irsay claims the team is more balanced now

[Stephen]

I think they are thinking set up the defense and special teams before the big payday and we will be set.

[crazycolt1]

Funny , when Irsay dumps high priced veterans , he is a genius. When the Ravens do it, they are gutting their team. Anyway, it was an interesting read and Irsay may be onto something. The Colts definitely should have won more than one Super Bowls during the Manning years , as this was a top quarterback of a generation. Was it Irsay's, Polian , or Mannings fault, probably a combination of all three.

I don't really agree with you including Irsay in those years. Irsay hired Polian to do the job and really stayed out of the operations of the team. Irsays problem was not stepping in sooner when it was evident that the Polians were good at finding talent but were poor at managing the cap space. The general fan base threw a huge tantrum when Irsay made the changes with Manning and the release of veterans. In my opinion the Polian's jumped on Mannings back and road him into the ground. As time went on Polian's drafts were very poor. Polians tendency to ignore and outright chastise anyone who questioned his authority and judgement became an issue. Some called it old school but I called it being narrow minded and out of touch with todays players. As far as Manning being at fault how many playoff games were lost after Manning had a lead and or put the Colts in a position to win?  Lack of an average defense, special teams and running game played a huge part of those losses. No need to go into the details of that disfunction. After 14 years of Irsay sitting on the side I guess he finally figured out that Polian had to go. 

[crazycolt1]

The Ravens signed Joe Flacco , cut older players on defense, and brought in younger , better players. The Colts will soon have to sign Luck to a big contract , so it will be interesting to see if Grigson and Irsay can navigate these waters like Ozzie has. That being said , how come it took the Manning years to pass before Irsay came to this conclusion that you need balance ? Wanting balance, and getting it, are two different things.

Because Irsay drank the kool aid everyone was feeding him about Polian. 

[LockeDown]

Often times, domineering personalities, like Polian's and Parcells', tend to wear on people.  Parcells never stayed in one place for long, but Polian stayed a long time with the Colts.  It reached it's logical conclusion.  I still think Polian is one smart guy, but he didn't allow for much accountability.  I think Irsay will never let Grigson get that big......headed  

[The Old Crow]

I don't really agree with you including Irsay in those years. Irsay hired Polian to do the job and really stayed out of the operations of the team. Irsays problem was not stepping in sooner when it was evident that the Polians were good at finding talent but were poor at managing the cap space. The general fan base threw a huge tantrum when Irsay made the changes with Manning and the release of veterans. In my opinion the Polian's jumped on Mannings back and road him into the ground. As time went on Polian's drafts were very poor. Polians tendency to ignore and outright chastise anyone who questioned his authority and judgement became an issue. Some called it old school but I called it being narrow minded and out of touch with todays players. As far as Manning being at fault how many playoff games were lost after Manning had a lead and or put the Colts in a position to win?  Lack of an average defense, special teams and running game played a huge part of those losses. No need to go into the details of that disfunction. After 14 years of Irsay sitting on the side I guess he finally figured out that Polian had to go. 

 

C'mon guys, you can't give Irsay a complete pass and blame it all on Polian. I'm sure Jimmy stepped back a bit from his father's interference with the Baltimore Colts, but never believe an owner is not totally involved in the process. The owner sets the tone,  sets up his leadership team, and the front office, with himself in charge. I've heard Irsay say Polian wanted to trade Manning but he vetoed it. Well, was he involved, or not ? The reason Jim Irsay stepped back a bit, was because he was a failed General Manager. Had he succeeded more as a GM, he may have reigned in Polian more, but he didn't. When Jim Irsay was involved more in team operations, as his father was, the Colts more often than not, failed. 

 

If Jim Irsay should have stepped in sooner, why was he a failed General manager, and Polian a successful one in Buffalo and Indianapolis. I've heard from Colt's fans and understand he was pig-headed, nepotistic, and arrogant, and he also had bad drafts, but he also had great years with the Bills and Colts, including a 2006 Super Bowl victory. This was something that neither Bob Irsay or Jim Irsay were able to achieve until Polian came along. That being said, in all fairness, Jim Irsay deserves credit for hiring Polian, and duly gets credit for the success during the years 1998-2012. He also gets credit for grabbing Luck, and probably starting to rebuild at the right time after the 2-14 debacle. My point is, the owner is the boss, and the buck stops with him. I still blame Peter Angelos for the Orioles 14 horrible losing seasons they had, but I also give him credit for getting in Duquette and Showalter and turning things around. Staying out of operations, which I don't believe Jim Irsay ever did, doesn't give you a pass when your family owns the team. 

[crazycolt1]

Often times, domineering personalities, like Polian's and Parcells', tend to wear on people.  Parcells never stayed in one place for long, but Polian stayed a long time with the Colts.  It reached it's logical conclusion.  I still think Polian is one smart guy, but he didn't allow for much accountability.  I think Irsay will never let Grigson get that big......headed

Well said. From what Irsay said I think we will see him more involved and not let past mistakes be repeated. The Colts could not have stepped any deeper in cow poo and come out smelling like a rose as far as Luck is concerned. 

[The Old Crow]

How involved do you want Jim Irsay ? Do you want him involved as an owner like his father , or Jerry Jones? Do you want Jim's involvement like when he was GM and made picks and decisions that were worse than Polian's biggest gaffes ? Irsay and Polian were very successful together , which is why no changes were made. Irsay made the call when the time was right , and it was probably time to make that change. I wonder how many Colts fans would view Polian differently had they won in 2009?

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

We are more balanced on paper, but paper doesn't win games. I believe the defense will be better, but I have areas of concern, the inside backers & the pass rush outside of Mathis. Offense OL we will see. I do believe we will be more balanced looking forward to seeing how it all gels.

[crazycolt1]

C'mon guys, you can't give Irsay a complete pass and blame it all on Polian. I'm sure Jimmy stepped back a bit from his father's interference with the Baltimore Colts, but never believe an owner is not totally involved in the process. The owner sets the tone,  sets up his leadership team, and the front office, with himself in charge. I've heard Irsay say Polian wanted to trade Manning but he vetoed it. Well, was he involved, or not ? The reason Jim Irsay stepped back a bit, was because he was a failed General Manager. Had he succeeded more as a GM, he may have reigned in Polian more, but he didn't. When Jim Irsay was involved more in team operations, as his father was, the Colts more often than not, failed. 

 

If Jim Irsay should have stepped in sooner, why was he a failed General manager, and Polian a successful one in Buffalo and Indianapolis. I've heard from Colt's fans and understand he was pig-headed, nepotistic, and arrogant, and he also had bad drafts, but he also had great years with the Bills and Colts, including a 2006 Super Bowl victory. This was something that neither Bob Irsay or Jim Irsay were able to achieve until Polian came along. That being said, in all fairness, Jim Irsay deserves credit for hiring Polian, and duly gets credit for the success during the years 1998-2012. He also gets credit for grabbing Luck, and probably starting to rebuild at the right time after the 2-14 debacle. My point is, the owner is the boss, and the buck stops with him. I still blame Peter Angelos for the Orioles 14 horrible losing seasons they had, but I also give him credit for getting in Duquette and Showalter and turning things around. Staying out of operations, which I don't believe Jim Irsay ever did, doesn't give you a pass when your family owns the team. 

I don't disagree with all of your comment but is it really necessary to end your every comment about or related to a Baltimore team? After the bad blood and years of disrespect on both sides of the Colts it makes cordial debates uncomfortable. I look forward to your comments and opinions but everything Colts is not related to Baltimore and haven't been since 1984. All NFL teams have a never ending wave of ups and downs through time. Even legendary teams have dry spells with the way the draft is set up and the cap. There are few pro sports teams that can have a team go from last to first in one season like the NFL. Since the hard cap has been instigated pretty much any team is capable of winning a super bowl. ( I know that's debatable but the Saints and Bucs have a super bowl when at one time it was considered impossible) 

[The Old Crow]

I use Baltimore sports teams mainly , because that is my frame of reference. Many times I will point out Baltimore foibles so that you know I also criticize my home teams , as well as other teams. I never said any current Colts matters are related to Baltimore , although Jim Irsay has historic ties to both cities. The fact that the Irsay's chose to keep the logos and history , whether we all like it or not , binds the two cities. I used Angelo's as an example of a hands on owner. I will endeavor to use less Baltimore references so you will be less uncomfortable.

[Carlos Danger]

Absolutely insane how cheaply we got Luck due to the rookie wage scale...

There were a ton of gems in this article, but I think that the $$ is just as big a factor in the Colts lack of postseason success as anything else. It was mismanaged, but there was a much smaller margin of error when your rookies cost you 40 mil.+ to get into camp. If the rookie wage scale hadn't been fixed, Werner would have cost us more to sign this season (in the bottom 3rd of the 1st round) than Luck did last season under the newer restrictions.

 

This should not be construed as me letting the Polians and Irsay off the hook for building such a top heavy, unbalanced team (not that they weren't great teams, but you know what I mean). Every other team had to adhere to the salary cap as well...

 

I just can't get over how lucky the Colts were to go from Manning to Luck... the injury... the bad season that was barely worth the 1st pick... the perfect prospect... the rookie wage scale... the G.M. who knew how to surround him w/ talent efficiently... I can see how fans of other teams in the AFC South would want to hurl just thinking about it...

 

As much as Irsay can be blamed for the lack of Lombardies during the Manning era, he should be congratulated for bringing in the new regime and ushering in the 3rd Colts Renaissance... Regarding the new era.. I have a feeling that after all is said and done, the Colts will have fielded 3 of the 5 greatest QBs of all time... optimism included free of charge...

[The Old Crow]

Four if the father would have played hard ball with Elway.

[Ohio Colt]

Hope he's right. Personally, I think the days of a team having a dominant D are gone. Now you just want your D to hang in there and give your O more series. You don't have to be great, just good. The Ravens proved that last year.

In a way, a teams O is their best D. A high scoring O takes the pressue off the D and puts opposing teams in bad situations. I'm not saying a "built for the lead" D is the right answer though. i agree with Jim. Balance...balance...balance.

 

Completely agree with you SMonroe. The days of that NFL are gone. You are 100% correct

[GoColts8818]

Because Irsay drank the kool aid everyone was feeding him about Polian. 

As much as people don't like it that "Kool Aid" you speak of had the winningest team in a decade in the history of the NFL and won a Super Bowl in there and got back to another one in 2009.  It's not like Polian's teams were going 5-11 and then bouncing back at 10-6 to barely make it into the playoffs the following year followed up by a couple of more losing seasons.  While they might not have had as much post season success as we would have liked after his first year here the Colts were a legit contender to win the Super Bowl every year except for two maybe three over Polian's duration here.  2001, which resulted in a Head Coaching change, 2002, which was a bounce back year to make the playoffs but that team wasn't really a Super Bowl contender and then his final season here which resulted in him being fired. 

 

I know a lot Colts fans don't like Polian and that's fine but the lengths some go to on here to try to discredit any success he had is a bit over the top.  It's one thing to dislike someone because of his faults, and yes Polian had his faults, rather it be him being a jerk or his poor drafts towards the end that lead to his downfall, but it's another to let that dislike could your judgment of the guy.  I use this example all the time I can't stand Brady or BB but I am willing to admit as much as I might not like them they are one of the best QBs and Head Coaches in the history of the NFL.  As much as some here might not like Bill Polian there is no denying he was very good at his job for a very long time.  There is a reason Irsay didn't fire him for so long he was winning it wasn't just because Irsay was drinking some Kool Aid from Polian, Polian was doing exactly what Irsay asked him to do, build a winning football team.  In fact you could argue that Irsay was quick to fire Polian (and I am not saying Irsay made the wrong move) when you factor in it came after one losing season and only the third losing season in the 14 years Polian was here and the first one in ten years. 

[crazycolt1]

As much as people don't like it that "Kool Aid" you speak of had the winningest team in a decade in the history of the NFL and won a Super Bowl in there and got back to another one in 2009.  It's not like Polian's teams were going 5-11 and then bouncing back at 10-6 to barely make it into the playoffs the following year followed up by a couple of more losing seasons.  While they might not have had as much post season success as we would have liked after his first year here the Colts were a legit contender to win the Super Bowl every year except for two maybe three over Polian's duration here.  2001, which resulted in a Head Coaching change, 2002, which was a bounce back year to make the playoffs but that team wasn't really a Super Bowl contender and then his final season here which resulted in him being fired. 

 

I know a lot Colts fans don't like Polian and that's fine but the lengths some go to on here to try to discredit any success he had is a bit over the top.  It's one thing to dislike someone because of his faults, and yes Polian had his faults, rather it be him being a jerk or his poor drafts towards the end that lead to his downfall, but it's another to let that dislike could your judgment of the guy.  I use this example all the time I can't stand Brady or BB but I am willing to admit as much as I might not like them they are one of the best QBs and Head Coaches in the history of the NFL.  As much as some here might not like Bill Polian there is no denying he was very good at his job for a very long time.  There is a reason Irsay didn't fire him for so long he was winning it wasn't just because Irsay was drinking some Kool Aid from Polian, Polian was doing exactly what Irsay asked him to do, build a winning football team.  In fact you could argue that Irsay was quick to fire Polian (and I am not saying Irsay made the wrong move) when you factor in it came after one losing season and only the third losing season in the 14 years Polian was here and the first one in ten years. 

Your comments are highly debatable. Having all the regular season wins was fine but why? Playing in a very poor division played a part. Polian did bring wins but at what cost? Overpaying players with no concern on putting a balanced team on the field. Everything geared to run the offense with little regard to the defense and players for special teams. Even after a few seasons seeing the cover two was not working in the AFC because of teams like the Pats, Ravens and Chargers yet refusing to go big and stop the run. You bring up BB and the Pats? A lesson can be learned from them. Not to overpay and cut or trade players who are on their downside. Very few of the players that were traded for first and second round draft picks ever worked out for the teams who received them. Brady always had good defenses and special teams play around him. I strongly disagree with your comment about all those years being a legit contender for winning super bowls. Their record in the playoffs speak for themselves. Too bad it took the Cauldwell, Painter and Collins circus act to finally open Irsay's eyes and see the big picture. The sad part of the whole thing was most of the fan base was ready to run Irsay out of town or hang him from a tree over the changes that had to be made. This change should have happened long before Manning missed any games due to injury. I have a feeling that Irsay and Grigson will not repeat the mistakes that were made. Things are looking up and an exciting time is about to come. Very few teams stepped into a large pile of horse dung and come up smelling like roses like the Colts seem to have done. It's all good.

[GoColts8818]

Your comments are highly debatable. Having all the regular season wins was fine but why? Playing in a very poor division played a part. Polian did bring wins but at what cost? Overpaying players with no concern on putting a balanced team on the field. Everything geared to run the offense with little regard to the defense and players for special teams. Even after a few seasons seeing the cover two was not working in the AFC because of teams like the Pats, Ravens and Chargers yet refusing to go big and stop the run. You bring up BB and the Pats? A lesson can be learned from them. Not to overpay and cut or trade players who are on their downside. Very few of the players that were traded for first and second round draft picks ever worked out for the teams who received them. Brady always had good defenses and special teams play around him. I strongly disagree with your comment about all those years being a legit contender for winning super bowls. Their record in the playoffs speak for themselves. Too bad it took the Cauldwell, Painter and Collins circus act to finally open Irsay's and see the big picture. The sad part of the whole thing was most of the fan base was ready to run Irsay out of town or hang him from a tree over the changes that had to be made. This change should have happened long before Manning missed any games due to injury. 

The Colts did play in a weak division but so do the Pats do you see people trying to take away from their greatness from playing in a weak division?  No.  Also in a 16 game schedule you only play your division for six of those games.  The Colts won 12 or more games every year from 2003 till 2009 and also did it in 1999 as well as winning 10 or more in 2000, 2002, and 2010.  They didn't sweep the division in any of the later three (although 2000 is an odd ball year because they were still in the AFC East with five teams) so they got at least half their wins against other teams in the league including several who had pretty good records of their own.  It's not like they were winning 10 games a year with 8 of them coming in the division and only going 2-6 vs. the rest of the league.  So the division card doesn't hold much weight. 

 

Wins at what cost?  Have you seen the shape the Colts were in before that man got here?  Honestly you talk like they were the Yankees or something before he got here.  They were a total joke, maybe the biggest joke in pro-sports outside of maybe the Bucs or Clippers and even then they were close to being on their level.  They had an uptick with Jim Harbaugh's group right before Polian came in but even that team was a team that went 9-7 and got hot at the right time in the playoffs however that was nothing compared to what the Colts were after Polian got here so don't try to say at what cost because Polian introduced winning football to Indianapolis the likes that we had never seen before he got here. 

 

Again, the Colts were the winningest team in the history of the NFL over a 10 stretch.  They weren't some one shot wonder that came out of no where.  They won year in and year out.  You don't do that if your GM isn't good at his job.  I know, they didn't win as much as people would have liked in the playoffs.  Honestly, the playoffs are as much about match ups as anything else.  Most years the Colts got really bad match ups in the playoffs, namely the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 teams.  They all lost to one of the two teams in the league that in all likely hood that could have beat them in those playoffs.  The two teams that got good matchups in there from that 2003-2009 run both got to the Super Bowl.  The 2006 team clearly won it and the 2009 team just played a bad game against the Saints.  That wasn't Polian's fault the guys on the field just didn't get the job done. 

 

The Cover-2 worked very well against the Ravens, the Colts only lost to them twice under Polian, once the year after the Ravens won the Super Bowl and Polian's last year here.  Honestly the Ravens were one of the better teams in the league that the Colts matched up with.  As for the Pats their dominance over the Colts is a little exaggerated because they won so much over the Colts early in their rivalry.  The Pats and Colts rivalry really started in 2003 and lasted up through 2010.  The final record ended up being Pats 6 Colts 5 over that span with the Colts going 5-2 in the last seven meetings, meaning the Colts had figured out New England.  The Chargers had become the problem and hey sometimes you just don't match up well with someone.  You don't change EVERYTHING you are doing to beat one team.  You make tweaks to do it.  Look at the Pats teams that were winning Super Bowls in 2001, 2003, and 2004 they couldn't beat the Broncos to save their lives but they didn't change everything because of it.  Honestly, they got the fortune of having to play us in those playoffs rather than the Broncos a couple of those years or things might have turned out different.  Kinda like how in 2006 we got to play the Ravens a team we matched up with really well and the Pats a team we matched up well with rather than the say the Chargers a team we did not match up well with.  Samething happened in 2009.  A lot of the playoffs is just luck in terms of match ups. 

 

Also the Cover-2 is a coaching philosophy not something the GM brings in.  The Colts didn't run the cover-2 the whole time Polian was here.  Mora's teams ran a different defense.  Also Polian's teams in Carolina and Buffalo were not cover-2 teams.  That's a coaching thing.  The GM gets players to fit what the Coach wants and Dungy and Caldwell wanted cover-2 guys so that's what Polian got them and as much as people didn't like it the Colts won a lot of games with that cover 2 defense. 

 

One of the biggest misnomers about Polian is that he didn't try to build a team to stop the run, he tried several times to get a big DT.  They just didn't work out for one reason or another.  He drafted one guy who quit football to play video games, he took two chances on Ed Johnson, something he never did with a guy with a troubled background.  They signed Reagor who they lost to a freak car accident.  He sunk a lot of money into Corey Simon only to have Simon end up being a jerk.  They drafted Triplett in the second round and let him walk when the Bills way over payed for him.  He traded for Booger McFarland and then had McFarland blow out his knee before he had even spent a calendar year on the roster.  They then tried to trade for a guy from the Bills but had him fail a physical causing the trade to fall apart.  Heck he even went out and tried Tommie Harris in his last year here to fix the DT spot.  He also found Antonio Johnson who was a decent DT for us for several years along with drafting Nevis in his last draft here.  He was always looking for DT help.  You can easily point to that list and go well they didn't work out and you would be right but it sure wasn't from a lack of trying. 

 

Polian traded our first round draft pick once the whole time he was here (not counting the times he traded it to move back like he did the year he got Reggie Wayne).  Yes it was a mistake, I don't think anyone would question that however, it's not like he was always trading our first round picks away.  He traded our second pick away for Booger McFarland who played a key role in us winning a Super Bowl, if that wasn't worth a second pick I don't know what is.  His problem was more so how he used those high draft picks in terms of the players towards the end not what he was doing with them in terms of trading them.  He had mistakes like I said before, drafting and over paying for free agents towards the end being maybe the biggest and frankly the two that probably cost him his job.  However, he also did a lot of things right when it came to player personal moves, including nailing his very first move here, drafting Peyton Manning over Ryan Leaf which was not the open and shut case it has become.  He then followed that up by drafting Edge over Ricky Williams, and finding Jeff Saturday as an undrafted free agent, trading back not once but twice to get Reggie Wayne when everyone said he needed a cornerback, or "reaching" to draft an undersized Dwight Freeney all for example. 

 

From 2003 to 2009 the Colts won at least 12 of their games every year, that means you are a realistic contender for the Super Bowl in every single one of those years. 

 

Again, uptill Polian's last year here the Colts were winning at level Jim Irsay had never seen his Colts win before, so that's what his were open to during that whole run.  They were in a Super Bowl just two years before that so it's not like Polian's teams were struggling and this was a long time coming.  They had a great run under Polian and when it ended it ended quickly sometimes that happens.  It was time for a change to be made but this idea that Polian wasn't good at his job at all during the whole time he was here is just flat out wrong.  You don't win at the level he won at over the course of his NFL career for as long as he did and not be good at your job.  You just don't. 

 

Again, they were in the Super Bowl just two years before Polian lost his job, what you really think Jim Irsay was going to fire the guy who introduced this whole winning culture to Indianapolis when he was building teams that were capable of and still going to Super Bowls?  That's sour grapes from someone who just doesn't like Bill Polian.  When it was time for Irsay to make the move he made a very quick to fire Polian, and frankly that's credit to Irsay, it would have very easy to hang on to Bill based on his past and go wow one losing season, as bad as it was, in 10 years, he should get one more shot.  However, much like most of Irsay's moves as owner he played it right. 

[crazycolt1]

The Colts did play in a weak division but so do the Pats do you see people trying to take away from their greatness from playing in a weak division?  No.  Also in a 16 game schedule you only play your division for six of those games.  The Colts won 12 or more games every year from 2003 till 2009 and also did it in 1999 as well as winning 10 or more in 2000, 2002, and 2010.  They didn't sweep the division in any of the later three (although 2000 is an odd ball year because they were still in the AFC East with five teams) so they got at least half their wins against other teams in the league including several who had pretty good records of their own.  It's not like they were winning 10 games a year with 8 of them coming in the division and only going 2-6 vs. the rest of the league.  So the division card doesn't hold much weight. 

 

Wins at what cost?  Have you seen the shape the Colts were in before that man got here?  Honestly you talk like they were the Yankees or something before he got here.  They were a total joke, maybe the biggest joke in pro-sports outside of maybe the Bucs or Clippers and even then they were close to being on their level.  They had an uptick with Jim Harbaugh's group right before Polian came in but even that team was a team that went 9-7 and got hot at the right time in the playoffs however that was nothing compared to what the Colts were after Polian got here so don't try to say at what cost because Polian introduced winning football to Indianapolis the likes that we had never seen before he got here. 

 

Again, the Colts were the winningest team in the history of the NFL over a 10 stretch.  They weren't some one shot wonder that came out of no where.  They won year in and year out.  You don't do that if your GM isn't good at his job.  I know, they didn't win as much as people would have liked in the playoffs.  Honestly, the playoffs are as much about match ups as anything else.  Most years the Colts got really bad match ups in the playoffs, namely the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 teams.  They all lost to one of the two teams in the league that in all likely hood that could have beat them in those playoffs.  The two teams that got good matchups in there from that 2003-2009 run both got to the Super Bowl.  The 2006 team clearly won it and the 2009 team just played a bad game against the Saints.  That wasn't Polian's fault the guys on the field just didn't get the job done. 

 

The Cover-2 worked very well against the Ravens, the Colts only lost to them twice under Polian, once the year after the Ravens won the Super Bowl and Polian's last year here.  Honestly the Ravens were one of the better teams in the league that the Colts matched up with.  As for the Pats their dominance over the Colts is a little exaggerated because they won so much over the Colts early in their rivalry.  The Pats and Colts rivalry really started in 2003 and lasted up through 2010.  The final record ended up being Pats 6 Colts 5 over that span with the Colts going 5-2 in the last seven meetings, meaning the Colts had figured out New England.  The Chargers had become the problem and hey sometimes you just don't match up well with someone.  You don't change EVERYTHING you are doing to beat one team.  You make tweaks to do it.  Look at the Pats teams that were winning Super Bowls in 2001, 2003, and 2004 they couldn't beat the Broncos to save their lives but they didn't change everything because of it.  Honestly, they got the fortune of having to play us in those playoffs rather than the Broncos a couple of those years or things might have turned out different.  Kinda like how in 2006 we got to play the Ravens a team we matched up with really well and the Pats a team we matched up well with rather than the say the Chargers a team we did not match up well with.  Samething happened in 2009.  A lot of the playoffs is just luck in terms of match ups. 

 

Also the Cover-2 is a coaching philosophy not something the GM brings in.  The Colts didn't run the cover-2 the whole time Polian was here.  Mora's teams ran a different defense.  Also Polian's teams in Carolina and Buffalo were not cover-2 teams.  That's a coaching thing.  The GM gets players to fit what the Coach wants and Dungy and Caldwell wanted cover-2 guys so that's what Polian got them and as much as people didn't like it the Colts won a lot of games with that cover 2 defense. 

 

One of the biggest misnomers about Polian is that he didn't try to build a team to stop the run, he tried several times to get a big DT.  They just didn't work out for one reason or another.  He drafted one guy who quit football to play video games, he took two chances on Ed Johnson, something he never did with a guy with a troubled background.  They signed Reagor who they lost to a freak car accident.  He sunk a lot of money into Corey Simon only to have Simon end up being a jerk.  They drafted Triplett in the second round and let him walk when the Bills way over payed for him.  He traded for Booger McFarland and then had McFarland blow out his knee before he had even spent a calendar year on the roster.  They then tried to trade for a guy from the Bills but had him fail a physical causing the trade to fall apart.  Heck he even went out and tried Tommie Harris in his last year here to fix the DT spot.  He also found Antonio Johnson who was a decent DT for us for several years along with drafting Nevis in his last draft here.  He was always looking for DT help.  You can easily point to that list and go well they didn't work out and you would be right but it sure wasn't from a lack of trying. 

 

Polian traded our first round draft pick once the whole time he was here (not counting the times he traded it to move back like he did the year he got Reggie Wayne).  Yes it was a mistake, I don't think anyone would question that however, it's not like he was always trading our first round picks away.  He traded our second pick away for Booger McFarland who played a key role in us winning a Super Bowl, if that wasn't worth a second pick I don't know what is.  His problem was more so how he used those high draft picks in terms of the players towards the end not what he was doing with them in terms of trading them.  He had mistakes like I said before, drafting and over paying for free agents towards the end being maybe the biggest and frankly the two that probably cost him his job.  However, he also did a lot of things right when it came to player personal moves, including nailing his very first move here, drafting Peyton Manning over Ryan Leaf which was not the open and shut case it has become.  He then followed that up by drafting Edge over Ricky Williams, and finding Jeff Saturday as an undrafted free agent, trading back not once but twice to get Reggie Wayne when everyone said he needed a cornerback, or "reaching" to draft an undersized Dwight Freeney all for example. 

 

From 2003 to 2009 the Colts won at least 12 of their games every year, that means you are a realistic contender for the Super Bowl in every single one of those years. 

 

Again, uptill Polian's last year here the Colts were winning at level Jim Irsay had never seen his Colts win before, so that's what his were open to during that whole run.  They were in a Super Bowl just two years before that so it's not like Polian's teams were struggling and this was a long time coming.  They had a great run under Polian and when it ended it ended quickly sometimes that happens.  It was time for a change to be made but this idea that Polian wasn't good at his job at all during the whole time he was here is just flat out wrong.  You don't win at the level he won at over the course of his NFL career for as long as he did and not be good at your job.  You just don't. 

 

Again, they were in the Super Bowl just two years before Polian lost his job, what you really think Jim Irsay was going to fire the guy who introduced this whole winning culture to Indianapolis when he was building teams that were capable of and still going to Super Bowls?  That's sour grapes from someone who just doesn't like Bill Polian.  When it was time for Irsay to make the move he made a very quick to fire Polian, and frankly that's credit to Irsay, it would have very easy to hang on to Bill based on his past and go wow one losing season, as bad as it was, in 10 years, he should get one more shot.  However, much like most of Irsay's moves as owner he played it right. 

Most everyone involved in or around the NFL agree that in the early days of Polian being with the Colts he did a fantastic job. No argument there from no one. For years we heard the term next man up. With Polian dropping so much money into a hand full of players there was no next man up. 2005-Marlin Jackson, was he worth a #1 pick? 2006- Joe Addai- good receiver and blocker, top RB? no 2007- Anthony Gonzalez- total bust. With Harrison and Wayne on the roster that was truly one of the dumbest picks ever made by the Colts. 2008- traded the 1st pick. 2009- Donald Brown- still waiting. 2010- Jerry Hughes- Jerry who? All of these picks were 1st round picks when 1st round picks were paid high dollar before rookie caps. As a GM the job requires you to build a team with depth. Something the Colts always lacked with Polian. Other than a couple of players Polian never built any semblance of a defense. With no depth players on the roster caused a chain reaction of some of the worst special teams in Colts history. Irsay just brought up a strong point in regretting not building a balanced team to help Manning win more playoff games. Right or wrong playoff victories and super bowl wins are the measurements for greatness. Is being known as the greatest regular season team in history a good thing? In other words it means you couldn't win when it counted the most. You call it sour grapes, I call it reality. The NFL is based on what have you done for me lately and Polian did very little in his last few years here. The one and only super bowl won came at the hands of the Bears with Rex Grossman at their helm. No more needs to be said about that as most would agree. Polian refused to change with the times and adjust his attitude with an evolving NFL and players. It was his way or not at all. With all of the success in regular season and playoff losses did he ever figure out his way was not working come playoff time? Just like anything. There are two sides to the story. Maybe both of our opinions are right and the actual truth is somewhere in the middle?

[The Old Crow]

Honestly, I think Polian had done a great job, but like anything , it ran it's course. From an outsider's perspective, I think Irsay made the right move at the time to change from Polian to Grigson. It was also a shrewd move to let Manning go, and select Luck. I think Irsay could have handled the Manning release better, but it was probably the right long term move. The danger was of Manning leading another team to a Super Bowl title, which he almost did last year. But like with all teams, at some point you have to get younger. The fact that Polian botched a lot of drafts the last few years, showed a change was needed. I really believe though, had the Colts won in 2009, that Polian would have been retained despite the Manning injury riddled 2-14 season. Two Super Bowl titles instead of one during the Manning years, may have saved his job. One Super Bowl title with Manning, one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, just didn't cut it. Luck is very good, but he has a long way to go before he is Peyton Manning. The key for Luck, as with all quarterbacks, is to win Super Bowl titles, and in that respect, he has plenty of time after a strong rookie season.

 

If Manning and the Broncos win a Super Bowl or two in the next few years, it may well be debated if Irsay made the right move in releasing him. Luck could have been a Steve Young to Manning's Joe Montana. It would have been costly with the cap, but interesting had it occurred. You can get good players a a reasonable price if you do your homework, and fill in your needs. This one still hasn't played out, so it will be an interesting couple of years. 

[GoColts8818]

Most everyone involved in or around the NFL agree that in the early days of Polian being with the Colts he did a fantastic job. No argument there from no one. For years we heard the term next man up. With Polian dropping so much money into a hand full of players there was no next man up. 2005-Marlin Jackson, was he worth a #1 pick? 2006- Joe Addai- good receiver and blocker, top RB? no 2007- Anthony Gonzalez- total bust. With Harrison and Wayne on the roster that was truly one of the dumbest picks ever made by the Colts. 2008- traded the 1st pick. 2009- Donald Brown- still waiting. 2010- Jerry Hughes- Jerry who? All of these picks were 1st round picks when 1st round picks were paid high dollar before rookie caps. As a GM the job requires you to build a team with depth. Something the Colts always lacked with Polian. Other than a couple of players Polian never built any semblance of a defense. With no depth players on the roster caused a chain reaction of some of the worst special teams in Colts history. Irsay just brought up a strong point in regretting not building a balanced team to help Manning win more playoff games. Right or wrong playoff victories and super bowl wins are the measurements for greatness. Is being known as the greatest regular season team in history a good thing? In other words it means you couldn't win when it counted the most. You call it sour grapes, I call it reality. The NFL is based on what have you done for me lately and Polian did very little in his last few years here. The one and only super bowl won came at the hands of the Bears with Rex Grossman at their helm. No more needs to be said about that as most would agree. Polian refused to change with the times and adjust his attitude with an evolving NFL and players. It was his way or not at all. With all of the success in regular season and playoff losses did he ever figure out his way was not working come playoff time? Just like anything. There are two sides to the story. Maybe both of our opinions are right and the actual truth is somewhere in the middle?

Jackson and Addai both played large roles in us winning a Super Bowl so yes they were worth first round picks.  Addai was also one of the better backs in the league running the ball till his o-line fell apart and injuries started to slow him down.  Case in point he had 1000 yards rushing as a rookie as the second back in the offense and could have very well been the Super Bowl MVP that year as well as being voted to the pro-bowl as the starter his second year and no Addai didn't get there on popularity either, he earned it.  Jackson was doing just fine as our number one corner till he blew out his knee in back-to-back years.  That wasn't a talent problem that was an injury issue.  Unless Polian can see the future there was no way he could see that coming.  Same with Gonzo, he was doing just fine till he got hurt.  He was doing so well the Colts were okay with letting Marvin Harrison walk because of him.  Gonzo had ZERO injury issues in college so there was no way Polian could have seen that one coming either.  It's one thing to miss because a guy isn't good enough, and Polian had his fair share of those in the later years, Ugoh, Pollack, and Jerry Hughes maybe being the best examples.  Missing because a guy is good enough and happens to get hurt is another thing and isn't the same as missing because a guy just isn't good enough.  As much as people don't like to hear this, injuries are just bad luck and yes luck does play a role in drafting.   

 

Polian drafted Gonzo to replace Stokley at first because he had just had a major injury the year before and the Colts let him go as a result with the idea that he could maybe grow into the guy who would replace Marvin Harrison one day and he did.  Then injuries set in like I said before.  So no it wasn't one of the dumbest picks ever if you look back at why he picked the guy and don't just try to twist things to support your argument because you don't like Polian.  The real issue in that draft was trading the following years first round pick for Ugoh.  So if you want to slam Polian for anything in that draft that's the move to do it for, other than maybe signing Corey Simon that was the biggest mistake of the Polian era. 

 

The Colts knew they were going to try to build a defense on a cheap budget, it was done by design because they wanted to build around their super star QB.  Had Polian put more money into the defense then people would have complained that we weren't giving Peyton enough tools to work with on offense.  So Polian went out and got a head coach known for his defense and one who ran a simple system because of that.  For all the complaining about the defense again it was good enough to win at least 75% of their games from 2003 to 2009 and get to two Super Bowls as well win another one during that run.  Clearly it did something right.  Was it as good as it could have been?  Probably not but again, what player on offense that was making real money would people have given up to better the defense?  People about lost their minds when we let Edge walk when he was past the prime of his career I could only guess how people would have responded had we not re-signed Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday, or Reggie Wayne during the prime of their careers. 

 

Also the cover-2 defense was designed to rush the QB and force turnovers, when Freeney and Mathis were in their primes doing that along with Hayden, Jackson, and Bethea (the guys on defense who got most of the money) they did just that.  The problem came when Freeney and Mathis started to slow down and Hayden and Jackson got hurt and the Colts stopped getting turnovers.  Also for all the complaining about Brackett people are slamming Angerer now for not being good at pass coverage which is what Brackett excelled in in our new defense.  Also Brackett didn't get a big pay day on defense till the end of the Polian era, most of the time he was here he was a pretty cheap player and did a good job for us.  Then there is Bob Sanders (who again was released before the big bucks part of his contract kicked in), who was a game changer for the defense but he just couldn't stay healthy again that wasn't Polian's fault.  About the only era that the defense was really lacking under Polian was the DT spot and as I stated before Polian bent over backwards trying to find a solution for that problem.  Yes you can point out it didn't work out but again it wasn't from a lack of trying so it's not like Polian was being stubborn and refusing to try to fix it. 

 

Think about what you just said about depth being a problem, and it was towards the end of the Polian era, then think back to you ripping the Colts for drafting Gonzo.  Gonzo was exactly what you were complaining about them not having, depth.  So you can't sit here and call it one of the dumbest picks in the history of the Colts because we already had Marvin and Wayne and then complain later that Polian didn't have depth on the roster.  Again, that's trying to spin things because you don't like Polian and that's fine if you don't like him.  However, don't try to rewrite history because you don't like the guy. 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Polian didn't fail us in the last few years here.  With that said, it's unfair to act like because he failed us at the end that his whole time as GM was bad and he never did anything right.  Again, two years before Polian was fired he built a team that could have gone undefeated during the regular season and got to a Super Bowl.  So if it's all about what you've done lately two years before he was fired Polian was doing exactly what you were asking him to do, build a team that could win championships. I think the team was starting to decline after that and the lack of depth started to show it's face during the 2010 season and then clearly it all feel apart during the 2011 season and he was quickly fired by Irsay.  I don't think Irsay waited too long to do it and I don't think Irsay rushed too fast to do it either, I think Irsay just got it right and fired him at the right time. 

 

So where does Peyton Manning and the players take some blame for the playoff loses?  Everyone is so quick to put blame on Polian or the coaches for them and point to them and say they didn't get the job done and it's sign they weren't doing their jobs right.  At what point do you look at the guys who played the game and realize they didn't play like they did during the regular season and say maybe they should share in some of the blame for the playoff loses?  Yet if you try to blame the players, namely Peyton at all people tend to lose their minds over it and say you can't blame Peyton look at everything else he did for us while he was here!  Well then how come we have to look at Peyton like that but we can't look at Polian that way? After all you said it's all about what you do in the playoffs so if they weren't winning in the playoffs to me that blame starts with the players because clearly the GM put together a team that was talented enough to get the playoffs and in the Colts case be one of the better teams in the league, they just didn't play like they did during the regular season for whatever reason, while you can blame the GM for sticking with the core group of guys who kept failing in the playoffs I do think you need to look at the players who kept failing and put some blame on them too, after all they are the ones who played the games. 

 

The Colts did beat Rex in the Super Bowl but they beat a team with a monster defense in the rain to win that Super Bowl and did it running the ball right down their throat.  A couple of years before that there was no way the Colts win that kind of game.  Also that Bears team was good enough to beat Drew Brees the week before and to just get to the Super Bowl the Colts had to win three games in a row, beating the league's best rusher that year in Larry Johnson, going on the road and beating Ray Lewis and his extremely good defense, and then beat Tom Brady and BB to just get to the Super Bowl.  It's not like the Colts were untested on their way to that Super Bowl so let's not try to discredit it just to try to win some argument on a message board. 

[crazycolt1]

Jackson and Addai both played large roles in us winning a Super Bowl so yes they were worth first round picks.  Addai was also one of the better backs in the league running the ball till his o-line fell apart and injuries started to slow him down.  Case in point he had 1000 yards rushing as a rookie as the second back in the offense and could have very well been the Super Bowl MVP that year as well as being voted to the pro-bowl as the starter his second year and no Addai didn't get there on popularity either, he earned it.  Jackson was doing just fine as our number one corner till he blew out his knee in back-to-back years.  That wasn't a talent problem that was an injury issue.  Unless Polian can see the future there was no way he could see that coming.  Same with Gonzo, he was doing just fine till he got hurt.  He was doing so well the Colts were okay with letting Marvin Harrison walk because of him.  Gonzo had ZERO injury issues in college so there was no way Polian could have seen that one coming either.  It's one thing to miss because a guy isn't good enough, and Polian had his fair share of those in the later years, Ugoh, Pollack, and Jerry Hughes maybe being the best examples.  Missing because a guy is good enough and happens to get hurt is another thing and isn't the same as missing because a guy just isn't good enough.  As much as people don't like to hear this, injuries are just bad luck and yes luck does play a role in drafting.   

 

Polian drafted Gonzo to replace Stokley at first because he had just had a major injury the year before and the Colts let him go as a result with the idea that he could maybe grow into the guy who would replace Marvin Harrison one day and he did.  Then injuries set in like I said before.  So no it wasn't one of the dumbest picks ever if you look back at why he picked the guy and don't just try to twist things to support your argument because you don't like Polian.  The real issue in that draft was trading the following years first round pick for Ugoh.  So if you want to slam Polian for anything in that draft that's the move to do it for, other than maybe signing Corey Simon that was the biggest mistake of the Polian era. 

 

The Colts knew they were going to try to build a defense on a cheap budget, it was done by design because they wanted to build around their super star QB.  Had Polian put more money into the defense then people would have complained that we weren't giving Peyton enough tools to work with on offense.  So Polian went out and got a head coach known for his defense and one who ran a simple system because of that.  For all the complaining about the defense again it was good enough to win at least 75% of their games from 2003 to 2009 and get to two Super Bowls as well win another one during that run.  Clearly it did something right.  Was it as good as it could have been?  Probably not but again, what player on offense that was making real money would people have given up to better the defense?  People about lost their minds when we let Edge walk when he was past the prime of his career I could only guess how people would have responded had we not re-signed Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday, or Reggie Wayne during the prime of their careers. 

 

Also the cover-2 defense was designed to rush the QB and force turnovers, when Freeney and Mathis were in their primes doing that along with Hayden, Jackson, and Bethea (the guys on defense who got most of the money) they did just that.  The problem came when Freeney and Mathis started to slow down and Hayden and Jackson got hurt and the Colts stopped getting turnovers.  Also for all the complaining about Brackett people are slamming Angerer now for not being good at pass coverage which is what Brackett excelled in in our new defense.  Also Brackett didn't get a big pay day on defense till the end of the Polian era, most of the time he was here he was a pretty cheap player and did a good job for us.  Then there is Bob Sanders (who again was released before the big bucks part of his contract kicked in), who was a game changer for the defense but he just couldn't stay healthy again that wasn't Polian's fault.  About the only era that the defense was really lacking under Polian was the DT spot and as I stated before Polian bent over backwards trying to find a solution for that problem.  Yes you can point out it didn't work out but again it wasn't from a lack of trying so it's not like Polian was being stubborn and refusing to try to fix it. 

 

Think about what you just said about depth being a problem, and it was towards the end of the Polian era, then think back to you ripping the Colts for drafting Gonzo.  Gonzo was exactly what you were complaining about them not having, depth.  So you can't sit here and call it one of the dumbest picks in the history of the Colts because we already had Marvin and Wayne and then complain later that Polian didn't have depth on the roster.  Again, that's trying to spin things because you don't like Polian and that's fine if you don't like him.  However, don't try to rewrite history because you don't like the guy. 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Polian didn't fail us in the last few years here.  With that said, it's unfair to act like because he failed us at the end that his whole time as GM was bad and he never did anything right.  Again, two years before Polian was fired he built a team that could have gone undefeated during the regular season and got to a Super Bowl.  So if it's all about what you've done lately two years before he was fired Polian was doing exactly what you were asking him to do, build a team that could win championships. I think the team was starting to decline after that and the lack of depth started to show it's face during the 2010 season and then clearly it all feel apart during the 2011 season and he was quickly fired by Irsay.  I don't think Irsay waited too long to do it and I don't think Irsay rushed too fast to do it either, I think Irsay just got it right and fired him at the right time. 

 

So where does Peyton Manning and the players take some blame for the playoff loses?  Everyone is so quick to put blame on Polian or the coaches for them and point to them and say they didn't get the job done and it's sign they weren't doing their jobs right.  At what point do you look at the guys who played the game and realize they didn't play like they did during the regular season and say maybe they should share in some of the blame for the playoff loses?  Yet if you try to blame the players, namely Peyton at all people tend to lose their minds over it and say you can't blame Peyton look at everything else he did for us while he was here!  Well then how come we have to look at Peyton like that but we can't look at Polian that way? After all you said it's all about what you do in the playoffs so if they weren't winning in the playoffs to me that blame starts with the players because clearly the GM put together a team that was talented enough to get the playoffs and in the Colts case be one of the better teams in the league, they just didn't play like they did during the regular season for whatever reason, while you can blame the GM for sticking with the core group of guys who kept failing in the playoffs I do think you need to look at the players who kept failing and put some blame on them too, after all they are the ones who played the games. 

 

The Colts did beat Rex in the Super Bowl but they beat a team with a monster defense in the rain to win that Super Bowl and did it running the ball right down their throat.  A couple of years before that there was no way the Colts win that kind of game.  Also that Bears team was good enough to beat Drew Brees the week before and to just get to the Super Bowl the Colts had to win three games in a row, beating the league's best rusher that year in Larry Johnson, going on the road and beating Ray Lewis and his extremely good defense, and then beat Tom Brady and BB to just get to the Super Bowl.  It's not like the Colts were untested on their way to that Super Bowl so let's not try to discredit it just to try to win some argument on a message board. 

Your last comment . What do you think you just did? It not a point of winning an argument. Its called my point of view in a debate. Fair or not winning  super bowls is what measures greatness. All the wins in regular seasons means zero because of the label being known as the team who couldn't win the big one. Even with Manning in Denver his playoff record is non stop subject that is talked about. "If" is the biggest 2 letter word in the dictionary. If my opinion don't match your it's no big deal. You are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am. The cold reality is that Polian is 1-17 in super bowl wins.