Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Bill Polians 2008 Draft.


Recommended Posts

Gotta love a good Polian bashing thread!!!

You may call it bashing but it does made for good debate. Some calling it beating a dead horse while some call it Colts history. Polian's personality was so strong it deserves debate one way or another. This thread started about 2 years of drafting while my comment was a little off in going the direction of the big picture. There were some very good points on both sides of the debate and it stayed civil with no one taking anyones opinions to heart. When regular season does get here I feel like these threads will stick to things that are current. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I tried to stay out of this thread because I didn't think it had any positive criticism and wasn't relavant in any way, other than bashing the previous regime.  But this "We deseverd to win more SBs" argument gets to me. 

 

The NFL isn't Madden, you can't load your team.  You have to make choices with contracts.  Some of those don't work out.  No team is perfect.  Also, no team had more consistent success during the Polian reign.  Yes, other teams had more SBs, and they also had more down years. 

 

I really don't want to re-hash this, and I'm no Polian apologist.  I'll just say that IMHO, we had the best team in the league and missed out on the SB one time.  Some may argue it was twice, and I can see that too.  But everyone has to agree that the only way you can win a SB is by making the playoffs.  That always should be the priority for any team.  It worked out pretty well for us.

 

So you disagree that one superbowl win in the Manning era was an underachievement?

 

Those other teams that had more superbowl wins, had more success.  What do people remember, winning a bunch of regular season games and flaming out in the first rd of the playoffs or superbowl wins?

 

And the "consistent success" in the regular season was Manning, not Polian.  That was blatantly obvious for several seasons, it just took 2011 for some to finally accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may call it bashing but it does made for good debate. Some calling it beating a dead horse while some call it Colts history. Polian's personality was so strong it deserves debate one way or another. This thread started about 2 years of drafting while my comment was a little off in going the direction of the big picture. There were some very good points on both sides of the debate and it stayed civil with no one taking anyones opinions to heart. When regular season does get here I feel like these threads will stick to things that are current. 

 

Oh yeah, I've looked over the Polian era drafts many times & marveled at the fact that many drafted players had relativily short careers as productive members on the team...

I attended the infamous Jets game, so I am still bitter at Polian myself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you disagree that one superbowl win in the Manning era was an underachievement?

 

Those other teams that had more superbowl wins, had more success.  What do people remember, winning a bunch of regular season games and flaming out in the first rd of the playoffs or superbowl wins?

 

And the "consistent success" in the regular season was Manning, not Polian.  That was blatantly obvious for several seasons, it just took 2011 for some to finally accept it.

 

Superbowls are hard to come by.  Should we have won more?  Maybe.  But to say winning 1 superbowl is an underachievement is not really an appropriate criticism.  How many teams DIDN'T win a superbowl during the manning era?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superbowls are hard to come by.  Should we have won more?  Maybe.  But to say winning 1 superbowl is an underachievement is not really an appropriate criticism.  How many teams DIDN'T win a superbowl during the manning era?

 

Several.  But they also didn't have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game either.

 

The team was not very far off from winning multiple titles. It had a couple of weaknesses that were never addressed. Mainly on special teams and defense..  Those areas got exposed in the playoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superbowls are hard to come by. Should we have won more? Maybe. But to say winning 1 superbowl is an underachievement is not really an appropriate criticism. How many teams DIDN'T win a superbowl during the manning era?

any team not named the broncos, rams, bucs, pats, steelers, giants, saints, packers, or ravens. Including a loaded chargers team that got to one AFC Title game over that time and a Eagles team that played in five title games I think but went to one Super Bowl and lost. Of the teams I listed that won only the pats, steelers, and giants won more then Peyton and the colts did since the ravens second one came with Peyton in Denver and the broncos won their second one Peyton's rookie year. It clearly could have been worse.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Several.  But they also didn't have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game either.

 

The team was not very far off from winning multiple titles. It had a couple of weaknesses that were never addressed. Mainly on special teams and defense..  Those areas got exposed in the playoffs.

 

And those are faults that you can put on Polian.  And I'm not saying that we shouldn't have won more superbowls, I jsut dispute saying it was an underachievement.  Some element of winning superbowls is a little bit of luck, sometimes its getting hot at the right time.  And while you cite Manning's consistency getting us into playoffs, there were far to many games where the lead or comeback was lost because of Manning.  Love what the guy did for Indianapolis, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that I think Manning choked quite often in the playoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several. But they also didn't have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game either.

The team was not very far off from winning multiple titles. It had a couple of weaknesses that were never addressed. Mainly on special teams and defense.. Those areas got exposed in the playoffs.

so is it Polians fault Manning went one and done this past year too and looked a lot like the Manning we saw in the playoffs doing it? Also Polians Bills teams were a playoff Machine they just couldn't get over the hump in the Super Bowl against a Cowboys dynasty, a one loss redskins team, and a missed field goal in their first trip there. They weren't going one and done like the Colts teams here were. At some point you have look at things and go the players on the field didn't get the job done on the filed because other than Reggie Wayne the players didn't play like they had during the season in the playoffs for us for the most part. The times they did we won playoff games under Polian like 03, 04, 06, and 09. So I don't think lack of talent was the problem. Lack of performance was and that's a players/coach issue more than a GM issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

any team not named the broncos, rams, bucs, pats, steelers, giants, saints, packers, or ravens. Including a loaded chargers team that got to one AFC Title game over that time and a Eagles team that played in five title games I think but went to one Super Bowl and lost. Of the teams I listed that won only the pats, steelers, and giants won more then Peyton and the colts did since the ravens second one came with Peyton in Denver and the broncos won their second one Peyton's rookie year. It clearly could have been worse.

Very much so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And those are faults that you can put on Polian.  And I'm not saying that we shouldn't have won more superbowls, I jsut dispute saying it was an underachievement.  Some element of winning superbowls is a little bit of luck, sometimes its getting hot at the right time.  And while you cite Manning's consistency getting us into playoffs, there were far to many games where the lead or comeback was lost because of Manning.  Love what the guy did for Indianapolis, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that I think Manning choked quite often in the playoffs.

 

Early on i may agree with you on Manning.  However, he played more then well enough to win several of those games he lost.

 

I wouldn't label him a choker.  He carried the team on his back for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on i may agree with you on Manning.  However, he played more then well enough to win several of those games he lost.

 

I wouldn't label him a choker.  He carried the team on his back for years.

Yeah, choker goes to far, I suppose.  It was more of the message than name calling.  He came up short would be a better way to phrase it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several.  But they also didn't have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game either.

 

The team was not very far off from winning multiple titles. It had a couple of weaknesses that were never addressed. Mainly on special teams and defense..  Those areas got exposed in the playoffs.

 

The Patriots have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  They haven't won a SB since 05.  Marino was arguably the greatest QB of his generation... This is such a childish argument.  No team "deserves" to win, they have to play the games. 

 

I think the only year we underachieved was in 05, and the extenuating circumstances make that understandable.  Every other year, we weren't the best team (except maybe 09, and then there were some injuries).  We weren't the best team in the league in 06.

 

As far as your 'not addressing weaknesses', I could go on about how Polian did address them.  Just not successfully enough to win.  This happens to every team, especially when they're consistently picking late in the draft.

 

Final point - the way the Colts were built, score a lot of points, defense built to play with the lead, etc.  That format IS successful.  No team is going to win with D anymore.  Teams win by passing the ball and scoring points, and getting hot in the playoffs.

 

I just find it hard to believe that people on this forum want to bash the previous regime, after all the success we had.  It's like reading Brad Wells articles, and I try to avoid those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so is it Polians fault Manning went one and done this past year too and looked a lot like the Manning we saw in the playoffs doing it? Also Polians Bills teams were a playoff Machine they just couldn't get over the hump in the Super Bowl against a Cowboys dynasty, a one loss redskins team, and a missed field goal in their first trip there. They weren't going one and done like the Colts teams here were. At some point you have look at things and go the players on the field didn't get the job done on the filed because other than Reggie Wayne the players didn't play like they had during the season in the playoffs for us for the most part. The times they did we won playoff games under Polian like 03, 04, 06, and 09. So I don't think lack of talent was the problem. Lack of performance was and that's a players/coach issue more than a GM issue.

 

Not going to debate Polian with you Go Colts.  We have had this debate for years, even on different forums. We don't agree.

 

All i'm going to say is it's no surprise he was fired the year Manning was hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriots have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  They haven't won a SB since 05.  Marino was arguably the greatest QB of his generation... This is such a childish argument.  No team "deserves" to win, they have to play the games. 

 

I think the only year we underachieved was in 05, and the extenuating circumstances make that understandable.  Every other year, we weren't the best team (except maybe 09, and then there were some injuries).  We weren't the best team in the league in 06.

 

As far as your 'not addressing weaknesses', I could go on about how Polian did address them.  Just not successfully enough to win.  This happens to every team, especially when they're consistently picking late in the draft.

 

Final point - the way the Colts were built, score a lot of points, defense built to play with the lead, etc.  That format IS successful.  No team is going to win with D anymore.  Teams win by passing the ball and scoring points, and getting hot in the playoffs.

 

I just find it hard to believe that people on this forum want to bash the previous regime, after all the success we had.  It's like reading Brad Wells articles, and I try to avoid those.

 

The Patriots have several titles. Not sure thats a point you want to argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriots have several titles. Not sure thats a point you want to argue.

 

But they have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  They haven't won since 05.  They should have more, right?

 

That was your point, not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  They haven't won since 05.  They should have more, right?

 

That was your point, not mine.

 

They won 3.

 

I would have been more then happy with 3 for the Colts, you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to debate Polian with you Go Colts. We have had this debate for years, even on different forums. We don't agree.

All i'm going to say is it's no surprise he was fired the year Manning was hurt.

it was time. That team had run it's course but the idea that he was bad at his job because he was fired after a 14 year run in the NFL isn't really being fair. Everyone just about was fired after 2011, players (we only have 15 left from that team), coaches, and the front office. That's starting over which teams often do after a long run in the NFL. No question Polians performance feel off towards the end which is why it was time but he did a great job turning the Colts around and sustaining them for a lot of years even if they didn't have as much post season success as we as fans wanted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Final point - the way the Colts were built, score a lot of points, defense built to play with the lead, etc.  That format IS successful.  No team is going to win with D anymore.  Teams win by passing the ball and scoring points, and getting hot in the playoffs.

 

 

I would argue that if there was one fault to Polian as to why we didn't win more titles, i'ts because our defenses were built to play with the lead.  When we played teams with stout Ds, like the Patriots in the playoffs, the Steelers, etc., scoring was a bit more scarce.  Then our D had to go into attack mode, and it wasn't good enough to do that.  Manning had the tendency to force throws when behind, and the ending writes itself.  

 

There are several reasons why we didn't win another superbowl, but I wouldn't say we underachieved, and the short plain statement of the reason is that, the organization as a whole, came up short.  It happens.  Hopefully this new regime will get over the hump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Polian went hand in glove with the choice of coaches too. I did think a big part of our playoff issues came down to COACHING too. In a one game elimination, you can't expect to do the same thing you have done as always and expect the other team not to be able to make adjustments. Our trenches and our adjustments often got exposed in the playoffs. Having a top heavy roster in terms of talent and salary left us with few contributors on the ST side especially and little quality depth when it came to injuries. Then, when you wonder why your Colts team is the first one to give up an opening kickoff TD in SB history and first one to give up an onside kick recovery after the half in SB history, you need to look no further than Polian, the buck stops there.

 

Polian's trench quality issues dated back to the Bills days in a non-salary cap era too. Outside the Giants SB where Belichick/Parcells manhandled his wideouts and forced the Bills to run more (deja vu it must have felt like in the 2003 AFCCG, so Polian lobbies to change passing rules instead of drafting for quality trenches :)), his Bills were manhandled by the Cowboys and Redskins to lose 3 SBs by a minimum of 13.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won 3.

 

I would have been more then happy with 3 for the Colts, you?

 

No, I'm using your argument.  Brady is arguably the greatest QB in NFL history.  But no one said that until after the SB runs because they weren't really scoring machines then.  They were a more balanced, brute force team.

 

Since 05 the greatest QB (arguably) has not won a SB.  According to you they should have won several, right?

 

Since 05, the other greatest QB in NFL history (arguably) HAS won a SB.

 

Bash Polian all you want, no NFL team has more wins as the Colts did in those years if I'm not mistaken. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Final point - the way the Colts were built, score a lot of points, defense built to play with the lead, etc.  That format IS successful.  No team is going to win with D anymore.  Teams win by passing the ball and scoring points, and getting hot in the playoffs.

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of your post, just not the part I left.  I don't think any team is going to be able to win without also having a viable running game and a good defense.  Sure, the years of the Steel Curtain and Purple People Eaters may be over, but a good defense is still going to be required as is a viable running game.  Case in point is that the only year we actually won a SB was the year that, to go along with Peyton, we were also able to run the ball effectively and stop the run effectively.  No matter how much the game may have changed, winning a SB is still going to take the ability to put up points through the air, but also be able to run the ball and stop the run to at least some extent.  

 

It also helps to be healthy and "hot" at the right time too. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of your post, just not the part I left.  I don't think any team is going to be able to win without also having a viable running game and a good defense.  Sure, the years of the Steel Curtain and Purple People Eaters may be over, but a good defense is still going to be required as is a viable running game.  Case in point is that the only year we actually won a SB was the year that, to go along with Peyton, we were also able to run the ball effectively and stop the run effectively.  No matter how much the game may have changed, winning a SB is still going to take the ability to put up points through the air, but also be able to run the ball and stop the run to at least some extent.  

 

It also helps to be healthy and "hot" at the right time too. :)

 

Jason, I agree with you 100%, that's the ideal formula.  But I think the last thing you said (and I said earlier too) is more important.  Getting hot at the right time.

 

In 06, we didn't have a good run D during the season.  No one is going to forget that Jags game.  The run D came on in the playoffs, at least the first two games.  Our run game that year was good, not great by any stretch of the imagination - until the SB.

 

I'm not saying a team doesn't need a good D.  I'm just saying that it's not as important as it was years ago, simply because of all the rule changes.  I don't see it going back that way anytime soon.  Look at the Ravens and 49ers in the SB, neither D was exactly stellar.  They just hang on for their lives.

 

Bottom line, this is a passing league and the team that does it best is going to win the most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait wait wait...How does this draft kill you?

 

Pollak - Still in the league

Wheeler - Still in the league

Garcon - Still in the league

Tamme - Still in the league

Hart - In the imaginary Hall of Fame 

 

 

2007 I can understand, but looking at the 2008 draft and seeing who's still in the league it honestly was a B- level draft.

They may be in the league, but what have they done for us? Garçon maybe.. Until he dropped that pass in the SB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm using your argument.  Brady is arguably the greatest QB in NFL history.  But no one said that until after the SB runs because they weren't really scoring machines then.  They were a more balanced, brute force team.

 

Since 05 the greatest QB (arguably) has not won a SB.  According to you they should have won several, right?

 

Since 05, the other greatest QB in NFL history (arguably) HAS won a SB.

 

Bash Polian all you want, no NFL team has more wins as the Colts did in those years if I'm not mistaken.

Polians was great during the regular season, but choked when it mattered most. If we were a more balanced team during the Mannng era we would have at least one more Super Bowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, I agree with you 100%, that's the ideal formula.  But I think the last thing you said (and I said earlier too) is more important.  Getting hot at the right time.

 

In 06, we didn't have a good run D during the season.  No one is going to forget that Jags game.  The run D came on in the playoffs, at least the first two games.  Our run game that year was good, not great by any stretch of the imagination - until the SB.

 

I'm not saying a team doesn't need a good D.  I'm just saying that it's not as important as it was years ago, simply because of all the rule changes.  I don't see it going back that way anytime soon.  Look at the Ravens and 49ers in the SB, neither D was exactly stellar.  They just hang on for their lives.

 

Bottom line, this is a passing league and the team that does it best is going to win the most.

 

 

Agreed, again especially with the getting hot (and healthy) at the right time.  I just wanted to counter your original point because there are some people (you know who you are) that take what you said to an illogical extreme.  Just want to try to keep people grounded at least a little bit in reality and I don't necessarily mean you, but someone that might read what you said and just take it 10 steps further. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Polians was great during the regular season, but choked when it mattered most. If we were a more balanced team during the Mannng era we would have at least one more Super Bowl.

 

What specifically did Polian do in the playoffs that was different than what he did in the regular season?  

 

 

Two very easy changes could have drastically changed the past decade or so...imo:

 

1. Polian clearly should have hired better OL scouts because he was crap at evaluating OL (even admitted it) and the people he did have apparently weren't very good at it either

2. Throw some money at either Monte Kiffin or Rod Marinelli to come be DC under Dungy...that way we would have had someone who would have run the cover/tampa 2 with some heat behind it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriots have arguably the greatest QB to ever play the game.  They haven't won a SB since 05.  Marino was arguably the greatest QB of his generation... This is such a childish argument.  No team "deserves" to win, they have to play the games. 

 

I think the only year we underachieved was in 05, and the extenuating circumstances make that understandable.  Every other year, we weren't the best team (except maybe 09, and then there were some injuries).  We weren't the best team in the league in 06.

 

As far as your 'not addressing weaknesses', I could go on about how Polian did address them.  Just not successfully enough to win.  This happens to every team, especially when they're consistently picking late in the draft.

 

Final point - the way the Colts were built, score a lot of points, defense built to play with the lead, etc.  That format IS successful.  No team is going to win with D anymore.  Teams win by passing the ball and scoring points, and getting hot in the playoffs.

 

I just find it hard to believe that people on this forum want to bash the previous regime, after all the success we had.  It's like reading Brad Wells articles, and I try to avoid those.

You can call it bash all you want. Some of us call it reality. There are always point counter points to a debate. Just because some don't agree with you it is not bashing, it is just having a different opinion. No more, no less. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call it bash all you want. Some of us call it reality. There are always point counter points to a debate. Just because some don't agree with you it is not bashing, it is just having a different opinion. No more, no less.

But I still don't understand that argument. If Brady hasn't won a SB since Peyton did, and he's also arguably the greatest to play ever, why do people think we deserve more than one SB? Weren't they a better run organization? Weren't they more balanced? They also had a couple years of one and done in the playoffs.

It's the "Polians Fault" part that I can't wrap my head around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be in the league, but what have they done for us? Garçon maybe.. Until he dropped that pass in the SB.

It's not always about "what have they done for us?". You can't expect them all to stay they don't have to pledge their loyalty for their entire career to the Colts just because they drafted them.

We drafted them, they competed and when free agency came around they left for better deals or we did not want to resign them. 

The fact they've been in the league this long and are even playing still doesn't seem to resonate to people I think. Just because they might not be playing for us doesn't make them a wasted draft pick.

There is always a chance the team that drafts you might not be a good fit and you do better somewhere else because they fit you more.

 

And the what have they done for us? Yea 53 players helped get that team to the super bowl in 2009 whether they contributed for 1 play or every play of the season. Just cause they weren't the big names we all know and remember doesn't mean they didn't do anything for us. They did more to help the organization than you or I have done that's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And those are faults that you can put on Polian.  And I'm not saying that we shouldn't have won more superbowls, I jsut dispute saying it was an underachievement.  Some element of winning superbowls is a little bit of luck, sometimes its getting hot at the right time.  And while you cite Manning's consistency getting us into playoffs, there were far to many games where the lead or comeback was lost because of Manning.  Love what the guy did for Indianapolis, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that I think Manning choked quite often in the playoffs.

 

i was going to say the same thing. if you are an all time great player in any sport, you are the one that has to make the big plays in playoff games. defense, special teams, offensive line, running game, coaching, the list is soooo long and old for why manning couldn't win more championships and it's continuing in denver now. manning hasn't really gotten the job done going back to college.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I still don't understand that argument. If Brady hasn't won a SB since Peyton did, and he's also arguably the greatest to play ever, why do people think we deserve more than one SB? Weren't they a better run organization? Weren't they more balanced? They also had a couple years of one and done in the playoffs.

It's the "Polians Fault" part that I can't wrap my head around.

The thread was about Polian, not Brady and the Patriots. Your assumptions that Brady is the GOAT is your opinion that is not shared by everyone. You used the word arguably without saying it was your opinion. Debate is what goes on when there are two sides with different opinions, not arguing. There are too many QBs in the past and in the present to say who is the GOAT. There are the positives of Polians legacy just as there are negatives. Completely overlooking the facts of both sides is where the line is drawn between debate and arguing. Is Brady better than Bradshaw who has 4 rings? Is Brady better than Marino who has no rings? Is Brady better than Sammy Bough who lead the league in passing, kicking and interceptions one year and still holds a better QB rating then any present QB. As you can see the GOAT is just someones opinion. No more, no less. Right or wrong success is measured by championships and Polians record for super bowl runs is 1-17. So with all of the positives the negative can't be disregarded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or wrong success is measured by championships and Polians record for super bowl runs is 1-17. So with all of the positives the negative can't be disregarded. 

 

Right or wrong success is measured by championships and manning's record for champioship runs is 1-17 going back to college. So with all of the positives the negative can't be disregarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread was about Polian, not Brady and the Patriots. Your assumptions that Brady is the GOAT is your opinion that is not shared by everyone. You used the word arguably without saying it was your opinion. Debate is what goes on when there are two sides with different opinions, not arguing. There are too many QBs in the past and in the present to say who is the GOAT. There are the positives of Polians legacy just as there are negatives. Completely overlooking the facts of both sides is where the line is drawn between debate and arguing. Is Brady better than Bradshaw who has 4 rings? Is Brady better than Marino who has no rings? Is Brady better than Sammy Bough who lead the league in passing, kicking and interceptions one year and still holds a better QB rating then any present QB. As you can see the GOAT is just someones opinion. No more, no less. Right or wrong success is measured by championships and Polians record for super bowl runs is 1-17. So with all of the positives the negative can't be disregarded. 

 

I didn't want to make it about Brady/Manning.  I was trying to point out that having the GOAT doesn't mean you deserve to win SBs.  Brady hasn't won one since Manning won his.  

 

As far as Polian, GMs build teams, players win games.  You can't win the SB without making the playoffs.  It's ridiculous to say that a team that wins 12 or more games isn't built to win it all.  

 

Again, this is my opinion.  I'm not trying to force anyone to accept it.  But I won't accept the opinion that Polian was to blame for us not winning more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to make it about Brady/Manning.  I was trying to point out that having the GOAT doesn't mean you deserve to win SBs.  Brady hasn't won one since Manning won his.  

 

As far as Polian, GMs build teams, players win games.  You can't win the SB without making the playoffs.  It's ridiculous to say that a team that wins 12 or more games isn't built to win it all.  

 

Again, this is my opinion.  I'm not trying to force anyone to accept it.  But I won't accept the opinion that Polian was to blame for us not winning more.

Thats your choice my friend. Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or wrong success is measured by championships and manning's record for champioship runs is 1-17 going back to college. So with all of the positives the negative can't be disregarded.

That could be said but the thread was about Polian, not Manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Polians draft in 2008.

So if you are going to play the stay on topic card what does Bill Polian's career have to do with the specifics of his 2008 draft?   Like the poster before pointed out most topics drift a little such as talking about Polian's career here which lead to other people pointing out he might not be the only one who may have had a hand in our losing the playoffs.  It's part of the natural discussion it's not like out of no where someone went hey let's talk about Jack Trudeau's career in this thread.  That would be an attempt to derail the thread.  However, if you follow this thread and see how it has developed his point was raised as part of the natural development of the thread.  I think the bigger problem is that his point doesn't back up your argument so you don't want to see it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...