Grigson says Luck's contract affects Colts Defense

[Coltsman1788]

Stephen A. ethers Griggson. Can't say I disagree with him. 

 

https://youtu.be/t29dcapEs20

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Right.

 

The person who has done the most arguing in this thread --- that would be YOU --- just called someone else argumentative.

 

That's rich.......       but then again,  that's you.....

 

As for no more time to waste with me..................     Promise?!       

No not a promise, just a fact.

[esmort]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Not sure if you listened to the interview or not...

 

Mohr kind of asked a rambling, nonsensical question (didn't really ask a question, and he said that himself), and Grigson's comments were kind of a response, but not really, because there wasn't any real way to respond to what Mohr was saying/asking. 

 

I would agree with you if he had been asked why the defense isn't better after four years, why it's Year 5 and the OL still isn't good, etc. That's not what he was asked, though.

 

So, to the bolded, I don't agree. I guess it would make some people here feel better, but I don't see why it's called for how it would be productive. It is what it is, he said he's made mistakes, and said they have to do better. I don't see any benefit to him belaboring the point, especially not in this specific context. He actually did plenty of that at the end of season presser.

 

Last thing, I'm not very sensitive to arrogance. Some perceive it that way, I am not bothered by it. I certainly don't want someone who doesn't believe in what they're doing.

 

I agree he was not directly asked that exact question.  But, he has to know what the public perception is of him right now, and that the media is looking to find a good headline. 

 

I disagree that there is no benefit to him continuing go the extra mile to show regret, and even though he was not directly asked about specifically he could have used the platform to take ownership and continue show regret (even if just for appearances sake).  Because while you may not be that sensitive to arrogance many in the public are, and the media love to try to knock those they perceive as arrogant down a few pegs, especially when the arrogance is unjustified ... he's lucky he still has a job he has nothing to back up his arrogance.  This go could go a long way to smoothing the ruffled feathers of many fans and the media.  You could definitely argue that the ruffled feathers are not his problem and he could care less, and that is true to a point. But, when enough fans want you gone and the if the media keeps fanning the flames than they can have an effect on the job you are already in danger of losing. 

 

I am not a Grigson or Pagano fan, but that being said I am not necessarily in favor of firing them mid-season. However, I don't think his personality is doing him any favors and I don't think he is very media savvy.  

[esmort]

6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess Grigson wasn't speaking specifically to you so he wasn't sure what you wanted to hear.

 

Judging from all the comments on this board, the comments on other boards and after stories about this topic, and the way the media is reporting on this in general it seems pretty clear that it is not only me who feels this way; I would venture to say the majority of fans and media want to hear something different from him. 

 

I think you need to lay off the blue Kool-Aid ... I have never seen a poster as determined to defend every move their team makes (good or bad) as you are ... if irsay isn't paying you he should be. 

[crazycolt1]

10 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

Judging from all the comments on this board, the comments on other boards and after stories about this topic, and the way the media is reporting on this in general it seems pretty clear that it is not only me who feels this way; I would venture to say the majority of fans and media want to hear something different from him. 

 

I think you need to lay off the blue Kool-Aid ... I have never seen a poster as determined to defend every move their team makes (good or bad) as you are ... if irsay isn't paying you he should be. 

You call it defending. I call it accepting reality. When the Colts don't win it don't make any difference one way or another because no matter how I acted it changes nothing. Getting bent out of shape is worthless. I have been watching football for a very long time and it never changes with the ups and downs. It's not going to change either. Putting yourself in a bad mood over an adult kids game is also worthless. When you let what is suppose to be entertainment put you in a frame of mind where it's all negative then it is not entertainment any longer. It's is just football. There are winners and losers by design.

[Coltsman1788]

On October 8, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Defjamz26 said:

I didn't take it as him taking a shot at Luck. I took it as him using the Luck contract as a scapegoat. While admitting his shortcomings in the draft he tries to lead us to believe that they couldn't go after top shelf FAs. While it will be hard to sign guys like that going forward, it doesn't explain the 3-4 years before his deal.

Exactly.

[Restored]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Saying 'we've missed picks and we need to do better' is disingenuous? How so?

 

I didn't think he was trying to make excuses in advance. I think he was saying 'we have to build the defense through the draft, and it's going to take time.' Not 'we might not be able to get it done because Luck's contract is handicapping us.' 

 

Because every GM will tell you they've missed picks or need to do better whenever it comes to drafting.

 

Even if that's how you interpreted it, that's something he could justifiably say in the early years of his tenure, not his 5th. But by doing so, he is opening the door wide open for criticism.

[ztboiler]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Hughes was a bad trade, obviously, but I think he would have left in free agency.

The Hughes trade does look awful now, and we forget that it was even worse given that he had 2 years left on his rookie deal.

 

All that said, Hughes clearly had issues here, and any assumption that he'd ever have been productive in Indy is flawed....

 

But, we should have waited longer to trade him.  I think Grigson was hasty in his decision cycle on that one.  Even if Chuck didn't like Hughes, and there is a good chance of that, it's prudent to be patient with a 1st rounder that has shown some flashes in year 3.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

9 hours ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Stephen A. ethers Griggson. Can't say I disagree with him. 

 

https://youtu.be/t29dcapEs20

 

Its hard to listen to Stephen A he is a jerk , I do agree with Max , 

 

If you are gonna offer Grigson the new contract then his past his not why you would fire him right now , 

No one liked his comments & if the team continues to spiral out of control a decision at the end of the season on keeping him going forward should be considered , 

 

I also agree that winning in Texas would be a step forward but IMO players need to be held accountable for there actions on the field & called out & in some cases replaced , Grigson needs to explore all & any players out there that can help this team win if the Colts have the money spend it ..

[Bubbz]

On 10/9/2016 at 3:38 PM, Superman said:

 

$18.4m in 2016. 

Ok so whats the difference?

[Jason_]

10 minutes ago, Bubbz said:

Ok so whats the difference?

 

already discussed earlier in the thread

[Superman]

9 hours ago, Restored said:

 

Because every GM will tell you they've missed picks or need to do better whenever it comes to drafting.

 

Even if that's how you interpreted it, that's something he could justifiably say in the early years of his tenure, not his 5th. But by doing so, he is opening the door wide open for criticism.

 

I think Grigson's picks since 2013 have been acceptable. Not great, but certainly not awful. His draft philosophy leaves something to be desired -- especially in 2015 -- but I'm fine with his picks.

 

So when he says that they've missed picks, to me, he's talking about Werner and Richardson. Maybe D'Joun Smith. But like you said, every GM misses picks.

 

And to the bolded, the truth is, there are some people who will criticize Grigson (and Pagano) no matter what. Very petty, IMO, the way their every word is nitpicked and made fun of... and that's among Colts fans. 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, esmort said:

 

I agree he was not directly asked that exact question.  But, he has to know what the public perception is of him right now, and that the media is looking to find a good headline. 

 

I disagree that there is no benefit to him continuing go the extra mile to show regret, and even though he was not directly asked about specifically he could have used the platform to take ownership and continue show regret (even if just for appearances sake).  Because while you may not be that sensitive to arrogance many in the public are, and the media love to try to knock those they perceive as arrogant down a few pegs, especially when the arrogance is unjustified ... he's lucky he still has a job he has nothing to back up his arrogance.  This go could go a long way to smoothing the ruffled feathers of many fans and the media.  You could definitely argue that the ruffled feathers are not his problem and he could care less, and that is true to a point. But, when enough fans want you gone and the if the media keeps fanning the flames than they can have an effect on the job you are already in danger of losing. 

 

I am not a Grigson or Pagano fan, but that being said I am not necessarily in favor of firing them mid-season. However, I don't think his personality is doing him any favors and I don't think he is very media savvy.  

 

All fair points. I'm just saying I don't care to have anyone cowering to the media just because they aren't held in high regard. As you know, I think the media is being screwy with this in the first place.

 

And regarding his perceived arrogance, maybe it's because I'm not sensitive to it, but I don't feel that he comes across as arrogant. That's an individual matter, though.

 

I'm not sure how far you need him to go in admitting that he's had bad picks. He started out with that. 

 

He could definitely have made his point more effectively, but based on your response -- and I find you to be very reasonable -- it's pretty clear that most people would be ripping him regardless. I think his comments were taken out of context, twisted and misapplied, and I find that far more egregious than his slightly unrefined comments about building the defense.

[Superman]

5 hours ago, Bubbz said:

Ok so whats the difference?

 

$25.4m. 

[Superman]

9 hours ago, ztboiler said:

The Hughes trade does look awful now, and we forget that it was even worse given that he had 2 years left on his rookie deal.

 

All that said, Hughes clearly had issues here, and any assumption that he'd ever have been productive in Indy is flawed....

 

But, we should have waited longer to trade him.  I think Grigson was hasty in his decision cycle on that one.  Even if Chuck didn't like Hughes, and there is a good chance of that, it's prudent to be patient with a 1st rounder that has shown some flashes in year 3.

 

Sheppard certainly wasn't productive in Indy, and wasn't here any longer than Hughes would have been. Terrible trade, no question. 

[NewColtsFan]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think Grigson's picks since 2013 have been acceptable. Not great, but certainly not awful. His draft philosophy leaves something to be desired -- especially in 2015 -- but I'm fine with his picks.

 

So when he says that they've missed picks, to me, he's talking about Werner and Richardson. Maybe D'Joun Smith. But like you said, every GM misses picks.

 

And to the bolded, the truth is, there are some people who will criticize Grigson (and Pagano) no matter what. Very petty, IMO, the way their every word is nitpicked and made fun of... and that's among Colts fans. 

 

Forgive me for what may sound like a stupid question....

 

But,  does "since 2013" include 2013,  or are you saying AFTER 2013?

 

I'm asking because if you include 2013,   then that two year window of 13 and 14 amounts to Mewhort, Moncreif and Hugh Thornton (13/IR) as our total from back to back drafts.

 

That's a huge hole that has left our roster painfully thin.

 

Combine that with the philosophical shift of going away from FA's to being more of a draft-centric building plan and you've got a very, very thin roster.

 

Grigson now talks about wanting to build the defense.    Fine.   But to show you where we are and how far away we are from reaching that level,  I've projected at least three more drafts before our defense will become something more respectable.     We can't build it fast enough.

 

Hard to see the fan base being that patient as we spend the 17, 18 and 19 drafts focusing on defense...........

 

Hard to see Irsay being patient with Grigson and Pagano as we try to rebuild as well.....

 

I hope I'm wrong.....

 

 

 

[BProland85]

The fact that Grigson is blaming Luck's contract for the reasons they are deficient in other areas of the team is completely moronic on his part. He is mostly to blame for the many problems this team has now (pass rush, OL mostly).

 

Pagano also has failed to coach up the players they do have and doesn't properly prepare them for games. I continually see Colts defensive players looking lost and that's on coaching. A coaches job is to allow their players to do what they do best, and play fast because they know what their job is. Both are fully to blame for this team's issues and Irsay HAS to address this.

[Superman]

45 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Forgive me for what may sound like a stupid question....

 

But,  does "since 2013" include 2013,  or are you saying AFTER 2013?

 

I'm asking because if you include 2013,   then that two year window of 13 and 14 amounts to Mewhort, Moncreif and Hugh Thornton (13/IR) as our total from back to back drafts.

 

That's a huge hole that has left our roster painfully thin.

 

Combine that with the philosophical shift of going away from FA's to being more of a draft-centric building plan and you've got a very, very thin roster.

 

Grigson now talks about wanting to build the defense.    Fine.   But to show you where we are and how far away we are from reaching that level,  I've projected at least three more drafts before our defense will become something more respectable.     We can't build it fast enough.

 

Hard to see the fan base being that patient as we spend the 17, 18 and 19 drafts focusing on defense...........

 

Hard to see Irsay being patient with Grigson and Pagano as we try to rebuild as well.....

 

I hope I'm wrong.....

 

By since I mean after 2013. So, 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

 

Mewhort, Moncrief, Dorsett (still pending), Anderson, Geathers, Parry, Good, Kelly, Haeg, Ridgeway, Green... Several good players added on both sides of the ball in the last three drafts. And 2012 was good also, though not as good as we thought at the time (Ballard, Brazill, Chapman didn't pan out). We know 2014 was a thin draft for the Colts, but the two guys we did get have been really good. Even Newsome is a substance abuse liability, not a bad player.

 

For all the "Grigson is a bad drafter" stuff, he's really just had one bad draft. It was REALLY bad, but still, just one. 

 

I agree that there isn't enough patience to buy Grigson and Pagano another three years. They'll be judged by different criteria, but in Grigson's case, he'll need to hit next year for sure. And while I agree that they have to be prudent with spending and free agency, I do anticipate them spending some money in 2017. So your three year projection might get a shot in the arm.

[NewColtsFan]

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

By since I mean after 2013. So, 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

 

Mewhort, Moncrief, Dorsett (still pending), Anderson, Geathers, Parry, Good, Kelly, Haeg, Ridgeway, Green... Several good players added on both sides of the ball in the last three drafts. And 2012 was good also, though not as good as we thought at the time (Ballard, Brazill, Chapman didn't pan out). We know 2014 was a thin draft for the Colts, but the two guys we did get have been really good. Even Newsome is a substance abuse liability, not a bad player.

 

For all the "Grigson is a bad drafter" stuff, he's really just had one bad draft. It was REALLY bad, but still, just one. 

 

I agree that there isn't enough patience to buy Grigson and Pagano another three years. They'll be judged by different criteria, but in Grigson's case, he'll need to hit next year for sure. And while I agree that they have to be prudent with spending and free agency, I do anticipate them spending some money in 2017. So your three year projection might get a shot in the arm.

 

 

Good post, thanks!

 

I like Mewhort and Moncrief,  but getting two good players out of a draft is just not enough.    You need more.  

 

It's interesting that you connect the 14 draft with the 15 and 16 draft.      That's one way to look at it.

 

I connect the 14 draft with the 13 draft and see a gaping hole.      Just a different perspective.

 

 

[JPFolks]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:36 PM, Superman said:

But aside from 2017, they won't be spending a bunch of money in free agency. Based on the comments from Irsay and Grigson, they'll be doing their best to build through the draft. I don't blame anyone for not believing their best is good enough.

Well, you've chosen to take the most positive Grigson position possible, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're a fan, most are not.  But even if he was only talking about the future as you suggest (I just watched the NFL Insiders show where they blasted Grigson as hard for that comment as I have ever seen them blast anyone for anything, and that was with Polian biting his tongue because his opinion was so negative) Polian is proof that even with Manning having the highest salary in the NFL, from 2000-2009 the Colts won the most NFL games. Even after he was the highest paid player, they built a Super Bowl winning defense.  So either way you choose to look at it (or for that matter, looking at it both ways) it's a dumb comment.  It's a defeatist viewpoint and suggests the job is, in his own opinion, too difficult to handle for him, and perhaps someone else should take a shot.  Unlike investing, previous results usually indicate future success in football when it comes to GM's.  If you suck as bad as anyone in your job for 4 years, odds are you're not going to get better.  And preemptively making excuses, (as you suggest he's doing about the future right?) doesn't exactly exude confidence on any level.  I also think it is humorous now how he's emphasizing how he and Pagano are in lockstep which only serves to support they were previously not so much in lockstep.  

 

So whether you're in the camp that believes his comment is ridiculous because he sucked the past 4 years when he had ample cap space and picks to fix the defense and the o-line for that matter, or you believe, as you do, he is only talking about the future, he looks like an * and/or a defeatist.  Everyone has known Luck would be (and deserves to be) the highest paid player when his contract came up, so he further shows what a failure he is by not being amply prepared to deal with that obvious reality.  It is almost like he didn't know Luck would get a big contract this year.   Is that his defense?  If not, what point is it to throw your franchise QB's contract under the bus?  Nearly every other team would happily take his QB problem on I assure you.  

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Good post, thanks!

 

I like Mewhort and Moncrief,  but getting two good players out of a draft is just not enough.    You need more.  

 

It's interesting that you connect the 14 draft with the 15 and 16 draft.      That's one way to look at it.

 

I connect the 14 draft with the 13 draft and see a gaping hole.      Just a different perspective.

 

I'm just going in order. I'm not sure why you connect any drafts, but if you connect '13 and '14 there's absolutely a gaping hole, because that's two players out of two drafts. Three if you count Vontae. 

 

I agree that two players out of one draft isn't enough. I'm just talking about the selections that were made with the five picks.

[Hoosiernsavga]

Cop out! I'm sure he wish he could take that back. Stupid comment from a GM! 

 

[crazycolt1]

6 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Well, you've chosen to take the most positive Grigson position possible, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're a fan, most are not.  But even if he was only talking about the future as you suggest (I just watched the NFL Insiders show where they blasted Grigson as hard for that comment as I have ever seen them blast anyone for anything, and that was with Polian biting his tongue because his opinion was so negative) Polian is proof that even with Manning having the highest salary in the NFL, from 2000-2009 the Colts won the most NFL games. Even after he was the highest paid player, they built a Super Bowl winning defense.  So either way you choose to look at it (or for that matter, looking at it both ways) it's a dumb comment.  It's a defeatist viewpoint and suggests the job is, in his own opinion, too difficult to handle for him, and perhaps someone else should take a shot.  Unlike investing, previous results usually indicate future success in football when it comes to GM's.  If you suck as bad as anyone in your job for 4 years, odds are you're not going to get better.  And preemptively making excuses, (as you suggest he's doing about the future right?) doesn't exactly exude confidence on any level.  I also think it is humorous now how he's emphasizing how he and Pagano are in lockstep which only serves to support they were previously not so much in lockstep.  

 

So whether you're in the camp that believes his comment is ridiculous because he sucked the past 4 years when he had ample cap space and picks to fix the defense and the o-line for that matter, or you believe, as you do, he is only talking about the future, he looks like an * and/or a defeatist.  Everyone has known Luck would be (and deserves to be) the highest paid player when his contract came up, so he further shows what a failure he is by not being amply prepared to deal with that obvious reality.  It is almost like he didn't know Luck would get a big contract this year.   Is that his defense?  If not, what point is it to throw your franchise QB's contract under the bus?  Nearly every other team would happily take his QB problem on I assure you.  

Yeah, it only took Poilan 14 years to win a super bowl. How many did he lose before finally winning one against the mighty Bears with their all star QB?

[CoachLite]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

By since I mean after 2013. So, 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

 

Mewhort, Moncrief, Dorsett (still pending), Anderson, Geathers, Parry, Good, Kelly, Haeg, Ridgeway, Green... Several good players added on both sides of the ball in the last three drafts. And 2012 was good also, though not as good as we thought at the time (Ballard, Brazill, Chapman didn't pan out). We know 2014 was a thin draft for the Colts, but the two guys we did get have been really good. Even Newsome is a substance abuse liability, not a bad player.

 

For all the "Grigson is a bad drafter" stuff, he's really just had one bad draft. It was REALLY bad, but still, just one. 

 

I agree that there isn't enough patience to buy Grigson and Pagano another three years. They'll be judged by different criteria, but in Grigson's case, he'll need to hit next year for sure. And while I agree that they have to be prudent with spending and free agency, I do anticipate them spending some money in 2017. So your three year projection might get a shot in the arm.

I think what has happened with Grigson's drafting (good and bad) relates to the "measurables" they use for ranking their board. There are important parameters that seem to be missing and some parameters they use don't end up relating to actual performance on the field. While these evaluations may be due to scouting and coaching evaluations, Grigson still must own those decisions. If the model is flawed, the draft will suffer. Taking responsibility is a hard thing.

[Restored]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think Grigson's picks since 2013 have been acceptable. Not great, but certainly not awful. His draft philosophy leaves something to be desired -- especially in 2015 -- but I'm fine with his picks.

 

So when he says that they've missed picks, to me, he's talking about Werner and Richardson. Maybe D'Joun Smith. But like you said, every GM misses picks.

 

And to the bolded, the truth is, there are some people who will criticize Grigson (and Pagano) no matter what. Very petty, IMO, the way their every word is nitpicked and made fun of... and that's among Colts fans. 

 

"Not great but certainly not awful" translates to mediocre which essentially what this is at this point. No real blue chip players outside of Hilton and Luck on almost five years of drafting and free agency isn't just average, it's awful.

 

Look, I'm not going on a witch hunt here. But it's fairly obvious what the failures of Grigson and Pagano have been to this point after 5 years. Yes, this fan base is VERY spoiled but they are pretty sensible for the most part also. They know the failures of the last regime and essentially view this era as a do-over. Patience is wearing thin however.

[stitches]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

 

By since I mean after 2013. So, 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

 

Mewhort, Moncrief, Dorsett (still pending), Anderson, Geathers, Parry, Good, Kelly, Haeg, Ridgeway, Green... Several good players added on both sides of the ball in the last three drafts. And 2012 was good also, though not as good as we thought at the time (Ballard, Brazill, Chapman didn't pan out). We know 2014 was a thin draft for the Colts, but the two guys we did get have been really good. Even Newsome is a substance abuse liability, not a bad player.

 

For all the "Grigson is a bad drafter" stuff, he's really just had one bad draft. It was REALLY bad, but still, just one. 

 

I agree that there isn't enough patience to buy Grigson and Pagano another three years. They'll be judged by different criteria, but in Grigson's case, he'll need to hit next year for sure. And while I agree that they have to be prudent with spending and free agency, I do anticipate them spending some money in 2017. So your three year projection might get a shot in the arm.

Last two drafts are still pending, but I wouldn't put Parry in the "good players added" category. Yeah, sure, he's starting for us, but that doesn't really tell you anything about the quality of his play. All it tells you is we don't have anybody better than Parry. I personally consider NT a position of desperate need of upgrade along with the EDGE, LBs and one of the corner spots. Same with Good, he's not bad for where he was taken, but it's not like I go to sleep with the though - damn the right tackle/guard spot is secured for years to come. Haeg has been pretty bad in his starts so far, but I'm willing to give him time...

 

I don't think there is anything Grigson can do in the next several months until the end of the season that will make me change my mind. I wanted him gone last year and I still do. I don't trust him to make the draft picks for this team. In essence he's had 1 horrible draft and several OK drafts with 2 impact players to show for it from 5 drafts. That's still below average over the long run. OK drafts won't do it. OK drafts might be good for a well built team to supplement the roster with fresh influx of talent... But thanks to him, this is not a well-built team. This is a team with huge holes all over the field. We need great drafts, we need impact players and I don't trust Grigson to find them and draft them for us.

 

edit: about his words - they seem grossly misrepresented and I have no idea how people can call themselves journalists and still spew nonsense like that and stoke the flames of disapproval like that. I don't really mind his public persona much. If he was a good GM I wouldn't mind it if he was the biggest * in the league. My objections to him are purely on the basis of the job he's done as a GM of the team and the decisions he's made. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Restored said:

Yes, this fan base is VERY spoiled but they are pretty sensible for the most part also. They know the failures of the last regime and essentially view this era as a do-over. Patience is wearing thin however.

 

Not much to say about the rest of your post that I haven't already said a few times in this thread. But to this part, I disagree, especially with the bolded. I think people are kind of losing their minds lately. 

 

But that's JMO.

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Restored said:

 

"Not great but certainly not awful" translates to mediocre which essentially what this is at this point. No real blue chip players outside of Hilton and Luck on almost five years of drafting and free agency isn't just average, it's awful.

 

Look, I'm not going on a witch hunt here. But it's fairly obvious what the failures of Grigson and Pagano have been to this point after 5 years. Yes, this fan base is VERY spoiled but they are pretty sensible for the most part also. They know the failures of the last regime and essentially view this era as a do-over. Patience is wearing thin however.

Sensible?  If being out of your mind can be called sensible I guess your are right.

[Restored]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Not much to say about the rest of your post that I haven't already said a few times in this thread. But to this part, I disagree, especially with the bolded. I think people are kind of losing their minds lately. 

 

But that's JMO.

 

I wouldn't include this message board in my assessment of the fan base. I should've put that in there.

[JPFolks]

17 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Yeah, it only took Poilan 14 years to win a super bowl. How many did he lose before finally winning one against the mighty Bears with their all star QB?

Putting together a team that wins the most games in the NFL year after year is a big deal.  Manning choking year after year in the playoffs is not Polian's fault.   Look at Manning's playoff stats versus regular season.  The team was built around him (and his salary) but if he chokes, the team isn't going to win.  I also think we had 2 coaches that had zero killer instinct to put teams away in the regular season or post season.  Our best team unfortunately got sidelined understandably when Dungy lost his son.  All the energy and fight just disappeared and I think that might have been our best team that year.  Our second best team was the one Caldwell and his poor leadership let fizzle, first by not winning all 16 games and instead putting us on a two game losing streak going into the playoffs (and don't say he was protecting anyone, he allowed Manning, Wayne and our TE to play in the icy Buffalo game where injury certainly could easily have happened, until they got both of them 100 receptions.  It was pathetic stat stuffing, so if you're going to do that, you might as well  play to win both games, go 16-0 with tons of momentum and an aura of being unbeatable and let it carry you to a win over New Orleans.   As for the Bears, they were the best NFC team that year.  There are tons of SB's where one side or the other is overmatched.  But we also beat all teams from the AFC we met including the Patriots, so your belittling of that SB winning team is ridiculous.   

[crazycolt1]

22 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Putting together a team that wins the most games in the NFL year after year is a big deal.  Manning choking year after year in the playoffs is not Polian's fault.   Look at Manning's playoff stats versus regular season.  The team was built around him (and his salary) but if he chokes, the team isn't going to win.  I also think we had 2 coaches that had zero killer instinct to put teams away in the regular season or post season.  Our best team unfortunately got sidelined understandably when Dungy lost his son.  All the energy and fight just disappeared and I think that might have been our best team that year.  Our second best team was the one Caldwell and his poor leadership let fizzle, first by not winning all 16 games and instead putting us on a two game losing streak going into the playoffs (and don't say he was protecting anyone, he allowed Manning, Wayne and our TE to play in the icy Buffalo game where injury certainly could easily have happened, until they got both of them 100 receptions.  It was pathetic stat stuffing, so if you're going to do that, you might as well  play to win both games, go 16-0 with tons of momentum and an aura of being unbeatable and let it carry you to a win over New Orleans.   As for the Bears, they were the best NFC team that year.  There are tons of SB's where one side or the other is overmatched.  But we also beat all teams from the AFC we met including the Patriots, so your belittling of that SB winning team is ridiculous.   

No, what is ridiculous is this rant when all this is old news and has been debated long ago.

It is irrelevant.