Did Colts ever fulfill Manning's capability?

[House]

I don't think the 05 Steelers were a better team. The 05-06 Colts were probably the best in the entire league. In 07 Harrison started to decline very quickly and the replacement in Anthony Gonzalez was not close even before he got injured. Meanwhile the OL degenerated and there was no answer as well. Why they failed to assemble a team that is a little better in Manning's best years was mystery.

The 09 team making the SB was a miracle. The 14-0 to start the season was largely due to an easy schedule and a bunch of 1-score games going Colts way. And finally the playoff opponents got rid of Pats and Chargers.

They were the better team on that day. But our great teams really never did great in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call the '06 team great. They were up and down all year, and the D got hot at the right time. The offense was a mess for most of the playoffs though.

Peyton had great teams in '04 and '05 in my opinion, and it just didn't happen for us.

Why do you have the perception that the Colts treated him so bad?

[House]

It's not shameful at al. I just think we had turn personnel, coaches and talent to do it. Even with our defense. That's how highly I regard Peyton and crew.

5 SBs is beyond the norm IMO. That's rarified air. Do I think they should have done better? Yes. Do I think they should have won 5 SBs? No.

[tonychen]

How many superbowls has Devin Hester played in

 

I an pretty sure Colts special teams can commit suicidal mistakes any time to anybody. Remember the 2010 playoff against Jets with 1-point lead and 1 min left they gave up a kickoff return directly to the 40 yard line, and 2008 at Chargers overtime they allowed Sproles to the midfield to set up his TD. In the games they won, say 06 AFCCG after Manning tied the game for the first time when he was still drinking his Gatorade Pats already had the ball at midfield. As Colts QB Manning had to constantly fight against his own special team.

[amfootball]

I think this is rather obvious but Manning is playing QB better now with Denver since the surgeries. He has developed the short passing game, is much more patient, does not force as many throws and will take the run every time if the D dictates it. I think the injury in some ways was a blessing in disguise as it forced him to become more of a thinking/patient QB and rely less on his God given talent which was diminished by the surgeries. He also seems calmer to me too both on and off the field. Maybe that type of injury gave him the perspective he needed and made him play looser.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

5 SBs is beyond the norm IMO. That's rarified air. Do I think they should have done better? Yes. Do I think they should have won 5 SBs? No.

I Never thought we were the norm.

[tonychen]

They were the better team on that day. But our great teams really never did great in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call the '06 team great. They were up and down all year, and the D got hot at the right time. The offense was a mess for most of the playoffs though.

Peyton had great teams in '04 and '05 in my opinion, and it just didn't happen for us.

Why do you have the perception that the Colts treated him so bad?

 

It is not treating him bad but holding him back. But if the best treatment for these elite QBs is to surround him with more weapons instead of taking his weapons away and let him fight with subpar weapons, then Colts might have treated him pretty bad.

 

To that point I can see why Manning chose Elway since as a former elite QB the manager surely understands what a QB needs, which could be more preferable to him than those managers treating it purely as a business.

[dgambill]

Peyton came up short himself but I think overall we made some mistakes in the front office and by the coaches. I like Tony Dungy as a coach...but I don't think we had to run the tampa 2 defense. Even so tampa had Mcfarland and Sapp run stuffing and creating pressure up the middle along with a strong pass rush from the edge...then they had solid corners, HOF safety and MLB....that is pretty hard to replicate...that defense was loaded and it was beautiful to watch. We just simply couldn't replicate that. Our defense was made to play with a lead but when playoffs came and points became tougher they couldn't give or hold our leads. I agree our issues were from the inside out. Nothing wrong with our skilled positions...but the OL/DL just couldn't hold up against elite teams who had less skilled talent but better hogs.

 

We had some of the best teams in 04/05/06 and then again in 09 until late injury to Freeney really limited our defense...we didn't have guys that stepped up like Denver has had. I honestly believe we could have given Peyton less talent in the skilled positions (especially RB) and he would have worked with and got the most out of them....if he had time to let routes develope...plus I really do think the OC help he has got the last two years have been great for him. If he can turn the the Pierre Garcons, Austin Collies, and even for half a season Blair White into a household name...he could do the same without all the investments to say Reggie and Marvin and Dallas. But yeah...all our money on defense was loaded up on the ends...and in a couple guys in the secondary that couldn't stay on the field or didn't work out. It happens...but we had a great run and how many playoff loses were less than 7pts???? I mean we lost a ton late after having leads and had our opportunities.

[MAC]

The Broncos are/were already assembled. You didn't have to add tremendous pieces to make them a great team. The team was built, and all they needed was a QB.

The Broncos have added a LOT of players the past two years, and their depth development has been remarkable. 

 

Your premise is in the context of "you can't develop a team with a highly paid QB". Sure, they are now deriving a benefit because some key guys are young and not earning enormous amounts, but that essentially means that the team drafted pretty well in the years before signing a big-time QB. But there is nothing stopping a team from drafting well in the years AFTER signing a big time QB. The only really high picks on the team are Miller, Clady, and Moreno. The first two haven't contributed jack this season, and while the last has come into his own, he's never been a super-star, and I would be willing to bet WOULDN'T be if not playing with Peyton.

 

In other words, McDaniels left some good pieces, Elway has been brilliant in filling in, players WANT to play for the team - sometimes even at lower salaries than they could get elsewhere - and despite what many say on here the coaching is pretty darn good.

 

Peyton would have had considerable success regardless of which team on his shopping list he chose. Pretty much every team has some good pieces. Throw him on Cleveland - for example - and they run away with their division. It's counter-productive to question QB salaries when you are talking about an elite QB that is the foundation of a team. It's only a problem when you are a lesser team forced to pay "near" elite salaries to a lesser QB. (Hello Ravens).

 

And more than anything, it's GM's that win games, and Elway is a good GM. To the OP, yes, the Colts should have won more SBs, and we can all look back at the FO with hindsite. But it had precious little to do with Peyton's salary, and I can't fathom the thought that the team would have been better off without him. 

[tonychen]

I think this is rather obvious but Manning is playing QB better now with Denver since the surgeries. He has developed the short passing game, is much more patient, does not force as many throws and will take the run every time if the D dictates it. I think the injury in some ways was a blessing in disguise as it forced him to become more of a thinking/patient QB and rely less on his God given talent which was diminished by the surgeries. He also seems calmer to me too both on and off the field. Maybe that type of injury gave him the perspective he needed and made him play looser.

 

I watched Manning's game against Pats in 07 last week and found it was the opposite. At the time he was more capable of making plays while now he has to depend more on the legs to make the same plays. He used to throw less ducks simply because he was younger and stronger. His understanding of the game might have improved but it may not be sufficient to compensate for the diminished arm strength. On the other hand Colts OL was giving him very little time, and his receivers could barely get open.

 

Don't know how long you have followed Colts and Manning, but the long drives he had last Sunday was his bread and butter when he was with Colts. Reasons: 1. Colts OL could only give him around 2 secs, 2. Receivers were not fast and strong enough to get open, 3. He had to spend more time to get the defense some time to rest.

 

Totally understand why he was forcing the ball more often as he knew he had less opportunities since his defense would stay on the field forever just to give up scores. He had the pressure to take every chance to score TDs.

[amfootball]

I watched Manning's game against Pats in 07 last week and found it was the opposite. At the time he was more capable of making plays while now he has to depend more on the legs to make the same plays. He used to throw less ducks simply because he was younger and stronger. His understanding of the game might have improved but it may not be sufficient to compensate for the diminished arm strength. On the other hand Colts OL was giving him very little time, and his receivers could barely get open.

 

Don't know how long you have followed Colts and Manning, but the long drives he had last Sunday was his bread and butter when he was with Colts. Reasons: 1. Colts OL could only give him around 2 secs, 2. Receivers were not fast and strong enough to get open, 3. He had to spend more time to get the defense some time to rest.

 

Totally understand why he was forcing the ball more often as he knew he had less opportunities since his defense would stay on the field forever just to give up scores. He had the pressure to take every chance to score TDs.

Yeah I just think he playing smarter and more within himself. That's all. I think it was Ty Law that said the first few years of Manning's career was like taking candy from a baby. He would stare down his receivers and force throws. But after a few years, he learned and got better and it became more difficult to defend him. I think now he just gets the game better and realizes the he can rely on his teammates more.

[tonychen]

Peyton came up short himself but I think overall we made some mistakes in the front office and by the coaches. I like Tony Dungy as a coach...but I don't think we had to run the tampa 2 defense. Even so tampa had Mcfarland and Sapp run stuffing and creating pressure up the middle along with a strong pass rush from the edge...then they had solid corners, HOF safety and MLB....that is pretty hard to replicate...that defense was loaded and it was beautiful to watch. We just simply couldn't replicate that. Our defense was made to play with a lead but when playoffs came and points became tougher they couldn't give or hold our leads. I agree our issues were from the inside out. Nothing wrong with our skilled positions...but the OL/DL just couldn't hold up against elite teams who had less skilled talent but better hogs.

 

We had some of the best teams in 04/05/06 and then again in 09 until late injury to Freeney really limited our defense...we didn't have guys that stepped up like Denver has had. I honestly believe we could have given Peyton less talent in the skilled positions (especially RB) and he would have worked with and got the most out of them....if he had time to let routes develope...plus I really do think the OC help he has got the last two years have been great for him. If he can turn the the Pierre Garcons, Austin Collies, and even for half a season Blair White into a household name...he could do the same without all the investments to say Reggie and Marvin and Dallas. But yeah...all our money on defense was loaded up on the ends...and in a couple guys in the secondary that couldn't stay on the field or didn't work out. It happens...but we had a great run and how many playoff loses were less than 7pts???? I mean we lost a ton late after having leads and had our opportunities.

 

Nothing wrong with the Tampa 2 since every scheme comes down to execution. Chicago ran the same scheme for years and they were dominating before this yr. The personnel of Colts D could ruin any scheme.

 

Marvin and Dallas were overrated. Both burnt lesser teams but just disappeared against physical defenders. Reggie was great but he was only a possession receiver with average frame and speed.

[tonychen]

Yeah I just think he playing smarter and more within himself. That's all. I think it was Ty Law that said the first few years of Manning's career was like taking candy from a baby. He would stare down his receivers and force throws. But after a few years, he learned and got better and it became more difficult to defend him. I think now he just gets the game better and realizes the he can rely on his teammates more.

 

Yes earlier than 05 he had his learning to do. By 06-07 he was pretty established and I am having problems with Colts not taking advantage of his best time from 07 to his leaving.

[House]

The Broncos have added a LOT of players the past two years, and their depth development has been remarkable.

Your premise is in the context of "you can't develop a team with a highly paid QB". Sure, they are now deriving a benefit because some key guys are young and not earning enormous amounts, but that essentially means that the team drafted pretty well in the years before signing a big-time QB. But there is nothing stopping a team from drafting well in the years AFTER signing a big time QB. The only really high picks on the team are Miller, Clady, and Moreno. The first two haven't contributed jack this season, and while the last has come into his own, he's never been a super-star, and I would be willing to bet WOULDN'T be if not playing with Peyton.

In other words, McDaniels left some good pieces, Elway has been brilliant in filling in, players WANT to play for the team - sometimes even at lower salaries than they could get elsewhere - and despite what many say on here the coaching is pretty darn good.

Peyton would have had considerable success regardless of which team on his shopping list he chose. Pretty much every team has some good pieces. Throw him on Cleveland - for example - and they run away with their division. It's counter-productive to question QB salaries when you are talking about an elite QB that is the foundation of a team. It's only a problem when you are a lesser team forced to pay "near" elite salaries to a lesser QB. (Hello Ravens).

And more than anything, it's GM's that win games, and Elway is a good GM. To the OP, yes, the Colts should have won more SBs, and we can all look back at the FO with hindsite. But it had precious little to do with Peyton's salary, and I can't fathom the thought that the team would have been better off without him.

I never once said you can't develop a team around high paid QB. Only that over time, it can have ramifications on the team as a whole. It has a decaying effect. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it becomes harder to get a team and keep it together. That's life in the salary cap era. That's why early in his Colts career Peyton had great teams. And later he had just good teams. Not to mention a decade of low draft picks meant the draft misses hurt that much more.

The 2010 team needed a rebuild. Which was blatantly obvious. Clearly rebuilding would be/was an easier task without Peyton's salary. Again not his fault, but it makes moving and acquiring pieces easier.

Denver has had much lower draft picks then the Colts, and have done a great job putting together a great team. All they were missing was a great QB, and presto, SB appearance.

But you can't tell me that team looks and plays the same in 5 years. Both Thomas' are going to get paid. So will Decker. It's hard to keep key pieces paid. Colts were in that position in '06-'08. Lots of big salaries that eventually collapsed the team.

[House]

I Never thought we were the norm.

Clearly lol.

[House]

It is not treating him bad but holding him back. But if the best treatment for these elite QBs is to surround him with more weapons instead of taking his weapons away and let him fight with subpar weapons, then Colts might have treated him pretty bad.

To that point I can see why Manning chose Elway since as a former elite QB the manager surely understands what a QB needs, which could be more preferable to him than those managers treating it purely as a business.

Peyton never had a shortage of offensive weapons, '09-'10 was probably his offensive cast.

I guess we will agree to disagree about the Colts holding him back lol.

[Iancolts]

Peyton got a pretty stacked team on both sides of the ball before he even got there. Plus you gotta understand a guy like peyton can mask a lot of weak links on offense. Even though he ate the same cap space as with the colts he got signed to a team that was missing only one position from being great/good.

[MAC]

I never once said you can't develop a team around high paid QB. Only that over time, it can have ramifications on the team as a whole. It has a decaying effect. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it becomes harder to get a team and keep it together. That's life in the salary cap era. That's why early in his Colts career Peyton had great teams. And later he had just good teams. Not to mention a decade of low draft picks meant the draft misses hurt that much more.

The 2010 team needed a rebuild. Which was blatantly obvious. Clearly rebuilding would be/was an easier task without Peyton's salary. Again not his fault, but it makes moving and acquiring pieces easier.

Denver has had much lower draft picks then the Colts, and have done a great job putting together a great team. All they were missing was a great QB, and presto, SB appearance.

But you can't tell me that team looks and plays the same in 5 years. Both Thomas' are going to get paid. So will Decker. It's hard to keep key pieces paid. Colts were in that position in '06-'08. Lots of big salaries that eventually collapsed the team.

Good luck finding articles/threads about how great the Broncos were before Peyton went there. That's completely revisionist history. The team has been dramatically improved since then, the existing players have been developed since then, and Peyton makes those around him better. As I said Cleveland is a laughingstock but how about with Peyton? Good oline with a star LT. A decent D that would look dramatically better opposite an effective offense. Gordon would suddenly be "the best wr in football'. Secondary wr's we've never heard of would be effective contributors after months of workouts with Peyton. What happens if you put him on the Jets, the Bears, the Cardinals? There are a lot of good players out there on many teams. Your "ah, they were already a great team" comments sound like wishful thinking (coming from someone who doesn't want Peyton to win the Super Bowl).

 

They do have some young players who aren't getting large salaries yet, but they weren't necessarily high draft picks, and they won't necessarily resign them all. IE: I'd make Decker an affordable offer and be prepared to replace him. For all you know the next guy may be better. Clinging to your own guys and paying them through the nose was part of the Colts problems. I wouldn't assume that Elway will do the same.

 

And by the way, 99 was exiting, but for the most part "early" in Peyton's career they weren't great teams. They had a 500 record through the first four. They built until reaching a new level in his sixth season. Peaked in his 8th. Started slipping after that for a lot of reasons that have little to do with Peyton's salary.  It takes sustained good decisions/luck to build a great team and sustained bad decisions/luck to destroy it. Yes, the margin for error is smaller when you have a contract like that, but without the QB you aren't in the conversation in the first place.

 

More to the point, EVERY single half-way decent QB in the league has an enormous impact on the salary cap - and quite a few not so decent QBs as well. Peyton may get 20, but some pretty lousy QBs get 12. It's only the eight million difference that's "impacting" you adversely, and Peyton will draw VASTLY more than 8 million worth of improved play out everyone around him. I think that too much attention is paid to the issue. It's the 1,000 other roster and coaching decisions that push a team over the top.

[Superman]

I don't think it's understated at all. It's just the reality of having a top QB. You have to pay them.

But when you have to pay QBs top dollar, a little bit of decay sets in. It becomes harder to rebuild a team top to bottom. Which is what we had to go through in the 2011-12 period.

You see this plenty around the NFL. The Pats went through it. The Ravens just had to deal with it this past offseason. It's not the fault of the QB, but it's the nature of the beast.

 

That's not what happened with either the Pats or the Ravens though. Without getting into all of that, I agree that it makes it harder when you have to pay a QB top money. Like you say, it's not their fault necessarily, and it's just something you do when you have a top tier guy. Oh well.

 

But because it's harder, it makes your other decisions that much more critical. So when we're talking about the gaps teams with elite QBs have, for me, it's usually about the peripheral decisions, not the QB decision. It's missing the point to just chalk it up to the QB salary, because then you just shrug and say "there's nothing you can do about it." You can draft better, you can spend your money more wisely, you can coach better. I say all that about the 2003-2011 Colts in hindsight, but that's what GMs and coaches get paid to do.

[House]

Good luck finding articles/threads about how great the Broncos were before Peyton went there. That's completely revisionist history. The team has been dramatically improved since then, the existing players have been developed since then, and Peyton makes those around him better. As I said Cleveland is a laughingstock but how about with Peyton? Good oline with a star LT. A decent D that would look dramatically better opposite an effective offense. Gordon would suddenly be "the best wr in football'. Secondary wr's we've never heard of would be effective contributors after months of workouts with Peyton. What happens if you put him on the Jets, the Bears, the Cardinals? There are a lot of good players out there on many teams. Your "ah, they were already a great team" comments sound like wishful thinking (coming from someone who doesn't want Peyton to win the Super Bowl).

They do have some young players who aren't getting large salaries yet, but they weren't necessarily high draft picks, and they won't necessarily resign them all. IE: I'd make Decker an affordable offer and be prepared to replace him. For all you know the next guy may be better. Clinging to your own guys and paying them through the nose was part of the Colts problems. I wouldn't assume that Elway will do the same.

And by the way, 99 was exiting, but for the most part "early" in Peyton's career they weren't great teams. They had a 500 record through the first four. They built until reaching a new level in his sixth season. Peaked in his 8th. Started slipping after that for a lot of reasons that have little to do with Peyton's salary. It takes sustained good decisions/luck to build a great team and sustained bad decisions/luck to destroy it. Yes, the margin for error is smaller when you have a contract like that, but without the QB you aren't in the conversation in the first place.

More to the point, EVERY single half-way decent QB in the league has an enormous impact on the salary cap - and quite a few not so decent QBs as well. Peyton may get 20, but some pretty lousy QBs get 12. It's only the eight million difference that's "impacting" you adversely, and Peyton will draw VASTLY more than 8 million worth of improved play out everyone around him. I think that too much attention is paid to the issue. It's the 1,000 other roster and coaching decisions that push a team over the top.

Oh so I don't want Peyton to win a SB??? That's news to me. Tell me how you possibly reached that conclusion from anything I've posted.

Revisionist history? Are you kidding? The 2011 Broncos were good enough to drag Tim "I can't throw the football" Tebow all the way to an 8-8 record and then the divisional round. There were no major acquisitions made to that team, aside from Peyton, in the 2011-2012 offseason. The pieces were there. All they were missing was Peyton. It's not a knock on him, but there's a reason he isn't a Jaguar, or a Raider, and it isn't because any team can instantly be one of the greatest of all time.

This past offseason they added to that team tremendously, but with the goal to win now. It's not a formula designed with sustained success in mind.

If you put Peyton on Cleveland, as you keep bringing up, they wouldn't magically become one of the most potent offenses of all time, and shatter every record. Not a chance. They would instantly be better, but not to the level Denver has been. Let's not even mention the fact that you keep supporting my original post every time you say that.

"If we could build a team, that had no QB eating up the cap, and then in one season insert a HOF QB, it wouldn't hard to have instant success."

We are saying the same thing in this instance. It's easier for a team to build without a greatly paid QB then it is to build with one. Seattle is a perfect example. They built a juggernaut without worrying about paying a superstar QB. Then they drafted Wilson and instantly that team is ready to contend for SBs.

No one said "Don't pay QBs, they aren't worth it." Not even once. But to flat out deny that paying QBs can cause holes to pop up other places is silly. If you don't resign Decker maybe the next guy is just as good. Maybe he isn't as good too. Was Marvin's replacement better? Certainly not. He wanted too much and we couldn't pay him, among other things.

Peyton had SB winning talent, in my opinion, from 03-07. He wasn't hurting offensively. He had play makers everywhere. But as a by product of the investment in the offense, the D slipped. The sustained success also hurt our drafts because the misses, and there were plenty, cost us that much more. Never replenishing talent takes its toll. Especially when your GM doesn't like acquiring FAs.

It's not the fault of the QBs, or any highly paid player, it's how salary cap football is suppose to function. No team is easily allowed to have great players, and hold onto them forever. That's why the dynasty's of so long ago frequently get asterisks by some because the challenges of cultivating a team then, and now, are entirely different.

[House]

That's not what happened with either the Pats or the Ravens though. Without getting into all of that, I agree that it makes it harder when you have to pay a QB top money. Like you say, it's not their fault necessarily, and it's just something you do when you have a top tier guy. Oh well.

But because it's harder, it makes your other decisions that much more critical. So when we're talking about the gaps teams with elite QBs have, for me, it's usually about the peripheral decisions, not the QB decision. It's missing the point to just chalk it up to the QB salary, because then you just shrug and say "there's nothing you can do about it." You can draft better, you can spend your money more wisely, you can coach better. I say all that about the 2003-2011 Colts in hindsight, but that's what GMs and coaches get paid to do.

Certainly wasn't my intent to absolve the FO from any culpability in our slow decline as a team. I'm only saying, that from a roster moves, money to spend, type of situation. It's easier to build a team without a QB. Doesn't mean it's going to be a good team by any stretch, but there have been numerous examples, in my eyes at least, of this being the case. I will cite, the Colts and Seahawks as good examples of this.

It's harder to build when you have sustained success. The drafts become tricker. The extensions and signings become trickier. It's not Peyton's fault, he wasn't the only one eating cap. But I also don't think he was some victim of the Colts system. He had great players around him his entire career. And we emphasized the team around him, so much so that our D fell apart. Again he's not to blame for that, but it's part of why we didn't have more success as an organization.

Denver was in a much better place from the start, when they acquired Peyton. They were just removed from the Divisional round of the playoffs, and had a nice defensive core, with some WRs who had loads of potential.

The Colts drafted Peyton with the number one pick. We were a mess. And then put SB contending pieces together as fast as we could.

The Broncos didn't do anything special that the Colts didn't try to do over the years. Only that many, and I mean many later on, moves didn't work out. Denver is building for the present. Jim and Bill were trying to build for the next 10-15 years.

[dgambill]

Yes earlier than 05 he had his learning to do. By 06-07 he was pretty established and I am having problems with Colts not taking advantage of his best time from 07 to his leaving.

I'm sorry but 09 we had a great team...our OL was elite and our secondary wasn't but the defense was good enough....but when Freeney got hurt the in the AFCCG....and couldn't have an affect on the SB....that shot down any chance to bother Drew at all....it was all she wrote....even saying that it took an onside kick really to swing that game. It was the next year injuries started depleting the team.

 

Also the tampa 2 can work...and we got players that fit it...but I think the one thing that the Colts have failed to do down through the years is coach players up....not the super stars who made themselves or not the receivers who worked with Peyton tirelessly to refine their craft...Peyton desearves a TON of credit for getting the most out of all his guys...even Marvin and Reggie...but ESPECIALLY Collie and definately Garcon and Clark. He kept that offense elite with his work. But how come we couldn't develope a decent secondary with a secondary guru coach...or we couldn't develope some elite safety play or elite OL/DL outside Freeney and Mathis who really were special. We just never coach anyone up it seemed. Seemed like Pats could make any OL pro bowlers, Steelers any LB pro bowlers, SD always had great corners/secondary...I just felt if one area I think we didn't do well...was cultivate our players or talent Bill did provide. At least make avg players good...raise their level....could be me but that was our biggest weakness....our guys didn't really improve...and next man up...well really fell off.

[Balzer40]

I'm sorry but 09 we had a great team...our OL was elite and our secondary wasn't but the defense was good enough....but when Freeney got hurt the in the AFCCG....and couldn't have an affect on the SB....that shot down any chance to bother Drew at all....it was all she wrote....even saying that it took an onside kick really to swing that game. It was the next year injuries started depleting the team.

Also the tampa 2 can work...and we got players that fit it...but I think the one thing that the Colts have failed to do down through the years is coach players up....not the super stars who made themselves or not the receivers who worked with Peyton tirelessly to refine their craft...Peyton desearves a TON of credit for getting the most out of all his guys...even Marvin and Reggie...but ESPECIALLY Collie and definately Garcon and Clark. He kept that offense elite with his work. But how come we couldn't develope a decent secondary with a secondary guru coach...or we couldn't develope some elite safety play or elite OL/DL outside Freeney and Mathis who really were special. We just never coach anyone up it seemed. Seemed like Pats could make any OL pro bowlers, Steelers any LB pro bowlers, SD always had great corners/secondary...I just felt if one area I think we didn't do well...was cultivate our players or talent Bill did provide. At least make avg players good...raise their level....could be me but that was our biggest weakness....our guys didn't really improve...and next man up...well really fell off.

Our definitions on "elite" o-lines are far far apart. Our O-line was no where in the ballpark of elite in 2009. IMO, elite would be top 5 in pass protection and in run blocking and without looking it up, I feel extremely confident that our O-line wasn't even close to that.

[dgambill]

Our definitions on "elite" o-lines are far far apart. Our O-line was no where in the ballpark of elite in 2009. IMO, elite would be top 5 in pass protection and in run blocking and without looking it up, I feel extremely confident that our O-line wasn't even close to that.

Bad choice of words...I meant offense...but the OL was rather solid....but then again...Peyton made most of our OLs look decent because he got rid of the ball quick....he has issues when corners press and he has to wait for his wrs to get open and hold it...then we saw what happens...but we were fine in 09...no we didn't lead anything in rushing but it was enough to keep defenses honest..we actually ran ok against NO in the SB...but I still think our team was definately SB worthy....we just lost our best defensive player at the worst time EVER....and without a pass rush against an elite passing attack....that cover 2 got destroyed.

[MAC]

Oh so I don't want Peyton to win a SB??? That's news to me. Tell me how you possibly reached that conclusion from anything I've posted.

Revisionist history? Are you kidding? The 2011 Broncos were good enough to drag Tim "I can't throw the football" Tebow all the way to an 8-8 record and then the divisional round. There were no major acquisitions made to that team, aside from Peyton, in the 2011-2012 offseason. The pieces were there. All they were missing was Peyton. It's not a knock on him, but there's a reason he isn't a Jaguar, or a Raider, and it isn't because any team can instantly be one of the greatest of all time.

This past offseason they added to that team tremendously, but with the goal to win now. It's not a formula designed with sustained success in mind.

If you put Peyton on Cleveland, as you keep bringing up, they wouldn't magically become one of the most potent offenses of all time, and shatter every record. Not a chance. They would instantly be better, but not to the level Denver has been. Let's not even mention the fact that you keep supporting my original post every time you say that.

"If we could build a team, that had no QB eating up the cap, and then in one season insert a HOF QB, it wouldn't hard to have instant success."

We are saying the same thing in this instance. It's easier for a team to build without a greatly paid QB then it is to build with one. Seattle is a perfect example. They built a juggernaut without worrying about paying a superstar QB. Then they drafted Wilson and instantly that team is ready to contend for SBs.

No one said "Don't pay QBs, they aren't worth it." Not even once. But to flat out deny that paying QBs can cause holes to pop up other places is silly. If you don't resign Decker maybe the next guy is just as good. Maybe he isn't as good too. Was Marvin's replacement better? Certainly not. He wanted too much and we couldn't pay him, among other things.

Peyton had SB winning talent, in my opinion, from 03-07. He wasn't hurting offensively. He had play makers everywhere. But as a by product of the investment in the offense, the D slipped. The sustained success also hurt our drafts because the misses, and there were plenty, cost us that much more. Never replenishing talent takes its toll. Especially when your GM doesn't like acquiring FAs.

It's not the fault of the QBs, or any highly paid player, it's how salary cap football is suppose to function. No team is easily allowed to have great players, and hold onto them forever. That's why the dynasty's of so long ago frequently get asterisks by some because the challenges of cultivating a team then, and now, are entirely different.

Uh, because you voted "no" in the poll titled "do you want Peyton to win another Super Bowl?". 

 

I wasn't throwing that at you like it was an "accusation". I hate it when people do similar things to me, and frankly I don't care what you root for. However you appeared to have established it as fact, and I was simply suggesting that it might impact your view of the Broncos. If my assumption is wrong, I'm sorry. If you clicked the wrong box you might want to go fix it.

 

I agree with most of your above comments. This is really kind of pointless because we all know the Colts history and are both rational about it. I only responded for two reasons.

 

One - your posts talk about a big QBs salary contributing to a teams decay as if it's inevitable. I'm just rephrasing it to say that a top QB's salary is simply a starting point chunked out of the top of the cap, and then it's up to the GM to build a team around it. Decline is not inevitable or even likely as long as the GM does his job - and having the QB doesn't hinder him, it gives him an enormous advantage.

 

Yes, if you catch lightening in a bottle with a whole lot of special young players together at the same time you can have a special team - and if you are foolish enough to pay them all like superstars and then watch them get old together than decline is inevitable. The Colts could never replace the players they took at the top of the first round when drafting at the bottom. That's one reason I pointed out that some players the Broncos took in similar positions aren't even playing. The team has a lot of depth - because of money well spent all over the roster on much lower draft picks and free agents. 

 

Second, I say again that your assumption about the Broncos being a ready made team is a bit much. They had a good oline built on running the ball. It's had ridiculous injury problems including the loss of multiple starters - plus they changed schemes. They also brought in Stokely, Tamme and Dreeson (not to mention  Caldwell, Hester, Gronkowski, Hillman and Holiday amongst others)  for Peytons first year - the first two of whom were Peyton's safety blankets - getting a LOT of first downs. This off-season they upgraded further. This is "not your Tebow's" offense.

 

The Broncos have given a lot of short term contracts to depth vets who wanted to come there for a chance to win. Without Peyton, they weren't coming. When those contracts are up they probably go, to be replaced by similar vets at similar cap friendly numbers. I always defended Polian's tendency to ignore free agency because I associate it with significantly overpaying for someone whose career is about to turn south. The way that the Broncos have used it is entirely different, and if the Colts had been able to do the same they would have had substantially more success. If anything watching this all play out has made me a bit more cranky and resentful of what the Colts "could have had" than I EVER felt before. To the OP, YES, the Colts should have won more super bowls.

 

I think that your assumptions about the Broncos essentially equate Thomas, Decker, Clady, Miller and Moreno with Harrison, Wayne, Glenn, Freeney and Edge - but while it "feels" similar there are huge differences. Clady and Miller have been injured/suspended and  have had virtually no impact on the team this year. Moreno isn't in the same league as Edge - his second round pick backup will likely be a better player in the near future. And I'd take Harrison/Wayne over Thomas/Decker any day of the week with regards to talent, it's just that it turns out that the fact that the later two are humongous makes a difference against physical defenses. I think that we might have learned this in 2003, but the Colts never did anything about it. The fact that Peyton is even better now than he was then has a lot to do with all this as well.

 

I mention the Browns because they are a universally panned team who never-the-less beat a couple of good teams this year and scared others. The margin between victory and loss in the NFL is ridiculously small. The Browns have several special players that are underutilized, and in complete contrast to what you stated, their offense isn't all that different from what Peyton walked into in Denver last year aside from only having one top receiver instead of two. Their defense - on the basis of yards per play - is third only to Seattle and Cincinnati in the entire league. They give up more points because they're on the field too long because their offense stinks. Add Peyton plus offensive additions comparable to what the Broncos did in Peyton's first year and I'm sure they'd dominate the division. Then add FA's like the Broncos added this off-season and maybe you have something special. Maybe "every team" isn't like the Browns, but the point is that there is talent ALL over the place. Without a good QB (and his salary) it doesn't mean a heck of a lot. The Browns problem is that their front office seems so bizarrely situated - from the owner's criminal complaints, to the former incredibly uninspiring and petty tv analyst ("back when I was a hero with the Redskins") turned GM - willing to toss out their coach after one year - that I'm not sure that anyone (including Peyton) would be enthusiastic about playing for them. A successful organization starts from the top down, and Peyton certainly chose well. 

[Balzer40]

Bad choice of words...I meant offense...but the OL was rather solid....but then again...Peyton made most of our OLs look decent because he got rid of the ball quick....he has issues when corners press and he has to wait for his wrs to get open and hold it...then we saw what happens...but we were fine in 09...no we didn't lead anything in rushing but it was enough to keep defenses honest..we actually ran ok against NO in the SB...but I still think our team was definately SB worthy....we just lost our best defensive player at the worst time EVER....and without a pass rush against an elite passing attack....that cover 2 got destroyed.

I see. I agree we were without doubt SB worthy and IMO we were a better team than NO. Our greatest weakness that yr. was coaching IMO. I hated Caldwell as a coach in case you couldn't tell(lol). Nothing against him as a man, just not a good coach IMO. Better coaching in that game and we win IMO.

[Gramz]

Oh so I don't want Peyton to win a SB??? That's news to me. Tell me how you possibly reached that conclusion from anything I've posted.

 

Because You Voted No ~ in the Poll asking if you wanted him to win       

[House]

Uh, because you voted "no" in the poll titled "do you want Peyton to win another Super Bowl?".

I wasn't throwing that at you like it was an "accusation". I hate it when people do similar things to me, and frankly I don't care what you root for. However you appeared to have established it as fact, and I was simply suggesting that it might impact your view of the Broncos. If my assumption is wrong, I'm sorry. If you clicked the wrong box you might want to go fix it.

I agree with most of your above comments. This is really kind of pointless because we all know the Colts history and are both rational about it. I only responded for two reasons.

One - your posts talk about a big QBs salary contributing to a teams decay as if it's inevitable. I'm just rephrasing it to say that a top QB's salary is simply a starting point chunked out of the top of the cap, and then it's up to the GM to build a team around it. Decline is not inevitable or even likely as long as the GM does his job - and having the QB doesn't hinder him, it gives him an enormous advantage.

Yes, if you catch lightening in a bottle with a whole lot of special young players together at the same time you can have a special team - and if you are foolish enough to pay them all like superstars and then watch them get old together than decline is inevitable. The Colts could never replace the players they took at the top of the first round when drafting at the bottom. That's one reason I pointed out that some players the Broncos took in similar positions aren't even playing. The team has a lot of depth - because of money well spent all over the roster on much lower draft picks and free agents.

Second, I say again that your assumption about the Broncos being a ready made team is a bit much. They had a good oline built on running the ball. It's had ridiculous injury problems including the loss of multiple starters - plus they changed schemes. They also brought in Stokely, Tamme and Dreeson (not to mention Caldwell, Hester, Gronkowski, Hillman and Holiday amongst others) for Peytons first year - the first two of whom were Peyton's safety blankets - getting a LOT of first downs. This off-season they upgraded further. This is "not your Tebow's" offense.

The Broncos have given a lot of short term contracts to depth vets who wanted to come there for a chance to win. Without Peyton, they weren't coming. When those contracts are up they probably go, to be replaced by similar vets at similar cap friendly numbers. I always defended Polian's tendency to ignore free agency because I associate it with significantly overpaying for someone whose career is about to turn south. The way that the Broncos have used it is entirely different, and if the Colts had been able to do the same they would have had substantially more success. If anything watching this all play out has made me a bit more cranky and resentful of what the Colts "could have had" than I EVER felt before. To the OP, YES, the Colts should have won more super bowls.

I think that your assumptions about the Broncos essentially equate Thomas, Decker, Clady, Miller and Moreno with Harrison, Wayne, Glenn, Freeney and Edge - but while it "feels" similar there are huge differences. Clady and Miller have been injured/suspended and have had virtually no impact on the team this year. Moreno isn't in the same league as Edge - his second round pick backup will likely be a better player in the near future. And I'd take Harrison/Wayne over Thomas/Decker any day of the week with regards to talent, it's just that it turns out that the fact that the later two are humongous makes a difference against physical defenses. I think that we might have learned this in 2003, but the Colts never did anything about it. The fact that Peyton is even better now than he was then has a lot to do with all this as well.

I mention the Browns because they are a universally panned team who never-the-less beat a couple of good teams this year and scared others. The margin between victory and loss in the NFL is ridiculously small. The Browns have several special players that are underutilized, and in complete contrast to what you stated, their offense isn't all that different from what Peyton walked into in Denver last year aside from only having one top receiver instead of two. Their defense - on the basis of yards per play - is third only to Seattle and Cincinnati in the entire league. They give up more points because they're on the field too long because their offense stinks. Add Peyton plus offensive additions comparable to what the Broncos did in Peyton's first year and I'm sure they'd dominate the division. Then add FA's like the Broncos added this off-season and maybe you have something special. Maybe "every team" isn't like the Browns, but the point is that there is talent ALL over the place. Without a good QB (and his salary) it doesn't mean a heck of a lot. The Browns problem is that their front office seems so bizarrely situated - from the owner's criminal complaints, to the former incredibly uninspiring and petty tv analyst ("back when I was a hero with the Redskins") turned GM - willing to toss out their coach after one year - that I'm not sure that anyone (including Peyton) would be enthusiastic about playing for them. A successful organization starts from the top down, and Peyton certainly chose well.

Hahahahahaha I was under the impression polls were anonymous. Who knew? As for voting no, I chose to after reading a post that said "If you don't vote yes, you aren't a real fan" or something to that extent. Clearly not a point I care about, or an argument I care to make. I just don't like being told what I am or am not based on a poll.

However, and I stress this for the last time because we seem to agree on the big points, and disagree on the small ones, I'm not saying "Don't have highly paid QBs, and don't pay them. They ruin teams." I'm just saying the scenario the Broncos were presented, isn't the same one the Colts were when acquiring Peyton.

The Broncos had talent, and the ability to go after other quality pieces. Which they have done, and continue to do, to try and win now. The Colts early on had the talent, but over time the team eroded and when you have quality players making large amounts of money, I.E Peyton, Dwight, it's hard to keep a team fresh. It's not the fault of these players either, it's just the reality of the salary cap IMO.

So all I'm trying to dispute is that somehow the Colts were unwilling, or not wise enough, to make moves to improve the team, and in that way they didn't do right by Peyton. They provided him with plenty of SB talent throughout the years. Later on the missed draft picks caught up with us, but still we had quality squads. It didn't work out for us, but I don't fault the Colts any more then I fault Peyton.

I only mentioned QBs cap hits in my initial post because the thread was about Peyton. Any of my opinions would hold true if you were talking about many highly paid players and how it effects their teams. I certainly wasn't blaming Manning. It's just a by product of the NFL in its current form.

All my opinion however, and I neither demand nor expect you to agree.

I'm happy to agree to disagree any day

[House]

Because You Voted No ~ in the Poll asking if you wanted him to win

See above

I do like how all of my posts got boiled down to one joke response to a poll though. Makes me wonder why I post so much. Clearly there is a more effective way for people to understand my thoughts

[MAC]

Hahahahahaha I was under the impression polls were anonymous. Who knew? As for voting no, I chose to after reading a post that said "If you don't vote yes, you aren't a real fan" or something to that extent. Clearly not a point I care about, or an argument I care to make. I just don't like being told what I am or am not based on a poll.

 

For what it's worth, some polls are anonymous and some aren't - it's the choice of the guy who created it. It's clearly marked which are which, and frankly there are a lot of polls that I haven't responded to simply because I didn't feel like dealing with the fallout from those who disagreed with me.

 

I can appreciate your knee-jerk reaction to the poster you mention. Ironically I deal with the same thing in reverse on a virtually constant basis. "I'm not a real Colts fan" because I'm so enthusiastic about Peyton that I want him to succeed even though he's on another team. It's simplistic, ridiculous, demeaning, insulting, infuriating, and most of all inaccurate - and I've beaten my head against the wall for two years trying to refute it.

 

I try not to let :cuss: comments influence my opinion, but they certainly reduce the pleasure that I derive from this place.

 

Sad to say, the bottom line is that some people flat out .

 

Happy to say that you don't. To the argument, I'm tired, hungry, have a headache to the point that I'm having trouble remembering what we were talking about in the first place. : :

 

I really should go see if I can find my truck. I forgot to move it to the end of my driveway before we got nailed with a winter storm.

[Gramz]

See above

I do like how all of my posts got boiled down to one joke response to a poll though. Makes me wonder why I post so much. Clearly there is a more effective way for people to understand my thoughts

To be honest,  I havn't read much of anything on here lately....   But I did see the Poll, and couldn't pass up the opportunity to answer your question of how anyone came to the conclusion that you didn't want Peyton to Win the SB.  ;)      

 

No harm,  No foul.   Just yanking your chain  

[House]

For what it's worth, some polls are anonymous and some aren't - it's the choice of the guy who created it. It's clearly marked which are which, and frankly there are a lot of polls that I haven't responded to simply because I didn't feel like dealing with the fallout from those who disagreed with me.

I can appreciate your knee-jerk reaction to the poster you mention. Ironically I deal with the same thing in reverse on a virtually constant basis. "I'm not a real Colts fan" because I'm so enthusiastic about Peyton that I want him to succeed even though he's on another team. It's simplistic, ridiculous, demeaning, insulting, infuriating, and most of all inaccurate - and I've beaten my head against the wall for two years trying to refute it.

I try not to let :cuss: comments influence my opinion, but they certainly reduce the pleasure that I derive from this place.

Sad to say, the bottom line is that some people flat out .

Happy to say that you don't. To the argument, I'm tired, hungry, have a headache to the point that I'm having trouble remembering what we were talking about in the first place. : :

I really should go see if I can find my truck. I forgot to move it to the end of my driveway before we got nailed with a winter storm.

I thought I was safe in my anonymity in that poll....my secret anti-Peyton plot has been revealed. I need to make a new username.....

But yeah it's you said. I read "anyone who voted no=hater" and I thought " Oh yeah? I'll show you a hater." I never gave it a second thought. That's why I was so confused on why you thought I was against Peyton.

On a serious note though, my initial post in this thread was more about how the cap situations, and ramifications were different for the Colts and Broncos.

I wasn't placing blame by any means, and it wasn't meant to be a bombastic post anyways. Certainly not enough for us to discuss it in this depth .

Good luck finding your truck. I feel like shoveling is my full time career this past month. On the other hand I am getting really skilled at making igloos....

[House]

To be honest, I havn't read much of anything on here lately.... But I did see the Poll, and couldn't pass up the opportunity to answer your question of how anyone came to the conclusion that you didn't want Peyton to Win the SB. ;)

No harm, No foul. Just yanking your chain

I was more thinking out loud on the second part of my post. Not directed at you really.

I thought I was going to get to be a little smart butt in that poll, but I didn't know it wasn't anonymous and I totally forgot I did that until MAC brought it up .

[MAC]

I thought I was safe in my anonymity in that poll....my secret anti-Peyton plot has been revealed. I need to make a new username.....

But yeah it's you said. I read "anyone who voted no=hater" and I thought " Oh yeah? I'll show you a hater." I never gave it a second thought. That's why I was so confused on why you thought I was against Peyton.

On a serious note though, my initial post in this thread was more about how the cap situations, and ramifications were different for the Colts and Broncos.

I wasn't placing blame by any means, and it wasn't meant to be a bombastic post anyways. Certainly not enough for us to discuss it in this depth .

Good luck finding your truck. I feel like shoveling is my full time career this past month. On the other hand I am getting really skilled at making igloos....

My truck isn't all that covered - the HIGH WINDS cleaned it off. Discretion being the better part of valor, I'm waiting until tomorrow. Real Feel of -6% at the moment. Ahhh, igloos. I remember doing that when I was a kid. I remember at one point thinking "we don't get snow as deep as we used to", then realizing that it was mostly that I had gotten bigger. A masterfull fort fit for a kid need only be about a foot and a half high.

 

You could always tell that guy off and than change your vote. Somehow I doubt that the subtle message is having the desired effect. I may just tell him off myself.

[House]

My truck isn't all that covered - the HIGH WINDS cleaned it off. Discretion being the better part of valor, I'm waiting until tomorrow. Real Feel of -6% at the moment.

You could always tell that guy off and than change your vote. Somehow I doubt that the subtle message is having the desired effect. I may just tell him off myself.

Clearly it's not lol. The plan was to be an anonymous "hater" but I royally screwed that up.

And to even further drive off topic. Thankfully the snow fall that came today was extremely light snow. Drove my car for 5 minutes and it was completely cleared off.

[Yehoodi]

I know it fun to look back and talk and say "what if" . . . and discuss among friends what else could of happened to help our team do better . . . but sometimes that is tough to do . . .

 

I think we should not forget that the colts won the most games during the regular season over decade, so that has some meaning regardless of how one want to revisit the situation . . . and I think sometimes when we have these kind of talks, and believe me I have had the same with Pats fans and why yada yada yada did not happen and look at team A or team B and look what they did and so on, why cant we sign a guy like that  . . . it gets kind of tiring . .  .

 

I think we sometimes need to step back and look at not what could have been (glass is half empty and we should of gotten more) but what was and how it might have been worse (glass is half full and glad our FO got the glass to the half full mark) . . . it easy to look at the former as it is in front of us . . . but difficult to reason about the later as we takes things for granted  . . . and too it tough to prove a negative . . i.e. we would of had more losses has the FO not done x, y and z . . .

 

alas, in the salary cap era one has to make tough decisions and one can not keep all of ones toys and drafting is not an exact science . . .

 

also we must remember that when Peyton went to Denver it was 7-4 with Tebow before his arrival, so the Broncos we not necessarily your big brothers Broncos . . . not to take anything away from Peyton, but Broncos might be a tad better than we might want to give them credit . . .  

 

also the Broncos success has something to do with the weaker AFC, heck Brady got to the AFCCG with a 7th round QB at WR and throwing to Matthew Slater.  . .

 

And too the Broncos have a lot of their players are under their rookie contracts . . .so they very likely are adding value to the team beyond their costs . . . whereas the colts one is trying to look over the coarse of a 14 year span in which many of the players that bring value have invariably hit the meat of their contract years and will cost more money and accordingly via the salary cap reduced their numbers in turn . . .

 

So Manning's big contract will not have the same effect on the talent level of the Broncos as they are getting a lot of value out of cheaper contracts and perhaps would not likely be able to sustain this, well more specifically keep the same cast of characters around over the next say 5-7 years . . .  

 

And also how far do you think this Bronco team would of gotten going up against the 2001-2007 pats or the 2001-2008 Steelers . . . heck the Ravens this year were 8-8 . . . not to take away from the 13-3 Broncos or the 12-4 Pats, but if we want to compare oranges and oranges, lets remember that the 2003-2009 colts were in a conference that most would agree was tougher than the present day conference, well at least insofar as getting to the top of the pyramid of the AFCCG winner . . .

 

So lets not throw the baby with the bath water on the FO of the colts, they had a philosophy, had some big names that came at a price and work accordingly, a team can not do a 180 overnight, one to a degree has to roll what is already on his roster and make makes changes when changes are possible . . .

[Surge89]

Yeah I just think he playing smarter and more within himself. That's all. I think it was Ty Law that said the first few years of Manning's career was like taking candy from a baby. He would stare down his receivers and force throws. But after a few years, he learned and got better and it became more difficult to defend him. I think now he just gets the game better and realizes the he can rely on his teammates more.

 

 

This cannot be understated.  I feel like for years we handicapped Peyton by putting the worst defenses out on the field.  He is already a perfectionist, but then he would add the pressure that HE would have to play perfect and then would just focus on getting the ball to Harrison.  He would limit himself due to fear that his team wouldn't be there...  His own perfectionist is one of his flaws and it would shine, due to the conservative (and overrated) coaching and management he had.

[Surge89]

I know it fun to look back and talk and say "what if" . . . and discuss among friends what else could of happened to help our team do better . . . but sometimes that is tough to do . . .

 

I think we should not forget that the colts won the most games during the regular season over decade, so that has some meaning regardless of how one want to revisit the situation . . . and I think sometimes when we have these kind of talks, and believe me I have had the same with Pats fans and why yada yada yada did not happen and look at team A or team B and look what they did and so on, why cant we sign a guy like that  . . . it gets kind of tiring . .  .

 

I think we sometimes need to step back and look at not what could have been (glass is half empty and we should of gotten more) but what was and how it might have been worse (glass is half full and glad our FO got the glass to the half full mark) . . . it easy to look at the former as it is in front of us . . . but difficult to reason about the later as we takes things for granted  . . . and too it tough to prove a negative . . i.e. we would of had more losses has the FO not done x, y and z . . .

 

alas, in the salary cap era one has to make tough decisions and one can not keep all of ones toys and drafting is not an exact science . . .

 

also we must remember that when Peyton went to Denver it was 7-4 with Tebow before his arrival, so the Broncos we not necessarily your big brothers Broncos . . . not to take anything away from Peyton, but Broncos might be a tad better than we might want to give them credit . . .  

 

also the Broncos success has something to do with the weaker AFC, heck Brady got to the AFCCG with a 7th round QB at WR and throwing to Matthew Slater.  . .

 

And too the Broncos have a lot of their players are under their rookie contracts . . .so they very likely are adding value to the team beyond their costs . . . whereas the colts one is trying to look over the coarse of a 14 year span in which many of the players that bring value have invariably hit the meat of their contract years and will cost more money and accordingly via the salary cap reduced their numbers in turn . . .

 

So Manning's big contract will not have the same effect on the talent level of the Broncos as they are getting a lot of value out of cheaper contracts and perhaps would not likely be able to sustain this, well more specifically keep the same cast of characters around over the next say 5-7 years . . .  

 

And also how far do you think this Bronco team would of gotten going up against the 2001-2007 pats or the 2001-2008 Steelers . . . heck the Ravens this year were 8-8 . . . not to take away from the 13-3 Broncos or the 12-4 Pats, but if we want to compare oranges and oranges, lets remember that the 2003-2009 colts were in a conference that most would agree was tougher than the present day conference, well at least insofar as getting to the top of the pyramid of the AFCCG winner . . .

 

So lets not throw the baby with the bath water on the FO of the colts, they had a philosophy, had some big names that came at a price and work accordingly, a team can not do a 180 overnight, one to a degree has to roll what is already on his roster and make makes changes when changes are possible . . .

 

I don't think anyone is doubting that the Broncos are a much better team.  Without Peyton they would still be respectable, but that is the point of the thread.  

 

While you may look at the Colts FO as an ally in the past, many colts fans do not share the same thought for simple reason.  Like you said the Conference may have been "tougher" as you say (which I don't believe at all I think that there is just way more balance due to the rookie salary cap finally taking effect), but the fact was the Colts FO in the Polian era had several things wrong with their "philosophies".  Yes they won in the regular season but it is hard to say that it wasn't on the pads of Manning.  For example:

 

Polian era paid countless 2nd contracts at higher than the 75 percentile.  Meaning every single player they brought in that got a 2nd contract had a high chance of being paid more than average of their position.

 

Polian era paid for defensive players that were not complete.  They paid for "pass rushers" or "thumpers", but never for a cornerstone defensive player that can be on the field every snap.

 

Polian era paid the offense and defenses completely imbalanced.  WR, QB, RB got tons of money.  Center, Gaurd, RT not so much.  Rush specialist DE, MLB, Safety lots. CB, DT, Run stuffing DE, LB not so much

 

Polian era never looked to FA to fill dire needs... ever

 

Polian era relied heavily on draft because of the huge 2nd contracts they were giving out, meaning very little room for error.  We miss on a pick?  we feel it for years in that position.

 

Polian era catered to a coaching philosophy that required specific (extremely) talented players at certain positions and then never dipped into FA or draft day trades to make those positions filled.  Flawed coaching philosophy with a flawed player recruitment means holes... lots of em... and a defense that can never hope to stop anyone...

 

And the biggest... Polian era had a conservative nature from the top to the bottom.  This alone effected Manning heavily.  That is why you saw Manning check to the run 3 straight times in the second quarter of our superbowl instead of trying to get a first and score.  Why do I say this effected heavily?  Lets take the Patriots in the recent AFC champ game.  They are down before the half.  Do they take a knee to run the quarter out?  No.  They run a safe play see what comes out of it and work from there.  Even at the very last play did they knee it?  No they ran the ball draw play.. Why? because you never know when the defense makes a mistake and you bust one for 70 yards.  Small things make a huge difference.

[Surge89]

The biggest problem Manning had in Indy was Bill Polian. I've said it for yrs. and many disagree but Polian has always been over rated. His blatant disregard to fill obvious weak links on the roster with better talent was nothing more than Polian just being stubborn and wanting to prove to people how brilliant he was by filling those weak links with mediocre talent. If it would have worked(which it didn't) he wanted to look back and make backhanded remarks to those who questioned his "genius". He overpaid mediocre or just bad players instead of upgrading at those positions and he let players walk that he should have paid. 

 

we agree and I just had to make it known

 

But seriously... the post had to be seen again lol

[Shane Bond]

Did I say he wasn't worth the money he was paid?

You are implying it as a reason why Colts weren't built well. I am sure it was discussed in detail with other posts below.

[House]

You are implying it as a reason why Colts weren't built well. I am sure it was discussed in detail with other posts below.

I would suggest reading what I wrote. Before jumping to conclusions.