind his firing was the 2-14 season but the fact that Manning had his neck fused and the team was going to select Andrew Luck. Do you disagree with this? Do you think Polian still would have been fired if a healthly Peyton Manning returned in 2012 and Luck was not available?

[amfootball]

so collins might be used more as a OLB then? What i see with that personnell..is flexibility which is something Bellichikc likes i guess

I think he will be more like McGinest or even Vrabel. He will stick his hand in the dirt and rush from the edge but he can play coverage too so yeah much more flexibility in terms of covering TEs and RBs in the flat. I am interested to see what this does for Jones. He looked like a beast last year before his ankle injury. Hopefully this means less double teams for him and more sacks/pressures.

[Mameluc]

I think he will be more like McGinest or even Vrabel. He will stick his hand in the dirt and rush from the edge but he can play coverage too so yeah much more flexibility in terms of covering TEs and RBs in the flat. I am interested to see what this does for Jones. He looked like a beast last year before his ankle injury. Hopefully this means less double teams for him and more sacks/pressures.

you also have personnell to blitz like crazy...all LB on the team can blitz and be effective IMO.

[amfootball]

you also have personnell to blitz like crazy...all LB on the team can blitz and be effective IMO.

I hope so. The pass rush has been non-existent since Seymour left...

[Superman]

I did read all of this and appreciate you taking the time to put that all together. Like I siad, I didn't say the guy was perfect and I do know that a QB like Manning or any elite QB covers many mistakes from GM moves to poor coaching to poor player performances.

 

I do agree that everything came to a head in 2011. I just don't believe the impetus behind his firing was the 2-14 season but the fact that Manning had his neck fused and the team was going to select Andrew Luck. Do you disagree with this? Do you think Polian still would have been fired if a healthly Peyton Manning returned in 2012 and Luck was not available?

 

I disagree, vehemently. I don't understand what makes you think Irsay would have kept Polian beyond 2011, even if Manning was fully healthy by the time the season ended, even if Luck had stayed at Stanford. Polian was gone, specifically because his job performance hadn't been satisfactory. Good GM, great resume, but he had been slipping already, and then we started 0-13.

 

If the team had won five or six games, that would have been a tremendous accomplishment. There would have been credit due to the coaching staff, and it would have highlighted some of the roster strengths beyond quarterback. Independent of whether we would have released Manning and traded up for a top two pick, a case could be made for keeping Caldwell and Polian under those circumstances.

 

Polian made a comment toward the end of that season about Jim Caldwell's job security, basically suggesting that the only way Caldwell would be fired would be if the team went 0-16. I believe this was right before we finally won a game. If this great purge was already going to happen, it hadn't been shared with Polian or Caldwell to that point.

 

I understand that a clean slate might make sense, but you've spent a lot of time in this thread talking about how good of a GM Bill Polian was, and how great his resume is. I somewhat agree with that stance. But I can't reconcile that with the idea that Irsay would get rid of a good GM just because he wanted to move on to a new quarterback.

 

I think it comes down to two things: 1) Polian's performance as GM had begun to falter, resulting in a roster that had big problems (and whether this is him or his son, they were obviously a package deal at this point); and 2) Polian's personality had sucked the air out of the building, to the point that Irsay needed to basically take his team back. That meant getting rid of Polian and his son. Aside from the Manning decision, firing Polian is probably the most difficult football-specific decision Irsay ever had to make. And I give him tremendous credit for making it.

[dw49]

I did read all of this and appreciate you taking the time to put that all together. Like I siad, I didn't say the guy was perfect and I do know that a QB like Manning or any elite QB covers many mistakes from GM moves to poor coaching to poor player performances.

 

I do agree that everything came to a head in 2011. I just don't believe the impetus behind his firing was the 2-14 season but the fact that Manning had his neck fused and the team was going to select Andrew Luck. Do you disagree with this? Do you think Polian still would have been fired if a healthly Peyton Manning returned in 2012 and Luck was not available?

 

 

Let me take this one. Polian was fired because the roster was a mess and his son Chris was destroying the inner workings of the club. There was almost zero young talent due to 5 to 6  consecutive bad drafts. Also add in the total disaster (man of steel mentions this) he made of the O line. He lets the 2 guards walk and totally wiffs on about 6-7 draft picks. The jury is still out on his last two guys taken in rounds 1 and 2 of his last draft. You ask if Manning returned in 2012 , would Polian have been fired ? This is a legitimate question . I'm assuming you mean there was no Luck or RG3 to draft and the smart thing would have been for Irsay to keep Manning ? I don't really know. My opinion would have been that considering the state of the roster and the "Chris factor" , he probably should have been fired. However I don't disagree that you have a valid point and drafting Luck meant it was a no brainer to rebuild and it certainly made it easier to release Polian.

[amfootball]

I disagree, vehemently. I don't understand what makes you think Irsay would have kept Polian beyond 2011, even if Manning was fully healthy by the time the season ended, even if Luck had stayed at Stanford. Polian was gone, specifically because his job performance hadn't been satisfactory. Good GM, great resume, but he had been slipping already, and then we started 0-13.

 

If the team had won five or six games, that would have been a tremendous accomplishment. There would have been credit due to the coaching staff, and it would have highlighted some of the roster strengths beyond quarterback. Independent of whether we would have released Manning and traded up for a top two pick, a case could be made for keeping Caldwell and Polian under those circumstances.

 

Polian made a comment toward the end of that season about Jim Caldwell's job security, basically suggesting that the only way Caldwell would be fired would be if the team went 0-16. I believe this was right before we finally won a game. If this great purge was already going to happen, it hadn't been shared with Polian or Caldwell to that point.

 

I understand that a clean slate might make sense, but you've spent a lot of time in this thread talking about how good of a GM Bill Polian was, and how great his resume is. I somewhat agree with that stance. But I can't reconcile that with the idea that Irsay would get rid of a good GM just because he wanted to move on to a new quarterback.

 

I think it comes down to two things: 1) Polian's performance as GM had begun to falter, resulting in a roster that had big problems (and whether this is him or his son, they were obviously a package deal at this point); and 2) Polian's personality had sucked the air out of the building, to the point that Irsay needed to basically take his team back. That meant getting rid of Polian and his son. Aside from the Manning decision, firing Polian is probably the most difficult football-specific decision Irsay ever had to make. And I give him tremendous credit for making it.

I think the 2-14 season gave Irsay the justification for firing Polian. If there was no Luck or RG and Manning was back, I truly believe Polian would have been back. It is a hypothetical I realize but it was not like the Colts did not have tough years before with Manning at the helm. Remember the Mora tenure?

 

I also think he would have hard a tough time getting Manning to buy in to the firing.

 

By acquiring Luck, clean slate, more easily justifiable to the fans and players. Just my opinion.

[Superman]

I think the 2-14 season gave Irsay the justification for firing Polian. If there was no Luck or RG and Manning was back, I truly believe Polian would have been back. It is a hypothetical I realize but it was not like the Colts did not have tough years before with Manning at the helm. Remember the Mora tenure?

 

I also think he would have hard a tough time getting Manning to buy in to the firing.

 

By acquiring Luck, clean slate, more easily justifiable to the fans and players. Just my opinion.

 

I can agree with the comment that 2-14 gives Irsay justification to fire Polian, but that's why I believe Polian's firing is the trump card in the "tanking" argument. Either way, nothing happens in a vacuum. We can doctor hypotheticals six ways to Sunday, but 2011 happened, and now Polian is at ESPN. :shrug:

 

There's no comparing the early Manning years with 2011. The Colts weren't contenders back in 2001 when Mora was fired (for a 6-10 season, by the way). Polian was really just getting started. Manning wasn't an MVP caliber quarterback yet. I remember having an argument with a Raider fan about whether Manning was better than Rich Gannon, and the answer at that point was still "no, he's not." We brought Dungy in, Manning continued to develop, Reggie Wayne and Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis came along, and now we're winning 12 games every year for seven seasons, 10 wins every year for 9 seasons. You come off of that to a dumpster fire of a season, and heads have to roll.

 

As for getting Manning to buy in to the firing, Irsay wasn't accountable to Peyton Manning. I respect the heck out of Manning, he's my favorite NFL player of all time, and I think it would be good form for Irsay to sit Manning down and explain to him why Polian was gone, but he wouldn't have been obligated to do even that. If Manning was going to stay, and he had a hard time with Polian being shown the door, tough. He'd have gotten over it eventually. He's a big boy, and this is a big boy business.

[amfootball]

I can agree with the comment that 2-14 gives Irsay justification to fire Polian, but that's why I believe Polian's firing is the trump card in the "tanking" argument. Either way, nothing happens in a vacuum. We can doctor hypotheticals six ways to Sunday, but 2011 happened, and now Polian is at ESPN. :shrug:

 

There's no comparing the early Manning years with 2011. The Colts weren't contenders back in 2001 when Mora was fired (for a 6-10 season, by the way). Polian was really just getting started. Manning wasn't an MVP caliber quarterback yet. I remember having an argument with a Raider fan about whether Manning was better than Rich Gannon, and the answer at that point was still "no, he's not." We brought Dungy in, Manning continued to develop, Reggie Wayne and Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis came along, and now we're winning 12 games every year for seven seasons, 10 wins every year for 9 seasons. You come off of that to a dumpster fire of a season, and heads have to roll.

 

As for getting Manning to buy in to the firing, Irsay wasn't accountable to Peyton Manning. I respect the heck out of Manning, he's my favorite NFL player of all time, and I think it would be good form for Irsay to sit Manning down and explain to him why Polian was gone, but he wouldn't have been obligated to do even that. If Manning was going to stay, and he had a hard time with Polian being shown the door, tough. He'd have gotten over it eventually. He's a big boy, and this is a big boy business.

Whose to say Polian would have stayed anyways? I just dont' buy that he and Irsay were not discussing the possibility of Luck/RG when they saw how bad the team was and that it could not win a game until week 15. Football is a business and it is a business of winning. With Manning sitting there with a fused neck and Luck/RG in the wings, they would be the dumbest org on earth to not have done everything possible to get Luck. You are talking 10-15 years of continued excellence. Who knows, Polian could have told Irsay he was done anyways and was going to go into TV.

 

As I have stated before, I think tanking the season was a good move, in fact, a great move. Luck was worth it and the season was lost anyways. Why try to win 5,6, 7 games when you can get Luck? If Polian was declining as much as you say then he would have been fired regardless whether the Colts won 2 games that year or 6.

 

I am not sure why it bothers you so much to even entertain the idea. It is akin to the Packers letting the Broncos score the TD late in the SB in 1998 so they would have enough time to try to answer. Normally a defense never condedes points but in that case it was worth it to lay down to try to win the game. Same thing here. Lay down and get the best prospect since Elway. Makes perfect sense to me and I don't think it casts the Colts in a bad light, I think it does just the opposite in fact.

[-JJ-]

 winning 12 games every year for seven seasons, 10 wins every year for 9 seasons. You come off of that to a dumpster fire of a season, and heads have to roll.

 

 

Actually in the end that's what it comes down to most of the time. Or as the old saying goes you can't fire the players so you fire the coach/FO.  Heads simply have to role........ and it was an era end anyway.

[shecolt]

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?

 

I never said that Kravitz lied and I agree that he was giving his opinion.  However, you seemed to be putting more credence into his words merely because he was a beat writer for the Colts when you posted that even Kravitz said that the Colts were tanking. 

 

My reference to John Tomase was meant to show that just because a beat writer believes/thinks that something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.  As a Patriot fan especially, I would think that you would agree with that. 

 

I do need to ask; when you have posted that Kravitz and others have said that they think the Colts were tanking, do you view that as proof that the Colts were, in fact, tanking?

 

No, when a team loses 62-7, it is not easy for me to tell that a team is tanking.  I happen to believe that professional athletes (or, at least the majority of them) take pride in their performance and I find the thought that a team would willing tank a game to the humilating score of 62-7 to be absurd. 

 

The Colts did not loss that game merely because Painter was the QB.  He was not playing defense when Brees had 31 out of 35 complete passes or when the Saints set a team record of 36 first downs. 

 

Granted, the ineptness of the offense with Painter as the QB led to the defense being on the field far too long.  But, that defense couldn't stop the Saints from the get go leading to the Saints scoring 21 of those 62 points in the very first quarter. 

 

That game was a total collapse on the part of the Colts in all aspects of the game.  And, I do think that some or many of the players may likely have reached a point where they did actually give up and just wanted nothing more than to get the heck out New Orleans . . . not because they were tanking, but because they were beaten down and humiliated. 

 

And, even if each and every player bought into the plan to tank that game; I can't believe that they would do so in such an embarrassing fashion because, again, I think they take pride in their performance. 

[shecolt]

I said great not perfect. Perhaps Painter was there because Manning had not missed a game his whole career up to that point. His neck injury surfaced somewhat out of the blue and when the procedure he had done in May did not work than he was forced to get his neck fused at the start of the season. That is a tough hand for any GM.

 

Like I said before, Belichick has not drafted a quality WR or CB in years that does not mean he is not a great GM. You can't hit everytime and the draft is only 1/3 of how you build a team. There is FA, undrafted players and trades. And the draft is by far the most uncertain of all. The percentages of busts vs. quality starters is quite large especially at QB...that is why you tank to get Luck.

 

I still maintain that if Manning had an injury that he would have healed from and been healthy in 2012, Polian is still there even with the team going 2-14 in Manning's absence. He was let go precisely because the team was moving on from Manning to Luck...

 

I'm curious.  Are you saying that you think Belichick is a great GM?

[amfootball]

I never said that Kravitz lied and I agree that he was giving his opinion.  However, you seemed to be putting more credence into his words merely because he was a beat writer for the Colts when you posted that even Kravitz said that the Colts were tanking. 

 

My reference to John Tomase was meant to show that just because a beat writer believes/thinks that something is true, that doesn't mean that it is true.  As a Patriot fan especially, I would think that you would agree with that. 

 

I do need to ask; when you have posted that Kravitz and others have said that they think the Colts were tanking, do you view that as proof that the Colts were, in fact, tanking?

 

No, when a team loses 62-7, it is not easy for me to tell that a team is tanking.  I happen to believe that professional athletes (or, at least the majority of them) take pride in their performance and I find the thought that a team would willing tank a game to the humilating score of 62-7 to be absurd. 

 

The Colts did not loss that game merely because Painter was the QB.  He was not playing defense when Brees had 31 out of 35 complete passes or when the Saints set a team record of 36 first downs. 

 

Granted, the ineptness of the offense with Painter as the QB led to the defense being on the field far too long.  But, that defense couldn't stop the Saints from the get go leading to the Saints scoring 21 of those 62 points in the very first quarter. 

 

That game was a total collapse on the part of the Colts in all aspects of the game.  And, I do think that some or many of the players may likely have reached a point where they did actually give up and just wanted nothing more than to get the heck out New Orleans . . . not because they were tanking, but because they were beaten down and humiliated. 

 

And, even if each and every player bought into the plan to tank that game; I can't believe that they would do so in such an embarrassing fashion because, again, I think they take pride in their performance. 

 

I think you have to put more credence behind a statement made by the team’s beat reporter especially when he is giving his opinion on the team’s performance.

 

Your comparison to Tomase is a poor one. Tomase was reporting on a story related to the Pats taping the Rams walkthrough prior to SB 36. He said he got the story from a friend of a friend of a friend. When the story was proved to be a complete fabrication, hearsay if you will, he printed the following apology to the Boston Herald which they ran on their back page, http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2008/05/tomase%E2%80%99s_explanation

Kraft was threatening a lawsuit for defamation until the Herald posted its apology.

 

Tomase was trying to make a name for himself as a small two-bit reporter for the Herald which is basically a tabloid. The lowly step child to the Boston Globe. He is not in the same league as Kravitz. I get that you guys don’t like Kravitz but I would compare that more to the way we feel about Dan Shaughnessy, the writer for the Globe. He can be the same way but honestly if it were the Pats in 2011 and not the Colts and Shaughnessy said it looked to him like the Pats were tanking than I would put stock behind it even though I don’t like the guy. BTW, I do have to admit this about Dan. He is a tremendous writer. He is pithy, clever, and has a tremendous sense of history. Ok, enough of that.  

 

When I watched the Saints game, I saw a team completely give up in the first quarter. I mean Brees mine as well been throwing 7 on 7 drills. That is how wide open his WRs were all game.

 

As I have stated previously, the decision to put Painter in and keep him there until you played the Pats late in the season is the biggest indicator to me that the team was tanking as well as its performance on the field.

[amfootball]

I'm curious.  Are you saying that you think Belichick is a great GM?

These are my thoughts on Bill Belichick. He was hired as both GM and coach of the Pats in 2000 but until 2009, he split many of the duties normally held by a general manager on other clubs with player personnel director Scott Pioli, though Belichick had the final say on football matters. As you know, Pioli left for the Kansas City Chiefs after the 2009 season.

 

So to be fair, I am not sure how much credit to give Bill for the champ years as Scott was helping him a lot with player personnel decisions. What is interesting to me is that I think the Pats have had their best drafts since Pioli left getting Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, McCourty, Jermaine Cunningham, Brandon Spikes, Zoltan Mesko, Nate Solder, Chandler Jones, Donte Hightower.

 

But here is the rub. I think at times Belichick the coach covers for Belichick the GM. Even when he misses on personnel decisions, he is able to coach around it because he is that good at understanding football and his schemes are just plain amazing from game to game. He is a game specific coach so he will exploit your every weakness while at the same time playing to his strengths.

 

Honestly, the only area I can really nitpick is his moves in the secondary. Since Samuels left, he has not been able to find quality CBs or safeties that can seem to stay healthy. I wish he would make nice with Mangini and bring him back as the secondary has never been the same since Eric left. He has also had issues at WR but I can give a bit of a pass there because the offense is just so complex that it is hard to find guys at that position. And I will blame Brady a bit here too as he sometimes loses faith in a WR fast and will stop going to him.

 

I think what makes Belichick great as a GM is the fact that he knows what he does not know. He has surrounded himself with brilliant football minds. I think he learned that from Parcells. For all the talk of him being so arrogant and self-controlling, if you read Michael Holly’s book “Patriot Reign” (one of the best books on football you will ever read) you will walk away with a very different idea of Bill.

 

So anyway, that is my summation. I think Bill is a great GM but like everyone else he swings and misses but his misses are not as glaring because his coaching is so superb and he has a superstar QB in Brady.

[Superman]

Actually in the end that's what it comes down to most of the time. Or as the old saying goes you can't fire the players so you fire the coach/FO. Heads simply have to role........ and it was an era end anyway.

But they fired a lot of players too. Manning, Addai, Clark, Brackett, Bullitt, plus about 25 other guys from the 2011 season who got adiosed in one way or another. Aside from Manning, Grigson made all of those decisions, and I agreed with most of them. That's not the kind of house cleaning that Polian would have been eager to perform.

[shecolt]

I think you have to put more credence behind a statement made by the team’s beat reporter especially when he is giving his opinion on the team’s performance.

 

Your comparison to Tomase is a poor one. Tomase was reporting on a story related to the Pats taping the Rams walkthrough prior to SB 36. He said he got the story from a friend of a friend of a friend. When the story was proved to be a complete fabrication, hearsay if you will, he printed the following apology to the Boston Herald which they ran on their back page, http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2008/05/tomase%E2%80%99s_explanation

Kraft was threatening a lawsuit for defamation until the Herald posted its apology.

 

Tomase was trying to make a name for himself as a small two-bit reporter for the Herald which is basically a tabloid. The lowly step child to the Boston Globe. He is not in the same league as Kravitz. I get that you guys don’t like Kravitz but I would compare that more to the way we feel about Dan Shaughnessy, the writer for the Globe. He can be the same way but honestly if it were the Pats in 2011 and not the Colts and Shaughnessy said it looked to him like the Pats were tanking than I would put stock behind it even though I don’t like the guy. BTW, I do have to admit this about Dan. He is a tremendous writer. He is pithy, clever, and has a tremendous sense of history. Ok, enough of that.  

 

When I watched the Saints game, I saw a team completely give up in the first quarter. I mean Brees mine as well been throwing 7 on 7 drills. That is how wide open his WRs were all game.

 

As I have stated previously, the decision to put Painter in and keep him there until you played the Pats late in the season is the biggest indicator to me that the team was tanking as well as its performance on the field.

 

You have missed my point which was merely that the opinion of any beat writer, be he/she highly respected by you or not,  does not mean that his/her opinion is a fact. 

 

Also, you never answered my question.  Or, if you did; it was lost on me.  So, I will ask again:

 

Do you view the words of Kravitz and others who said that they thought the Colts were tanking as proof that the Colts were, in fact, tanking?

 

As far as the Saint's game, I view giving up to be different than tanking.  There have been numerous times in my life where I have set out to accomplish something; but at some point I have realized that the odds of my having success are stacked against me.  So, I finally admit defeat and give up.  But, I have never entered into anything with the intention of tanking except for when I do something like play a game of "go fish" with a child.

 

I have said that I think some or many of the players most likely gave up at some point during that game.  But, I find it hard to believe that Painter, Addai, Wayne, Mathis, Freeney, etc, etc, entered that game or any game with the intentions of tanking it. 

 

I'm also curious as to what your theory is on why the Colts went on to win a second game if they were tanking in an effort to draft Luck.  The team had already avoided the stigma of a winless season when they defeated the Titans.  So, what was their motive to win another game that very well could have jeopardized the reason for tanking in the first place?

[shecolt]

These are my thoughts on Bill Belichick. He was hired as both GM and coach of the Pats in 2000 but until 2009, he split many of the duties normally held by a general manager on other clubs with player personnel director Scott Pioli, though Belichick had the final say on football matters. As you know, Pioli left for the Kansas City Chiefs after the 2009 season.

 

So to be fair, I am not sure how much credit to give Bill for the champ years as Scott was helping him a lot with player personnel decisions. What is interesting to me is that I think the Pats have had their best drafts since Pioli left getting Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, McCourty, Jermaine Cunningham, Brandon Spikes, Zoltan Mesko, Nate Solder, Chandler Jones, Donte Hightower.

 

But here is the rub. I think at times Belichick the coach covers for Belichick the GM. Even when he misses on personnel decisions, he is able to coach around it because he is that good at understanding football and his schemes are just plain amazing from game to game. He is a game specific coach so he will exploit your every weakness while at the same time playing to his strengths.

 

Honestly, the only area I can really nitpick is his moves in the secondary. Since Samuels left, he has not been able to find quality CBs or safeties that can seem to stay healthy. I wish he would make nice with Mangini and bring him back as the secondary has never been the same since Eric left. He has also had issues at WR but I can give a bit of a pass there because the offense is just so complex that it is hard to find guys at that position. And I will blame Brady a bit here too as he sometimes loses faith in a WR fast and will stop going to him.

 

I think what makes Belichick great as a GM is the fact that he knows what he does not know. He has surrounded himself with brilliant football minds. I think he learned that from Parcells. For all the talk of him being so arrogant and self-controlling, if you read Michael Holly’s book “Patriot Reign” (one of the best books on football you will ever read) you will walk away with a very different idea of Bill.

 

So anyway, that is my summation. I think Bill is a great GM but like everyone else he swings and misses but his misses are not as glaring because his coaching is so superb and he has a superstar QB in Brady.

 

Thank you for your very thorough reply.  However, I am confused because just a few months ago you said that Belichick was a below average GM. 

 

It is quite a stretch to go from below average to great in such a short period.  So, what exactly has Bill done in this short time span to make you change your opinion of him as a GM?

[amfootball]

You have missed my point which was merely that the opinion of any beat writer, be he/she highly respected by you or not,  does not mean that his/her opinion is a fact. 

 

Also, you never answered my question.  Or, if you did; it was lost on me.  So, I will ask again:

 

Do you view the words of Kravitz and others who said that they thought the Colts were tanking as proof that the Colts were, in fact, tanking?

 

As far as the Saint's game, I view giving up to be different than tanking.  There have been numerous times in my life where I have set out to accomplish something; but at some point I have realized that the odds of my having success are stacked against me.  So, I finally admit defeat and give up.  But, I have never entered into anything with the intention of tanking except for when I do something like play a game of "go fish" with a child.

 

I have said that I think some or many of the players most likely gave up at some point during that game.  But, I find it hard to believe that Painter, Addai, Wayne, Mathis, Freeney, etc, etc, entered that game or any game with the intentions of tanking it. 

 

I'm also curious as to what your theory is on why the Colts went on to win a second game if they were tanking in an effort to draft Luck.  The team had already avoided the stigma of a winless season when they defeated the Titans.  So, what was their motive to win another game that very well could have jeopardized the reason for tanking in the first place?

If it is an opinion by Kravitz or anyone else how can it can be fact? Like I said before, unless Irsay came out and said he tanked the season which he never would even if he did then what we are left with is opinion either way based on the season.

 

I put a lot of weight behind Kravitz because he is the beat guy and knows the team better than me or you. So yes, I give his opinion a lot of weight in the matter.

 

At 0-13 the work was already done. Neither the Rams or Vikes would have taken Luck as evidenced by the Vikes trading out to the Skins so they could get RG. The big game was the last game in terms of securing their position as the last place team and they did not win that one.

 

Like I said before, there is no way an org as smart as the Colts lets the best draft pick since Elway slip through their hands to “try” to win a few games in a lost season with Manning on the sidelines with a fused neck. I give them more credit than that for being smart and savvy and knowing the next decade of Colts football was at stake.

[amfootball]

Thank you for your very thorough reply.  However, I am confused because just a few months ago you said that Belichick was a below average GM. 

 

It is quite a stretch to go from below average to great in such a short period.  So, what exactly has Bill done in this short time span to make you change your opinion of him as a GM?

You are welcome. I don't recall the comment or the context. I am not denying I said it as I do think he has been below average when it has come to drafting DBs and WRs. I also think he has let some players go that he should not have, i.e. Branch, Samuels. But like I said, more often than not he puts the right guys out their for his scheme. And that really is the key with him. I am not sure if another football coach could come onto the Pats this year and have much success because Bill assembles his team so specific to his coaching style. I suppose that is the benefit of having the GM also be the coach.

 

History will show Belichick I think as a great GM and but perhaps moreso as the greatest coach of all time. His coaching is what he will always be known for in people's minds. 

[dw49]

If it is an opinion by Kravitz or anyone else how can it can be fact? Like I said before, unless Irsay came out and said he tanked the season which he never would even if he did then what we are left with is opinion either way based on the season.

 

I put a lot of weight behind Kravitz because he is the beat guy and knows the team better than me or you. So yes, I give his opinion a lot of weight in the matter.

 

At 0-13 the work was already done. Neither the Rams or Vikes would have taken Luck as evidenced by the Vikes trading out to the Skins so they could get RG. The big game was the last game in terms of securing their position as the last place team and they did not win that one.

 

Like I said before, there is no way an org as smart as the Colts lets the best draft pick since Elway slip through their hands to “try” to win a few games in a lost season with Manning on the sidelines with a fused neck. I give them more credit than that for being smart and savvy and knowing the next decade of Colts football was at stake.

 

 

 

You need to get some help understanding the how that draft worked and would have probably happened before stating that "the Colt's work was already done at 0-13. Question , do you think before you post or are you really this far off reality ? Did you see what the Skins gave up for RG 3? Luck was considered the better prospect by most , so what would teams have been willing to give up for him to leap frog the Colts ? Also there is no evidence what so ever that the Vikings would not have drafted Luck. Unlike the Rams , who had millions tied up in Bradford ( I think around 55 million was guaranteed) , Ponder had a contract written after the new CBA. Furthermore the Vikings did not trade with the Redskins , it was the Rams that made that trade. Minn was sitting at 3 and had  choice between Kalil and Richardson. They ended up swapping spots with Cleveland at 4 , as the Browns wanted Trent Richardson.

[amfootball]

You need to get some help understanding the how that draft worked and would have probably happened before stating that "the Colt's work was already done at 0-13. Question , do you think before you post or are you really this far off reality ? Did you see what the Skins gave up for RG 3? Luck was considered the better prospect by most , so what would teams have been willing to give up for him to leap frog the Colts ? Also there is no evidence what so ever that the Vikings would not have drafted Luck. Unlike the Rams , who had millions tied up in Bradford ( I think around 55 million was guaranteed) , Ponder had a contract written after the new CBA. Furthermore the Vikings did not trade with the Redskins , it was the Rams that made that trade. Minn was sitting at 3 and had  choice between Kalil and Richardson. They ended up swapping spots with Cleveland at 4 , as the Browns wanted Trent Richardson.

This is why hypotheticals are ridiculous to even argue. Yes, I understand the draft very well. Ponder was the 12th pick overall so no the Vikes would not have drafted Luck unless they wanted to look like complete fools for taking Ponder as their franchise guy the season before. They would have gladly taken all the picks that would have come their way for Luck.

 

But the fact is this. The colts WERE the last place team in football. A position they all but secured after going 0-13.

[dw49]

This is why hypotheticals are ridiculous to even argue. Yes, I understand the draft very well. Ponder was the 12th pick overall so no the Vikes would not have drafted Luck unless they wanted to look like complete fools for taking Ponder as their franchise guy the season before. They would have gladly taken all the picks that would have come their way for Luck.

 

But the fact is this. The colts WERE the last place team in football. A position they all but secured after going 0-13.

 

 

 

So you think just your memory was bad ? You have trades that never happened , you have the Colts "locking up" the Luck pick after they were 0-13 which is not true. But whatever... I really have had enough.

[amfootball]

So you think just your memory was bad ? You have trades that never happened , you have the Colts "locking up" the Luck pick after they were 0-13 which is not true. But whatever... I really have had enough.

I meant to type Rams but typed Vikes by mistake. If you look through my posts on this topic I have been referencing the Vikes and Rams together as they were the teams the Colts were competing with for the last spot. Forgive my typing mistake or linguistic mis-step.

 

I see you had no retort to my position that the Vikes would not have taken Luck had they finished ahead of the Colts given they had drafted Ponder 12th overall the year before...I will take that has hypothetical argument won.

 

Are you saying losing your first 13 games does not all by lock up last place? Both the Vikes and Rams already had two wins by the time the Colts won their first game.

[dw49]

I meant to type Rams but typed Vikes by mistake. If you look through my posts on this topic I have been referencing the Vikes and Rams together as they were the teams the Colts were competing with for the last spot. Forgive my typing mistake or linguistic mis-step.

 

I see you had no retort to my position that the Vikes would not have taken Luck had they finished ahead of the Colts given they had drafted Ponder 12th overall the year before...I will take that has hypothetical argument won.

 

Are you saying losing your first 13 games does not all by lock up last place? Both the Vikes and Rams already had two wins by the time the Colts won their first game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that "i had no retort" , it's just a matter of really not wanting to bother with you anymore. But here ya go...

What i said was we have no evidence of what the Vikings would have done had they had the first pick. It would depend on how they viewed Luck and how they rated Ponder. If the Redskins were willing to give up the 6th pick , the 38th pick and the following two number 1 picks , it's quite possible the Vikings would have traded Ponder and drafted luck. So what they would be giving up is about 1/10 th of the value the skins gave up for RG3. It would just be the 10 pick minus the value they received for trading Ponder. If he's that good , he should bring at least something in the bottom of round one , so the Vikes would really be able to do this without a lot of problems. The signing bonus would be a cap hit but with the new CBA , not too bad.

 

You are not as ridiculous saying the Colts had Luck wrapped up at 0-13. They pretty much had to win out to lose the pick , although I'm not sure about strength of schedule between them and the Rams. As I remember , it was possible for the Colts to end up with a tougher schedule than the Rams but not the Vikes. So very unlikely they could have lost the no1 to the Vikes but there was , at least I think , a better chance of losing it to the Rams.

 

All in all you have been pretty lame in defending your position in this. Truth of the matter is probably Irsay wanted the No 1 pick very badly and didn't want to win enough games to lose it after the miserable start. But did he get together with his coaching staff and devise a plan to implement losing ? I doubt it. You certainly can't do things like you assert as the risk of them getting out year or two later would be too great. Things like the players quitting vs NO has nothing to do with sucking for Luck. Players often play for there jobs and future contracts. Proof of how stupid that would be is found in looking at the the roster then and now. Same could be said for Irsay , Polian and the coaching staff all agreeing to tank. Irsay... "good job guys" ... by the way.. you're all fired.

 

So you have your "retort" and you are the one that ducks issues not me.

[shecolt]

You are welcome. I don't recall the comment or the context. I am not denying I said it as I do think he has been below average when it has come to drafting DBs and WRs. I also think he has let some players go that he should not have, i.e. Branch, Samuels. But like I said, more often than not he puts the right guys out their for his scheme. And that really is the key with him. I am not sure if another football coach could come onto the Pats this year and have much success because Bill assembles his team so specific to his coaching style. I suppose that is the benefit of having the GM also be the coach.

 

History will show Belichick I think as a great GM and but perhaps moreso as the greatest coach of all time. His coaching is what he will always be known for in people's minds. 

 

It took me a while to find the post where you said that Belichick was a below average GM, but here it is:

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/15597-watched-super-bowl-39-patseagles-for-the-first-time/

 

1) winning the SB is hard you know, like I said they came within the flukiest catch of SB history of going perfect and were a Wes Welker drop from winning last year.

2) Belichick was not a victim of circumstances. He violated a league rule, accept the blame, apologized and accepted the penalty and has won the most games in the NFL since 2006 and been coach of the year TWICE - fact

3) He didn't win anything with the Browns because he had Vinnie Testaverde not Tom Brady. Incidentally, I don't believe Belichick is anymore than just a very good coach. Brady makes him look great. He is a below average GM.

4) I agree with points 5 and 6 but you must also acknowledge that pretty much every team pushes the rules and will cheat if they can get away it. Also remember that the signals the Pats taped are in full view of everyone so it is not the same thing as bounty gate or salary cap evasion. Still cheating though.

 

 

 

So, why have you changed from thinking that Belichick is just a very good coach and a below average GM to thinking that history will show that he is the greatest coach of all time and a great GM?

[amfootball]

Not that "i had no retort" , it's just a matter of really not wanting to bother with you anymore. But here ya go...

What i said was we have no evidence of what the Vikings would have done had they had the first pick. It would depend on how they viewed Luck and how they rated Ponder. If the Redskins were willing to give up the 6th pick , the 38th pick and the following two number 1 picks , it's quite possible the Vikings would have traded Ponder and drafted luck. So what they would be giving up is about 1/10 th of the value the skins gave up for RG3. It would just be the 10 pick minus the value they received for trading Ponder. If he's that good , he should bring at least something in the bottom of round one , so the Vikes would really be able to do this without a lot of problems. The signing bonus would be a cap hit but with the new CBA , not too bad.

 

You are not as ridiculous saying the Colts had Luck wrapped up at 0-13. They pretty much had to win out to lose the pick , although I'm not sure about strength of schedule between them and the Rams. As I remember , it was possible for the Colts to end up with a tougher schedule than the Rams but not the Vikes. So very unlikely they could have lost the no1 to the Vikes but there was , at least I think , a better chance of losing it to the Rams.

 

All in all you have been pretty lame in defending your position in this. Truth of the matter is probably Irsay wanted the No 1 pick very badly and didn't want to win enough games to lose it after the miserable start. But did he get together with his coaching staff and devise a plan to implement losing ? I doubt it. You certainly can't do things like you assert as the risk of them getting out year or two later would be too great. Things like the players quitting vs NO has nothing to do with sucking for Luck. Players often play for there jobs and future contracts. Proof of how stupid that would be is found in looking at the the roster then and now. Same could be said for Irsay , Polian and the coaching staff all agreeing to tank. Irsay... "good job guys" ... by the way.. you're all fired.

 

So you have your "retort" and you are the one that ducks issues not me.

You can always bother me. I enjoy your posts and responses. You obviously know your football which I appreciate.

 

In terms of Ponder, the Vikes “could” have done what you said but I would put it in the extremely unlikely category as they would look like fools for giving up on the #12 overall pick so soon. Ponder  had only played a handful games as rookie and looked pretty decent unlike last year where he just played awful but had AP to help him out. Plus, why would a team in position to get Luck want Ponder? Especially if the Vikes were willing to trade him after one season? They would obviously know that the Vikes thought he was a bust and would be less inclined to do the trade.

 

You can call my argument lame but really when you look at the season it is not as unlikely as you think. I agree about the players wanting to play but to assume Irasy and mgmt. did not exert influence over the games whether that be personnel moves or lack thereof or coaching to ensure defeat is not out of the realm of possibility.

[Gavin]

Let them have Collins, He is by far overrated almost as much as Ansah and as much or moreso then some here had Warford, He lacks strength and is very inconsistent with his tackling technique, he absolutely loves to dive at feet

 

 

 

 

[amfootball]

It took me a while to find the post where you said that Belichick was a below average GM, but here it is:

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/15597-watched-super-bowl-39-patseagles-for-the-first-time/

 

1) winning the SB is hard you know, like I said they came within the flukiest catch of SB history of going perfect and were a Wes Welker drop from winning last year.

2) Belichick was not a victim of circumstances. He violated a league rule, accept the blame, apologized and accepted the penalty and has won the most games in the NFL since 2006 and been coach of the year TWICE - fact

3) He didn't win anything with the Browns because he had Vinnie Testaverde not Tom Brady. Incidentally, I don't believe Belichick is anymore than just a very good coach. Brady makes him look great. He is a below average GM.

4) I agree with points 5 and 6 but you must also acknowledge that pretty much every team pushes the rules and will cheat if they can get away it. Also remember that the signals the Pats taped are in full view of everyone so it is not the same thing as bounty gate or salary cap evasion. Still cheating though.

 

 

 

So, why have you changed from thinking that Belichick is just a very good coach and a below average GM to thinking that history will show that he is the greatest coach of all time and a great GM?

Thank you for taking the time to find that post. That was quite a while ago and I do remember the jist of the discussion. At least I think I do.  

 

I was responding to another poster about Belichick and his football career. I believe the other poster was saying Belichick was already a great head coach previous to the Pats and I corrected him/her to say that Belichick was a great DC previous to the Pats but not a great HC as he had a below .500 record in Cleveland after six seasons as HC and only one playoff appearance. I also said that Belichick was not known as the “genius” until Brady arrived.

 

In terms of the GM comment, I think over the past few season, Belichick has been a below average GM as he has tried to rebuild the D and still has never replaced Moss. Given this, he has relied on Brady and the O to carry the team. That being said, it is difficult to rebuild a D and not have some misses. This is why I said that I think when all is said and done Belichick will go down as a great GM because of the sustained success of the Pats that is still going.

 

But as I said before, I am not sure how much credit to give Belichick as Pioli was helping him out a lot from 2000-2009 and one could also argue that he won his champ with Parcells guys as the core of the D and Troy Brown and Adam Vinateri were all selected by Parcells when he was HC of the Pats.

 

What can’t be argued is Bill’s coaching excellence. I have said this before but I don’t think the Pats teams from 2001-2005 were very good teams especially when you compare them to the other dynasty teams i.e. Steelers, Niners, Cowboys. Part of this is because of the salary cap/FA era where you just can’t build a powerhouse team anymore and retain that talent year after year.

 

Bill took a sixth round draft pick in Brady and helped turn him into the best player of his generation and in turn, Brady helped Bill become the genius. He also had no HoF players at the offensive skill positions during the champ years. I think that is remarkable and probably more a credit to Brady than Belichick but again Belichick was the one coaching.

 

I hope I am not confusing you. As you can probably tell, I have not really settled the issue in my own mind. I think once Brady retires and if Bill continues to be the GM/coach of the Pats, things will become more clear in terms of Bill’s greatness as a GM. That is why I said “I think” he will go done as a great GM. He may and most likely will go down as the greatest coach of all time.

 

Polian on the other hand, was a great GM well before Manning and the Colts. And that is where is this convo originated from.

[amfootball]

Let them have Collins, He is by far overrated almost as much as Ansah and as much or moreso then some here had Warford, He lacks strength and is very inconsistent with his tackling technique, he absolutely loves to dive at feet

 

 

 

 

He def. has some weaknesses. I think the Pats will use him more in coverage as that is a weakness on the team and to rush the passer on long yardage downs.

[dw49]

You can always bother me. I enjoy your posts and responses. You obviously know your football which I appreciate.

 

In terms of Ponder, the Vikes “could” have done what you said but I would put it in the extremely unlikely category as they would look like fools for giving up on the #12 overall pick so soon. Ponder  had only played a handful games as rookie and looked pretty decent unlike last year where he just played awful but had AP to help him out. Plus, why would a team in position to get Luck want Ponder? Especially if the Vikes were willing to trade him after one season? They would obviously know that the Vikes thought he was a bust and would be less inclined to do the trade.

 

You can call my argument lame but really when you look at the season it is not as unlikely as you think. I agree about the players wanting to play but to assume Irasy and mgmt. did not exert influence over the games whether that be personnel moves or lack thereof or coaching to ensure defeat is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

 

 

I was not saying the Vikes could possibly trade up to get Luck. I agree that the team with pick 1.1 would not want to take Ponder and Kalil or Richardson in exchange for Luck. Probably something else would be included , but not a likely trade. If you read what I wrote , I'm saying the Vikes could have opted to draft Luck if they finished the season with the no 1 pick. I think a few posts back you mentioned that the Rams and Vikes would not have drafted Luck if they ended up with 1.1. I went on to say that maybe Minn could get a late 1st rounder for Ponder , so in essence they would be losing about 3/4's of the 5.6 mill signing bonus fro Ponder plus the value between pick 1.10 in 2011 and what ever they received in trading him in 2012.

 

This would be a bit of an usual move and I agree with you that it may not have been likely but it really is a possibility as Luck was considered by some to be the best prospect since Elway. If Minn felt this way and were not in love with Ponder , it would be actually pretty stupid if they didn't make that move. I really don't think they would have been laughed at for doing that. Isn't Cleveland talking about moving away from Weedon already ? Not the same but I think it exhibits how teams will be willing to move quickly and drastically to improve their position at QB. Amazing to see how a possible great QB is valued. Miami paid Oakland a 2nd rounder to move up 9 spots from 12-3 in order to draft a pass rusher. Washington gave up their 2nd rounder plus two no 1's to move up just 4 spots from 6 to 2. 

[amfootball]

I was not saying the Vikes could possibly trade up to get Luck. I agree that the team with pick 1.1 would not want to take Ponder and Kalil or Richardson in exchange for Luck. Probably something else would be included , but not a likely trade. If you read what I wrote , I'm saying the Vikes could have opted to draft Luck if they finished the season with the no 1 pick. I think a few posts back you mentioned that the Rams and Vikes would not have drafted Luck if they ended up with 1.1. I went on to say that maybe Minn could get a late 1st rounder for Ponder , so in essence they would be losing about 3/4's of the 5.6 mill signing bonus fro Ponder plus the value between pick 1.10 in 2011 and what ever they received in trading him in 2012.

 

This would be a bit of an usual move and I agree with you that it may not have been likely but it really is a possibility as Luck was considered by some to be the best prospect since Elway. If Minn felt this way and were not in love with Ponder , it would be actually pretty stupid if they didn't make that move. I really don't think they would have been laughed at for doing that. Isn't Cleveland talking about moving away from Weedon already ? Not the same but I think it exhibits how teams will be willing to move quickly and drastically to improve their position at QB. Amazing to see how a possible great QB is valued. Miami paid Oakland a 2nd rounder to move up 9 spots from 12-3 in order to draft a pass rusher. Washington gave up their 2nd rounder plus two no 1's to move up just 4 spots from 6 to 2. 

It would have been interesting to see what the Vikes would have done if they finished with the first pick. They may have taken Luck but I think it would have been hard to move Ponder and get anything close to a number one back for him and the fans would have wondered what is up.

 

In terms of Cleveland, they have new mgmt now so they can more easily move away from Weeden with the caveat that he was not their guy.

 

I agree about the value of QBs which is why I have been praising the Colts for ensuring they got the first pick. I think you do everything possible to get a guy like Luck. If it were the Pats in the same situation, and they tried to win 4 or 5 games and missed out on Luck, I would have been really mad. I used to have a client who was a CEO of a networking company that he eventually sold to Intel. After the acquisition was complete he explained the deal this way, "It is easy to know when to change a losing hand but much more difficult to know when to change a winning hand." I think that is the position the Colts were in. They were trading in a very good hand in Manning/Polian for a better one with Luck/Grigson.

 

BTW, two random thoughts on the draft. I think the Giants drafted the QB from Syracuse with the idea that he will replace Eli if he continues to play as poorly as he did the second half of last season. I think Coughlin is getting fed up as two times he was on the hot seat because Eli is just so inconsistent. Of course those seasons they went on a magic carpet ride and won the SB.

 

I also think Tomlin is losing faith in Roethlisberger. His health is becoming a major issue and I get the sense that Ben and the OC do not like each other. At some point, the Steelers have to get a legit backup as they can't count on Ben for 16 games anymore. Would not be surprised to see them do something soon at QB position.