Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Ballard is a genius


Lef

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Trueman said:

You guys are missing the point. We had the best two QB prospects since Elway drop in our laps. That's is absurdly lucky , and most franchises would absolutely kill to have that happen to them. 

The only reason we had that record was because of Manning. The only reason we were a playoff team between 2012-14 was because of Luck. Don't believe me? Look what happens when they don't play. People are painting it like we were some gold-standard franchise , when really, every time Manning or Luck got injured , we showed our true colours. You put a "good" Qb , or heaven forbid an "average" QB , and there's no chance we even make the playoffs --or sniff it.

It's not being a hater or a complainer saying we should've done more with Manning , and we essentially wasted the early portion of Luck's career. It's the damn truth. 

We wouldn't have been able to draft Luck had we built a proper team around Manning , and we wouldn't have a new GM and coaching staff (and be rebuilding with a 29 year old top 5 QB) if it wasn't the truth. 

Stop calling him ungrateful or mocking him ,  I'm sure he cares about this team just as much as you guys do. He felt the highs and the lows. He , like me, just beleives that our QB's are the major reason for those nostalgic times we all think of. 

We've always been an organization carried by generational QB. From 1998 onwards. Ballard is the first GM since that time to actually attempt building a TEAM , and he's been crucified on here by some who think he's wasting Luck's career , or should be drafting skill positions high. 

It's like the rose-tinted glasses aren't allowing people to understand where we actually went wrong. Manning was miles better than Brady in the early 2000's , but Brady had a way smarter GM/coach and an actual team to work with. That is the truth. We got punched in mouth over and over and over in the playoffs at the line of scrimmage and expected our QB to solve everything. 

The one time our defense showed up and Polian actually brought in a good DT (a crucial component for Dungy's defence) , we won the damn thing. 

Belichick is the smartest coach ever. He just is. It doesn't matter how talented your skilled players are , he's gunna find a way to take them outta the game. If you want to beat him , you need to beat him at the LOS. Even a brilliant mind like his can't game-plan elite lines out of the game. 

Do you guys think all the HOF coaches/GM's are blowing smoke when they say defenses/trenches win games? Hell, our own GM even says it. You can't game-plan elite lines out of the game. 

You wanna know why the Patriots had such problems with the Ravens? It's because Ozzie is a disciple of Belichick , and Baltimore was built around his principles. They had bad-* on defense and on the offensive line , and Belichick couldn't game-plan those beasts out of the game.

They couldn't intimidate them. They couldn't blow them off the ball. They couldn't stop their running game , and they couldn't run the ball on Ngata, Lewis, Suggs etc. Even though they never had a QB like Brady , they always had a chance because they always gave the Patriots fits at the LOS. 

Whereas if you give Belichick Dallas Clark and our OL to game plan against? He'll make us 1 dimensional and take at least one skill player out the game no problem. This is where it became so difficult for Peyton. Because our line wasn't that great and our defense could never stop Brady's short passing against our cover-2 or their running game from controlling the clock , it was essentially mission impossible for Peyton. They had us beat in every phase except QB play. 

Football at it's basic form is those dudes upfront in 1v1 battles. No coach, I don't care how good he is , can stop elite players there for an entire game. And no QB, I don't care how good he is, can overcome having a poor offensive line/defense and win consistently. 

This is why I like Ballard so much , we finally (FINALLY!) have a GM who gets it. Grigson was just a poor imitation of Polian. And I strongly disagreed with how Polian build teams around Peyton. Strongly. 

You build the trenches , you build the defense , and if you have an elite QB (which we do) , you'll have a real good chance at winning a lot of games in the playoffs. 

Look at what the Eagles have done around Wentz. Look at how they acquired his weapons. Look at the lines they've assembled on both sides of the ball.

If you want a modern version of Peyton's Colts , look at the Falcons. (Except they probably have more talent than Peyton ever had, and Matt Ryan is nowhere near as good as 18. Nowhere near)
 

 

Well...    you were in a red hot roll for a while there...      And then you made this post....

 

There's a few interesting points in this post....    and there's some specctacular nonsense in here as well.     The moment you wrote that Manning was "miles" ahead of Tom Brady,  you lost me.   

Do you know who believes that?   Colts fans.   That's it.    That's the view of a homer who can't see straight. 

 

Look....   complaining about coming up short during the Manning years is an exercise in futility...    complaining about not doing more, or not doing enough to help Manning is a waste of time.    It's obvious now in hindsight.     Everything is obvious with 20/20 hindsight.    You had a first ballot Hall of Fame General Manager.    The Colts weren't a team of Peyton Manning and 21 other guys.     There was some serious talent on those teams and some of them are already in the Hall of Fame and others may be on the way.    If Polian couldn't get his teams over the hump and past the Greatest Coach and GM of all-time in Bill Belichick,  then that's the way it goes.   So be it.

 

The Packers with Aaron Rodgers -- 1 SB victory

The Seahawks with one of the best defenses of all-time -- 1 SB victory

The Saints with Drew Brees -- 1 SB victory

Denver with Peyton -- 1 SB victory

 

The game is hard.     Winning is even harder.    The woulda, coulda, shoulda crowd is just pitiful....    you think the fan bases in 30 other teams aren't just as unhappy as you?    The only fan base that might be satisfied is likely New England.     And I'm sure there are some fans there who + and moan that BB hasn't won more than he has.    That's the nature of being a fan.

 

I'm completely unimpressed with those here who complan the Colts haven't done more....   sorry,  I've invested as much time as anyone here the last 7 years.   And I don't feel cheated as a fan.   I'm not happy with how Luck's career has unfolded,  but that's out of my hands.   I look for the good,  the positive,  what might happen in the future.   I love what I see from Chris Ballard.    But after everything he does,  there's no guarantee that he's going to win a SB either. Nothing is guaranteed or promised.    Your team tries to do the best it can and hope for the best.    And that's where I am...    I know this won't be popular,  but I can live with that...

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.  Colts have a very bright future.  Bortles flat outsucks and that is being kind.  I think he is the worst starting qb I have ever seen. If he continues to play like he did today, the defense will revolt. Sure the Jsgs D didnt look great but I think they fell apart as the offence did nothing and Bortles imploded. I am not a fan of Mariota and Watson coming out of college.  They looked good in their college offences but Mariota hasn't lit it up.  This is a huge year for him.  He gets injured alot and he needs to establish himself as a franchise qb. Watson had great intangibles but I thought he was innacurate in college.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll add one more set of playes just to show how hard it is to win the SB.

 

The Steelers, and Ben Roethlisburger have won two Super Bowls, and that's great.   Though Pittsburgh fans wish it was more and are disappointed that it hasn't been more.

 

Why?

 

Because for the last number of years,  their Three Headed Monster has been Roethlisburger, often a top-5, but rarely anything lower than a top-8 QB.     Bell, the number 1 RB in football and Brown,  often the top WR,  but never below the top-3 WR in the game.     Now THAT'S a lot of talent and they've never even made a Super Bowl, much less win one.

 

Getting to a Super Bowl is hard.     Winning is even harder.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'll add one more set of playes just to show how hard it is to win the SB.

 

The Steelers, and Ben Roethlisburger have won two Super Bowls, and that's great.   Though Pittsburgh fans wish it was more and are disappointed that it hasn't been more.

 

Why?

 

Because for the last number of years,  their Three Headed Monster has been Roethlisburger, often a top-5, but rarely anything lower than a top-8 QB.     Bell, the number 1 RB in football and Brown,  often the top WR,  but never below the top-3 WR in the game.     Now THAT'S a lot of talent and they've never even made a Super Bowl, much less win one.

 

Getting to a Super Bowl is hard.     Winning is even harder.

 

Yep. I think most people just think we underachieved in the Manning era regarding winning SB's because we only won 1 but only one team can win it all every year. We probably should've at least won 2 but winning 1 and going 89-23 for a 7 season stretch is still Great no matter how anyone slices it.

 

-For craps and giggles, here is a list of Great players and teams (besides the 2000-2009 Colts) that have only won 1 or NONE:

Fran Tarkenton = 0

Dan Fouts = 0

Dan Marino = 0

Jim Kelly = 0

Warren Moon = 0

Phillip Rivers = 0

Matt Ryan = 0

Cam Newton = 0

70's Vikings = 0

80's Chargers = 0

80's Dolphins = 0

90's Bills = 0 

90's Vikings = 0

80's Bears = only 1

Steve Young = 1 (as a starter)

Brett Favre = 1

Kurt Warner = 1

Drew Brees = 1

Aaron Rodgers = 1

 

-This list I just made shows how incredibly hard it is to win a SB. I am glad Peyton won #2 but I wish it would've been with us. Only 12 QB's have won 2 or more SB's as a starter in 52 SB's played.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Well...    you were in a red hot roll for a while there...      And then you made this post....

 

There's a few interesting points in this post....    and there's some specctacular nonsense in here as well.     The moment you wrote that Manning was "miles" ahead of Tom Brady,  you lost me.   


Well , I was enjoying your posts as well until now. 

In the early 2000's? Did you watch the league back then? You think Brady was better than Peyton?.....give me mercy. Spectacular nonsense? A pretty *(e) thing to say. I think I've shown I have a decent grasp of what I'm talking about. 

 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Do you know who believes that?   Colts fans.   That's it.    That's the view of a homer who can't see straight. 


I said early 2000's. In the beginning , Manning carried the Colts and Brady rode the coattails of an elite defense and the best coach ever. He was solid and clutch , but Manning was one the best in the league. Later in Brady's career he became what you see today , but he wasn't anything close to that when they won their first three super bowls. 

I appreciate you calling me a homer , though. So far I've said "spectacular nonsense" and I'm a "homer". Nice. This is really fun. Oh , and I "can't see straight." I can assure you, I see fine. And when I say something, it's because I believe it's based in truth. 

I'd suggest you lay off the condescension. It's highly annoying and I didn't aim any at you. Disagree if you want , but you don't need to express yourself that way.


And this generalization that anyone who thinks Peyton was better is just a blind homer is ridiculous. There's plenty of non-Colts fans who feel he is . Plenty. But, again, I was talking about the early 2000's. So if I "lost you" , it's because you're not paying attention or you didn't actually follow the league back then.
 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Look....   complaining about coming up short during the Manning years is an exercise in futility...    complaining about not doing more, or not doing enough to help Manning is a waste of time.    It's obvious now in hindsight.     Everything is obvious with 20/20 hindsight.


No, it's not. It's an exercise that I felt like participating on a Colts forum. I'd appreciate it if you just stop chastising people who want to discuss it. We're free to talk about whatever the (h)ell we want , I don't need you telling me if it's a good use of my time, thanks. That's not your call. 

Anymore hindsight cliches? Christ. 
 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

You had a first ballot Hall of Fame General Manager.    The Colts weren't a team of Peyton Manning and 21 other guys.     There was some serious talent on those teams and some of them are already in the Hall of Fame and others may be on the way.


Again, you're missing the point. I was talking about roster construction , not the amount of good players we had. We had an absolutely LOADED skill position group , and my entire point was that isn't the best way to build a team. What the hell is so wrong with that?

If Peyton isn't there , the whole thing falls apart because it was all predicated on having a freakishly good QB. If we don't have that freak-talent operating , the whole thing falls apart. Which we have clear evidence of. 

If you don't have a balanced roster , you lose your ability to have variance in winning. We won one way -- for years. Peyton got the lead , and our excellent pass-rushers went to work. 

But that doesn't hide the fact it was an extremely unbalanced roster. It was. Peyton was going to make any franchise he went to a contender , he was that good. The Lebron of football. We all know what the Colts were before he showed up. 

 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 If Polian couldn't get his teams over the hump and past the Greatest Coach and GM of all-time in Bill Belichick,  then that's the way it goes.   So be it.


No, dude, you can't just decide what's fine to discuss and what isn't. It's a damn forum and if I want to dissect the Polian/Peyton era , I will. And I don't think it's pointless , nor do I think I should stop because you tell me it's pointless. We have another generational QB , and I think it's fine to look at where we went wrong the first time. If you think it's dumb or too negative , well I don't honestly care. It's what we're choosing to talk about. So just move along and stop telling people what's fine to discuss and what isn't. 

And nice , another cliche. You're just full of em'.
 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

The Packers with Aaron Rodgers -- 1 SB victory

The Seahawks with one of the best defenses of all-time -- 1 SB victory

The Saints with Drew Brees -- 1 SB victory

Denver with Peyton -- 1 SB victory


sigh......

Packers- They've totally wasted his talent. He's probably the most talented QB of all-time , and he's been saddled with poor management/ Head Coach for years. There's a reason Ted Thompson got fired , and McCarthy is on the hot seat. No, they have not done a good job surrounding Rodgers. Jesus. 

Seahawks- Russell Wilson isn't a generational talent. Not even close. They had their window , but the team aged. You can't build around an entire defense in the modern NFL. It's not like building around a generational QB. 

Saints- Yes, and they've not done a great job either. Until only recently, they built a defense after having horrendous drafts and terrible cap management. .... Christ , I swear people don't follow the rest of the league at all. The Saints have absolutely underachieved with Brees. 

Denver- This example only highlights my point.


Peyton with an explosive offense and average defense = SB Loss

Beat up old Peyton with an elite defense = SB Win
 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

The game is hard.     Winning is even harder.    The woulda, coulda, shoulda crowd is just pitiful....    you think the fan bases in 30 other teams aren't just as unhappy as you?    The only fan base that might be satisfied is likely New England.     And I'm sure there are some fans there who + and moan that BB hasn't won more than he has.    That's the nature of being a fan.


Dude , you're just speaking in cliches. Please actually say something of substance. All you've done is toss insults and cliches around as if you're the arbitrator of the truth. 

I'm not b(i)tching and moaning dude. I'm analyzing the past. I'm not losing sleep over it , and I'm not suggesting it was some awful time. I'm merely choosing to look at what I thought went wrong.  And they aren't thoughts remotely unique to me. If you listen to rival GM/coaches/players about the Colts during that time , they often share the same sentiment. 

Ray Lewis: "If you take 18 off that team , they're not a good football team."
 

On 10/7/2018 at 11:58 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm completely unimpressed with those here who complan the Colts haven't done more....   sorry,  I've invested as much time as anyone here the last 7 years.   And I don't feel cheated as a fan.   I'm not happy with how Luck's career has unfolded,  but that's out of my hands.   I look for the good,  the positive,  what might happen in the future.   I love what I see from Chris Ballard.    But after everything he does,  there's no guarantee that he's going to win a SB either. Nothing is guaranteed or promised.    Your team tries to do the best it can and hope for the best.    And that's where I am...    I know this won't be popular,  but I can live with that...


I don't care if you're unimpressed. I'm looking at what went wrong , and what I want to see us do this time around. I want us to surround Luck like the Patriots surrounded Brady , not like Polian surrounded Manning. If that offends you for some reason , fine. I don't appreciate being told that I'm "blind, " a "homer",  "pathetic" , "complaining"..... just stop, man.

I'm on a Colts forum , talking about a past Colts era. That's it. If it truly shakes you to your core , ignore it. It's more for analyzation purposes than whining, but if you want to classify it as the latter - I can't help you. If you want to actually have discussion without insulting me or tossing meaningless cliches at me , then go ahead. 

You've added NOTHING in terms of actual substance. All you've done is essentially say "that's not cool to talk that way."

How about we actually discuss what you disagree with instead of you just lambasting my opinions? Let's try that. 





 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trueman said:


Well , I was enjoying your posts as well until now. 

In the early 2000's? Did you watch the league back then? You think Brady was better than Peyton?.....give me mercy. Spectacular nonsense? A pretty *(e) thing to say. I think I've shown I have a decent grasp about what I'm talking about. 

 


I said early 2000's. In the beginning , Manning carried the Colts and Brady road the coat tails of an elite defense and the best coach ever. He was solid and clutch , but Manning was one the best in the league. Later in Brady's career he became what you see today , but he wasn't anything close to that when they won their first three super bowls. 

I appreciate you calling me a homer , though. So far I've said "spectacular nonsense" and I'm a "homer". Nice. This is really fun. Oh , and I "can't see straight." I can assure you, I see fine. And when I say something, it's because I believe it's based in truth. 

I'd suggest you lay off the condescension. It's highly annoying and I didn't aim any at you. Disagree if you want , but you don't need to express yourself that way.


And this generalization that anyone who thinks Peyton was better is just a blind homer is ridiculous. There's plenty of non-Colts fans who feel he is . Plenty. But, again, I was talking about the early 2000's. So if I "lost you" , it's because you're not paying attention or you didn't actually follow the league back then.
 


No, it's not. It's an exercise that I felt like participating on a Colts forum. I'd appreciate it if you just stop chastising people who want to discuss it. We're free to talk about whatever the (h)ell we want , I don't need you telling me if it's a good use of my time, thanks. That's not your call. 

Anymore hindsight cliches? Christ. 
 


Again, you're missing the point. I was talking about roster construction , not the amount of good players we had. We had an absolutely LOADED skill position group , and my entire point was that isn't the best way to build a team. What the hell is so wrong with that?

If Peyton isn't there , the whole thing falls apart because it was all predicated on having a freakishly good QB. If we don't have that freak-talent operating , the whole thing falls apart. Which we have clear evidence of. 

If you don't have a balanced roster , you lose your ability to have variance in winning. We won one way -- for years. Peyton got the lead , and our excellent pass-rushers went to work. 

But that doesn't hide the fact it was an extremely unbalanced roster. It was. Peyton was going to make any franchise he went to a contender , he was that good. The Lebron of football. We all know what the Colts were before he showed up. 

 


No, dude, you can't just decide what's fine to discuss and what isn't. It's a damn forum and if I want to dissect the Polian/Peyton era , I will. And I don't think it's pointless , nor do I think I should stop because you tell me it's pointless. We have another generational QB , and I think it's fine to look at where we went wrong the first time. If you think it's dumb or too negative , well I don't honestly care. It's what we're choosing to talk about. So just move along and stop telling people what's fine to discuss and what isn't. 

And nice , another cliche. You're just full of em'.
 


sigh......

Packers- They've totally wasted his talent. He's probably the most talented QB of all-time , and he's been saddled with poor management/ Head Coach for years. There's a reason Ted Thompson got fired , and McCarthy is on the hot seat. No, they have not done a good job surrounding Rodgers. Jesus. 

Seahawks- Russell Wilson isn't a generational talent. Not even close. They had their window , but the team aged. You can't build around an entire defense in the modern NFL. It's not like building around a generational QB. 

Saints- Yes, and they've not done a great job either. Until only recently, they built a defense after having horrendous drafts and terrible cap management. .... Christ , I swear people don't follow the rest of the league at all. The Saints have absolutely underachieved with Brees. 

Denver- This example only highlights my point.


Peyton with an explosive offense and average defense = SB Loss

Beat up old Peyton with an elite defense = SB Win
 


Dude , you're just speaking in cliches. Please actually say something of substance. All you've done is toss insults and cliches around as if you're the arbitrator of the truth. 

I'm not b(i)tching and moaning dude. I'm analyzing the past. I'm not losing sleep over it , and I'm not suggesting it was some awful time. I'm merely choosing to look at what I thought went wrong.  And they aren't thoughts remotely unique to me. If you listen to rival GM/coaches/players about the Colts during that time , they often share the same sentiment. 

Ray Lewis: "If you take 18 off that team , they're not a good football team."
 


I don't care if you're unimpressed. I'm looking at what went wrong , and what I want to see us do this time around. I want us to surround Luck like the Patriots surrounded Brady , not like Polian surrounded Manning. If that offends you for some reason , fine. I don't appreciate being told that I'm "blind, " a "homer",  "pathetic" , "complaining"..... just stop, man.

I'm on a Colts forum , talking about a past Colts era. That's it. If it truly shakes you to your core , ignore it. It's more for analyzation purposes than whining, but if you want to classify it as the latter - I can't help you. If you want to actually have discussion without insulting me or tossing meaningless cliches at me , then go ahead. 

You've added NOTHING in terms of actual substance. All you've done is essentially say "that's not cool to talk that way."

How about we actually discuss what you disagree with instead of you just lambasting my opinions? Let's try that. 
 

 

Congratulations.   This might be the greatest over reaction post I’ve seen in the 7 years I’ve been a member.

 

Im sorry...   I thought you were much older, but this response reveals you’re much younger than I thought.    And far more immature.    

 

I thought the compliments I've given you in the short time you’ve been here, including calling one of your posts in the last few days one of the best posts I’ve read in my seven years here might have bought me a little good will. Apparently not.    I’ll make a note of that.    You love compliments.   You come unglued, unhinged over criticism.   I’ll try not to make the same mistake again.

 

Talk about whatever you want.   I’m not a moderator.   I just offered my two cents.   Clearly you’re not buying it. 

 

Good luck to you...    dude.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Congratulations.   This might be the greatest over reaction post I’ve seen in the 7 years I’ve been a member.

 

Im sorry...   I thought you were much older, but this response reveals you’re much younger than I thought.    And far more immature.    

 

I thought the compliments I've given you in the short time you’ve been here, including calling one of your posts in the last few days one of the best posts I’ve read in my seven years here might have bought me a little good will. Apparently not.    I’ll make a note of that.    You love compliments.   You come unglued, unhinged over criticism.   I’ll try not to make the same mistake again.

 

Talk about whatever you want.   I’m not a moderator.   I just offered my two cents.   Clearly you’re not buying it. 

 

Good luck to you...    dude.

 

 

 


No , no , I do not mind criticism at all. Not in the least. Just make it about something. 

Ostensibly (or directly) calling me "blind" , "homer" , "pathetic"  , or saying the post is "spectacular nonsense" is not criticism. That's straight-up condescension. 

I'm not seeking compliments , I'm seeking genuine discussion. You didn't offer any of it . You just expressed your disapproval of the topic or tossed cliches at me as if I was supposed to learn some sacred wisdom of football. 

Substance. Actual damn substance , is what I'm looking for. Not someone to tell me what I'm doing is a waste of time. 

Again , I'll ask you, what specifically do you disagree with?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trueman said:


Well , I was enjoying your posts as well until now. 

In the early 2000's? Did you watch the league back then? You think Brady was better than Peyton?.....give me mercy. Spectacular nonsense? A pretty *(e) thing to say. I think I've shown I have a decent grasp of what I'm talking about. 

 

Did I watch the league back then?   I'm 61 years old, been watching the NFL for more than 50 years.   Covered the league as a member of the media here in Los Angeles for 30 years.  In short,  I've been watching the NFL longer than you've been alive.    How's that for starters?


I said early 2000's. In the beginning , Manning carried the Colts and Brady rode the coattails of an elite defense and the best coach ever. He was solid and clutch , but Manning was one the best in the league. Later in Brady's career he became what you see today , but he wasn't anything close to that when they won their first three super bowls.     In the early 2000's,  Manning only came into the league a couple of years before Brady did.   The difference is Manning came in with the huge reputation as the number one overall draft pick.    Brady came in as a nobody picked 199th overall.    Manning was NOT in your words "miles ahead of Brady."    Make that claim in any of the other 31 NFL cities and you'll get laughed at.   As I stated,  the only place that flies in the state of Indiana.   Was Manning better?    Sure.    But not "miles ahead" which were YOUR WORDS.    Sorry,  this is where your argument collapses."

 

Quote


I appreciate you calling me a homer , though. So far I've said "spectacular nonsense" and I'm a "homer". Nice. This is really fun. Oh , and I "can't see straight." I can assure you, I see fine. And when I say something, it's because I believe it's based in truth. 

There's another word for this phrase I put into bold.   It's called OPINION.    That's what everyone does here.    They state what they BELIEVE to be true.   That's nothing but opinion.   Come at me hard when you have some facts to back it up.


I'd suggest you lay off the condescension. It's highly annoying and I didn't aim any at you. Disagree if you want , but you don't need to express yourself that way.     Trust me,  I've got nothing on you when it comes to condescension.   You've demonstrated you do just fine when it comes to that on this ridiculous exchange.


And this generalization that anyone who thinks Peyton was better is just a blind homer is ridiculous. There's plenty of non-Colts fans who feel he is . Plenty. But, again, I was talking about the early 2000's. So if I "lost you" , it's because you're not paying attention or you didn't actually follow the league back then.     See what you did there?   You moved the goalposts.    As I've noted already,  you DIDN'T SAY Peyton was better.   I could've lived with Peyton was better.     But what you said was Peyton was MILES BETTER.     That's different.    That's a whole different argument.    And it's based purely on opinion.    You want to believe that,  go right ahead,  dude.    But if you're going to say that outloud,  be sure to say that in the state of Indiana.    Because in the 31 other markets,  that will get you laughed at.    You've practically said Brady was carried by a great coach and defense.    Sorry,  the coach is great and so was those early defenses,  but Brady was pretty special right out of the gate.    That's why many call Brady as the GOAT.    You don't get that label based on part of a career.    It's based on the entirety.

No, it's not. It's an exercise that I felt like participating on a Colts forum. I'd appreciate it if you just stop chastising people who want to discuss it. We're free to talk about whatever the (h)ell we want , I don't need you telling me if it's a good use of my time, thanks. That's not your call.      Feel free to discuss whatever you want.   I'm not a moderator.   I have zero power or influence that way.    More a figure of speech, that would translate into that not how'd I'd spend my time,  but if you want to.....   knock yourself out.    To be sure,  you'll get lots and lots of support in your views on Manning.    You've got the hometown crowd here.   Hardly an impartial group.  

Anymore hindsight cliches? Christ.      Such indignation.   Get over yourself.    Christ.
 


Again, you're missing the point. I was talking about roster construction , not the amount of good players we had. We had an absolutely LOADED skill position group , and my entire point was that isn't the best way to build a team. What the hell is so wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that.   Go right ahead all day long.   Seems you haven't noticed,  I'm a Chris Ballard fan.    I love what he's doing.  I defended him against the haters in each of the two drafts.   That doesn't seem to register with you.   But you seem to love taking shots at all the other teams that won only 1 SB because they didn't do enough.   Two words you love:   Roster Construction.     We're all geniuses with 20/20 hindsight.    

If Peyton isn't there , the whole thing falls apart because it was all predicated on having a freakishly good QB. If we don't have that freak-talent operating , the whole thing falls apart. Which we have clear evidence of.      That's all well and good,  but freak talents don't come along very often.   So when you do,  it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to try and put as much offensive talent around him as you can.    And the game was moving toward more passing,  so Polian went out and got Freeney and Mathis.    Doesn't seem like such a bad or unreasonable thing to do in real time.   As others here have noted,  Polian's last five drafts or so (with his son helping) brought in very little talent.   Shades of Ryan Grigson.

If you don't have a balanced roster , you lose your ability to have variance in winning. We won one way -- for years. Peyton got the lead , and our excellent pass-rushers went to work.      I agree with the concept of balanced rosters.    It's just easier said than done.   If it was so obvious and so easy,  everyone, all 32 teams would do it.    But that doesn't happen, does it?

But that doesn't hide the fact it was an extremely unbalanced roster. It was. Peyton was going to make any franchise he went to a contender , he was that good. The Lebron of football. We all know what the Colts were before he showed up. 

 


No, dude, you can't just decide what's fine to discuss and what isn't. It's a damn forum and if I want to dissect the Polian/Peyton era , I will. And I don't think it's pointless , nor do I think I should stop because you tell me it's pointless. We have another generational QB , and I think it's fine to look at where we went wrong the first time. If you think it's dumb or too negative , well I don't honestly care. It's what we're choosing to talk about. So just move along and stop telling people what's fine to discuss and what isn't.     At the risk of repeating myself,  talkg about anything you want.   I'm simply saying everyone about the NFL is hard.    You can do everything right,  but get hurt by key injuries.    You can do everything right,  but get sidetracked by Diva-like players who lose sight over what's important.    That's why Ballard has said,  no knuckleheads for the first few years until he's got a fully stocked locker-room with quality people who can control the team-culture.  If you read enough posts around here you'll see posters who complain we don't have enough bad guys,  tough guys,   kick-butt guys,   on the team.    Players who many teams stay away from espeically at the price they want.    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions here.   But there are some posters,  who have opinions that will make you want to claw your own eyes out and most people know exactly who I'm talking about.  (Not you, in case you're wondering.)   We've got all kinds here.

And nice , another cliche. You're just full of em'.
 


sigh......

Packers- They've totally wasted his talent. He's probably the most talented QB of all-time , and he's been saddled with poor management/ Head Coach for years. There's a reason Ted Thompson got fired , and McCarthy is on the hot seat. No, they have not done a good job surrounding Rodgers. Jesus.      Sorry,  but this goes back to fans who think creating and building a winning SB caliber team is easy.   Just do X, Y and Z.  Simple.   Ted Thompson has forgotten more football than everyone here combined.   Everybody is the right guy right up until the moment they're not.    Ted had his run,  and things didn't go as hoped for,  and now he's gone.  But he's a man of considerable skill.   As is Mike McCarthy.    Lots of NFL people think a head coach can only last 10-12 years,  and then the voice goes stale.   But if Mike McCarthy is fired,   he'll have his pick of teams trying to hire him.    People in Philly fell out of love with Andy Reid.    Hey?    How is Reid doing in Kansas City?

Seahawks- Russell Wilson isn't a generational talent. Not even close. They had their window , but the team aged. You can't build around an entire defense in the modern NFL. It's not like building around a generational QB.   I never called Wilson a generational talent, in fact, I never even mentioned his name.   But thanks so much for the Strawman argument.   You can't build around an entire defense in the modern NFL?    Really?   So says you.   Is that straight out of the Book of Truman?     Seattle was one horrible call away from winning back to back Super Bowls WITHOUT a generational talent at QB.    Isn't winning multiple Super Bowls the dream of every NFL fan?    Isn't that one of the top complaints right here?  Peyton Manning only won 1 Super Bowl.   Crime Against Humanity!   If Wilson turns and hands off to Lynch,  Seattle likely would've won back to back Super Bowls.   I think your argument is in smoldering ashes.   Bottom line:    There are many ways to win in the NFL.   Not every team has to have a generational QB to win it all.   Does the name Nick Foles ring a bell?

Saints- Yes, and they've not done a great job either. Until only recently, they built a defense after having horrendous drafts and terrible cap management. .... Christ , I swear people don't follow the rest of the league at all. The Saints have absolutely underachieved with Brees.     I assume you're talking about me with that crack.    I've got news for you.   The world doesn't revolve around you.    The arguments you just made about the Saints is the exact same argument I made around here long before you showed up.   When names of possible future Colts HC surfaced a few years back,  Sean Peyton's was prominent.   And some here complained that he hadn't done much since winning the SB.    And I made the argument that you did.    Horrendous drafts,  and beyond horrible cap management done by their GM, Mickey Loomis.    They've done much better the last few years,  including an incredible 2017 draft.     So, yes,  some of us do pay attention to the rest of the league.   And we did so long before you showed up here.

Denver- This example only highlights my point.


Peyton with an explosive offense and average defense = SB Loss

Beat up old Peyton with an elite defense = SB Win
 


Dude , you're just speaking in cliches. Please actually say something of substance. All you've done is toss insults and cliches around as if you're the arbitrator of the truth.    In case you haven't noticed,  this entire post is filled with substance.   And you've been buried under a giant pile of it.    Good luck digging your way out of this.   Be careful what you wish for,  you might just get it.   (Whoops,  look at that?!   Another Cliche.   I'm so terrible.)     By the way,  your post,  the one I didn't like,  wasn't filled so much with facts as it was with OPINION.    So, you're not exactly covered in glory here.

I'm not b(i)tching and moaning dude. I'm analyzing the past. I'm not losing sleep over it , and I'm not suggesting it was some awful time. I'm merely choosing to look at what I thought went wrong.  And they aren't thoughts remotely unique to me. If you listen to rival GM/coaches/players about the Colts during that time , they often share the same sentiment. 

Ray Lewis: "If you take 18 off that team , they're not a good football team."
 


I don't care if you're unimpressed. I'm looking at what went wrong , and what I want to see us do this time around. I want us to surround Luck like the Patriots surrounded Brady, not like Polian surrounded Manning. If that offends you for some reason , fine. I don't appreciate being told that I'm "blind, " a "homer",  "pathetic" , "complaining"..... just stop, man.    Dear God,  dude!   EVERY FAN wants their team to surround their QB with talent like the Patriots did Brady!   That's NOT a genius insight. Again, easier said than done.   It might have something to do with a certain HC who doubles as their GM.    Have you noticed that in most of the years BB is there,  the Pats don't come close to spending the majority of the cap?    They often have 10's of millions of unspent dollars.   They rarely chase the expensive free agent.    And they often sign a lot of guys that most here either have barely heard of,   or they've never heard of the.  And they're not afraid to let a good player walk out the door,  or trade him, if that's what they think is best.  Their roster is typically a bunch of nobody's until BB gets a hold of them.    Everyone in the league is trying to play catch-up to the Pats.  Just because most can't succeed like them doesn't mean there aren't some very smart people trying to figure things out.    Look at the Rams this year and where they were two years ago.

I'm on a Colts forum , talking about a past Colts era. That's it. If it truly shakes you to your core , ignore it. It's more for analyzation purposes than whining, but if you want to classify it as the latter - I can't help you. If you want to actually have discussion without insulting me or tossing meaningless cliches at me , then go ahead.     Talk your heart out about anything you want.    Pay no attention to me.

You've added NOTHING in terms of actual substance. All you've done is essentially say "that's not cool to talk that way."     Seriously,  DUDE,  if you've been reading my posts, and you think I don't bring SUBSTANCE,   DEAR GOD,  you should put me on ignore.   Seriously.   If you think I'm just a walking talking cliche driven monster,  then ignore me.    If you think I've got no game,  then ignore me.   Otherwise,  grow up,  man up,  grow a pair and stop your complaining, moaning and wining at me.    I've seen the same damn argument from you over and over and over again practically in every other paragraph.    Other than your repeated use of the word "DUDE",  it's one of the "tells" that revealed how young and immature you are.     ENOUGH!

How about we actually discuss what you disagree with instead of you just lambasting my opinions? Let's try that.      I think I've just done that.    Respond if you'd like.    The irony for me over all this back and forth,  is that we both like and support what Chris Ballard is doing.    And yet,  it wasn't enough.  You just melted down at the first sign of disagreement.     Oh, Dude.....


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'll add one more set of playes just to show how hard it is to win the SB.

 

The Steelers, and Ben Roethlisburger have won two Super Bowls, and that's great.   Though Pittsburgh fans wish it was more and are disappointed that it hasn't been more.

 

Why?

 

Because for the last number of years,  their Three Headed Monster has been Roethlisburger, often a top-5, but rarely anything lower than a top-8 QB.     Bell, the number 1 RB in football and Brown,  often the top WR,  but never below the top-3 WR in the game.     Now THAT'S a lot of talent and they've never even made a Super Bowl, much less win one.

 

Getting to a Super Bowl is hard.     Winning is even harder.

 

 

Well said. It takes a lot - I have always felt that the players that are elite can take you to the playoffs consistently but when it is playoff time, the well rounded nature of teams (that includes special teams, Mr. Polian :)) surface plus coaching starts to making its difference much more. 

 

Players with a well rounded team plus sound coaching and a bit of luck (Jacoby Jones and Flacco Hail Mary anyone??) are all necessary to win a SB. Does anyone think Nick Foles, if teams had even a half season worth of film on him, would have won the SB? I do not think so.

 

Flacco's offensive run and Foles' offensive run reminds me that teams can catch lightning in a bottle at the right time too, just like the Giants winning 2 SBs as a wild card peaking at the right time.

 

Yes, like you said, you can do everything right and still not win the SB. The Ravens for the longest time could not get past Peyton Manning, and they had pretty good teams in the trenches for a while knocking on the door. Then the Flacco Hail Mary happened, Ray Lewis and company were not going to blow the chance and they cashed in.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Don't worry...I'm pretty sure most here will understand why you're confused

they might be going a little over board but it wasnt a good draft. missed on second, third and fourth round picks.  hooker is a good player but we are not getting great value out of him.  walker was a good pick, hairston is ok for a 5th rounder, but nothing special.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

they might be going a little over board but it wasnt a good draft. missed on second, third and fourth round picks.  hooker is a good player but we are not getting great value out of him.  walker was a good pick, hairston is ok for a 5th rounder, but nothing special.  

 

how about we pump the breaks a little on trying to determine whether it was a good draft or not.  These guys are 5 games into year 2.  We simply do not know yet what these players will turn into.  As of now though it's looking like Hooker, Walker, Hairston and Mack were all good picks.  Hitting 50% of your picks is considered a pretty good draft. 

 

I do agree that missing on the 2nd, 3rd and one of the 4th round picks definitely isn't good, but that doesn't automatically mean the overall draft was bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

how about we pump the breaks a little on trying to determine whether it was a good draft or not.  These guys are 5 games into year 2.  We simply do not know yet what these players will turn into.  As of now though it's looking like Hooker, Walker, Hairston and Mack were all good picks.  Hitting 50% of your picks is considered a pretty good draft. 

 

 

Going by what ive seen so far

 

I give Hooker a B, Wilson D, Basham F, Bannar F,  Mack C, Grover C-, Hairstone C+, Walker B+

 

the only hits to me are hooker and walker.  you can project this class will get better, but we can project they wont too

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

Going by what ive seen so far

 

I give Hooker a B, Wilson D, Basham F, Bannar F,  Mack C, Grover C-, Hairstone C+, Walker B+

 

the only hits to me are hooker and walker.  you can project this class will get better, but we can project they wont too

 

so wait, are you saying that none of us know for sure exactly how these players will turn out?  yeah that was my point.  it's TOO SOON to make any kind of determination on how good or bad that draft class was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

Going by what ive seen so far

 

I give Hooker a B, Wilson D, Basham F, Bannar F,  Mack C, Grover C-, Hairstone C+, Walker B+

 

the only hits to me are hooker and walker.  you can project this class will get better, but we can project they wont too

I'm not convinced Hooker is a "hit"  I'm not saying he's a bust but so far he appears to be an average NFL starter.  hairston, on the other hand is a definite diamond in the rough and is proving to be an excellent draft pick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

average nfl career is just 3.3 years, i dont think its too soon to be judging these guys

 

some of them are already gone and wilson and stewart may join them 

 

Believe what you want, but you are in the minority on that one.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

average nfl career is just 3.3 years, i dont think its too soon to be judging these guys

 

some of them are already gone and wilson and stewart may join them 

 

I loved the Mack pick and still his potential. But if he continues to be injured I think he may be gone before start of next season.

I sure hope not.

 

But if he is cut, we can always get a rb in the later rounds or udfa. haha

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Believe what you want, but you are in the minority on that one.

Honest question: If his point is true that the average career lasts 3.3 years, then does the old adage of allowing 3-years for a player to develop still hold true? I haven’t looked to see if the 3.3 year stat is valid, but if so, that would be a compelling argument to change my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Believe what you want, but you are in the minority on that one.

the average career is just 3.3 years.  you can wait until whenever you want to judge them but im starting now 

 

i also liked mack, but hes been disappointing this year 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

Honest question: If his point is true that the average career lasts 3.3 years, then does the old adage of allowing 3-years for a player to develop still hold true? I haven’t looked to see if the 3.3 year stat is valid, but if so, that would be a compelling argument to change my view.

 

Yes.  That "average career" stat is going to take into account any player that had any kind of career.  So every draft pick, every undrafted free agent, every player that tries to make it in the NFL after having success in the CFL etc.  For every player that has a 10 year career in the NFL there are probably thousands that barely lasted a year.

 

So, yeah every player requires time to develop, even the players that wind up in the HOF.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the average career is just 3.3 years.  you can wait until whenever you want to judge them but im starting now 

 

i also liked mack, but hes been disappointing this year 

 

Good for you.  You will still be called out when you make ridiculous statements such as those you've made about the 2017 draft class.  :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J@son said:

 

Good for you.  You will still be called out when you make ridiculous statements such as those you've made about the 2017 draft class.  :)

some classes are definitely better than others.  im fine with what i said before 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

some classes are definitely better than others.  im fine with what i said before 

 

I never thought otherwise.  BTW, Madden is the only place where it makes any kind of sense to judge a draft class after 1 year :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Did I watch the league back then?   I'm 61 years old, been watching the NFL for more than 50 years.   Covered the league as a member of the media here in Los Angeles for 30 years.  In short,  I've been watching the NFL longer than you've been alive.    How's that for starters?


Not a bad place. I saw that you mentioned you only started following the Colts 7 years ago , so I wasn't sure. 

 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

In the early 2000's,  Manning only came into the league a couple of years before Brady did.   The difference is Manning came in with the huge reputation as the number one overall draft pick.    Brady came in as a nobody picked 199th overall.    Manning was NOT in your words "miles ahead of Brady."    Make that claim in any of the other 31 NFL cities and you'll get laughed at.   As I stated,  the only place that flies in the state of Indiana.   Was Manning better?    Sure.    But not "miles ahead" which were YOUR WORDS.    Sorry,  this is where your argument collapses."


There is no argument. Brady was a game-manager in the early portion of his career. That is the damn truth. Look at the numbers , re-watch the games. 

Manning took the franchise on his shoulders from day 1. There's a significant difference. Had the roles been reversed , I'm quite confident Brady couldn't have elevated the franchise to same degree. Maybe later in his career he could've, but early on , he just wasn't ready for that. Whereas, if you give Peyton the best defensive coach/mind of all-time, along with a fantastic defense/special teams , I think he'd be able to replicate what Brady did. Actually , I think a few guys could've done that. Is that crazy? If you look at the underlying numbers , they would suggest not.

Brady became the man and one of the greatest , but he sure as hell didn't start off that way. From 2007 on , his career took off and the responsibility placed on his shoulders increased yearly. But again , I'm talking specifically about their first "dynasty" in the early 2000's. Aka 2000-2004. 

Compare their numbers , compare their rosters , compare the responsibility, compare the organizations. One had the weight of the organization on his shoulders , the other was allowed to become the franchise player years later. Manning was the type of talent that would've made any organization a winner. Brady? I don't think that's really as cemented. If he gets drafted to an average organization , does he become what he is? Perhaps. Does he have those 3 early SB's ? No chance. And for a lot of people , those 3 early rings are a MUCH bigger equation to his legacy as the greatest ever than they care to admit. 

Environment matters for 99% of players. Manning superseded environment. That is the difference between them early on. Brady became elite later in his career- which is fine- but, early in their careers it just wasn't that close. Truly.

And the fact that you're resorting to being pedantic about "miles better" , proves that it's really not "spectacular nonsense" , as you so eloquently put it. Spectacular nonsense would suggest I'm way off base. Which, I'm not.
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Come at me hard when you have some facts to back it up.


Ok. Here:

 *xWin% is how often a quarterback would win based on everything besides his own EPA (that is, his defense, special teams, and offensive plays he was not involved in).

1) Manning’s best season (by xWin%*) was his 2004 campaign while Brady’s best was the magnificent 2007 season. 

2) Overall, Peyton’s xWin% was 69% to Brady’s 64%. Manning’s actual regular season win % was worse than Brady’s–73% to 78%–but that is because he was given worse support. An average QB given Peyton’s defense/special teams/running game would win slightly less than half their games: 46%. Brady, meanwhile, benefited from very good support with an sWin%* of 59%. Based on that, Manning has outperformed his support by nearly 25%, compared to Brady’s also-outstanding 18 %, the top two numbers of the past decade-plus.

3) Manning’s three best seasons, in order, were 2004, 2005, and 2009. Brady, meanwhile, has had his best seasons in 2007, 2011, and 2012. From 2000 through 2006 , Manning dominated Brady with an xWin% of 68% to Brady’s 51%. At this point, the perception was nowhere near reality. Brady had 3 rings and a sterling postseason record, with many preferring him to Manning who had no rings (he’d get his first following the 06 regular season) despite his multiple MVP awards.

4) In their playoff careers, Manning should have won just over 11 of his games on average.  So what explains the difference between their expected and actual records? Their support. An average QB would win just 40% of the games that Manning played while the support alone would be good enough for an average QB to win over half the time (62% sWin%) in Brady’s games.

You following that? Take an average QB. Let's say Ryan Tannehill. If Tannehill fills Manning's shoes for his whole career , he would've won 40% of the games Manning won. If he filled Brady's he would've won 62% of the games Brady won. This difference was even more dramatic earlier in their careers. The years I highlighted , and you so vehemently disagreed with. To the point of "spectacular nonsense".  

5) While Manning received positive support in just 5 of his postseason games, Brady has received better than average support in over half of his. That’s the difference. In games where Manning and Brady play great, they win. When they play poorly, they lose as often as expected. But when they play well enough to win, Brady’s defense, special teams, and running game have supported him, while Manning’s support has failed him. These are things out of a quarterback’s control that have a huge impact on the outcome of games, and therefore their legacies. All of this is supported by the numbers. 
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 And it's based purely on opinion.    You want to believe that,  go right ahead,  dude.    But if you're going to say that outloud,  be sure to say that in the state of Indiana.    Because in the 31 other markets,  that will get you laughed at.    You've practically said Brady was carried by a great coach and defense.    Sorry,  the coach is great and so was those early defenses,  but Brady was pretty special right out of the gate.    That's why many call Brady as the GOAT.    You don't get that label based on part of a career.    It's based on the entirety.

 

Read above. Early 2000's it wasn't close. Brady had unbelievable support in comparison to Manning. 

2007 and beyond? You betcha. That's a different story , and that's not what I was talking about. 
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Nothing is wrong with that.   Go right ahead all day long.   Seems you haven't noticed,  I'm a Chris Ballard fan.    I love what he's doing.  I defended him against the haters in each of the two drafts.   That doesn't seem to register with you.   But you seem to love taking shots at all the other teams that won only 1 SB because they didn't do enough.   Two words you love:   Roster Construction.     We're all geniuses with 20/20 hindsight.    

 
It has nothing to do with hindsight. I didn't agree with it the whole time it was happening.

Process and result are entirely different. I'm critiquing the process -- not the outcome. Ballard could end up never winning a SB , and I'll still agree with his philosophy over Polian's.

Polian blatantly ignored elements of the roster for years. He had rigid rules about the value of certain positions (guards being one of them) , and free agency/trades that baffled me. He was far too dogmatic for my taste. 

Peyton did not have the elements he needed to win in the playoffs consistently. His supporting cast was sub-par. This is not opinion. It is supported massively by data. Peyton way out-performed the supporting cast. Like, to a break-the-algorithim level. We won way more games than would have with anyone else playing QB. 

A GM missing in the draft , and a fan complaining about it is a case of being "captain hindsight". Witnessing a GM build a team for a decade doing the same thing over and over , is not case of a fan acting like he knows everything. It went on for a decade and there's tons of people from around the league that have expressed the exact same opinions I'm stating. And yes, the same thing is happening with Rodgers. If you listen to rival executives/scouts , they're laughing at GB's offense. Laughing at it. That franchise would crumble without Rodgers , and everyone within the league knows it. In fact, we've seen what they look like without him on multiple occasions. 

Either way, it's the process and philosophy I'm truly disagreeing with here. This is different than saying "oh, why'd you pick that guy?!" If I was breaking down each Polian draft and looking at guys he missed on , sure , call me out. Every GM and organization does that. Not really a fair complaint against someone who did have some outstanding selections. 

So yes, roster construction is vital.  Philosophy is vital. 

For example , I didn't see the point of drafting Anthony Gonzalez in the 1st round to replace Stokley when we had holes everywhere and Peyton can make any slot receiver look reasonably good (not to mention they're not remotely hard to acquire/expensive). But, because Polian rarely used free agency , and valued skill positions so much , he used one of the team's most important assets on a position we really didn't need help in. Later in the draft? Sure. A first round pick with our holes ? C'mon now. Like I wrote earlier , the Patriots haven't drafted a receiver once in the 1st round under Belichick. Not once.

Is that actually hindsight? Really? Or is that me saying , "why the hell are we ignoring our defense/trenches --- again?"
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 I agree with the concept of balanced rosters.    It's just easier said than done.   If it was so obvious and so easy,  everyone, all 32 teams would do it.    But that doesn't happen, does it?


You're missing the point. Some teams choose not to have balanced rosters by how they allocate draft picks/cap space. That is what I'm disagreeing with. The Patriots want(ed) to be as good as they can be everywhere -- all three phases. The Colts (during that time) wanted to be amazing in one area and "just good enough" in others. This was reflected in how we drafted , and the money spent on positional groups.

All 32 teams not being capable of having complete rosters has nothing to do with it. That happens for a myriad of reasons , ranging from incompetence to choice, to luck even. The variables are endless. 

In the case of Peyton and Brady , we have a unique case-study on our hands. We have , what I believe, the best 2 QB's of all-time (sorry Rodgers/Elway/Montana) , playing in the same era. Both playing for organizations that had vastly different beliefs towards how to build around their all-time QB. 

This is what I'm looking at. 

 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry,  but this goes back to fans who think creating and building a winning SB caliber team is easy.   Just do X, Y and Z.  Simple.   Ted Thompson has forgotten more football than everyone here combined.   Everybody is the right guy right up until the moment they're not.    Ted had his run,  and things didn't go as hoped for,  and now he's gone.  But he's a man of considerable skill.   As is Mike McCarthy.    Lots of NFL people think a head coach can only last 10-12 years,  and then the voice goes stale.   But if Mike McCarthy is fired,   he'll have his pick of teams trying to hire him.    People in Philly fell out of love with Andy Reid.    Hey?    How is Reid doing in Kansas City?


No one is saying it's easy. No one. But if you don't want to hear my opinion on Ted Thompson read this:

https://lombardiave.com/2018/03/10/packers-ted-thompson-failures-gm-exposed/

Now you don't have to agree with all of it, but there's some pretty damning evidence in there. 

As for McCarthy ... well , we'll see if he finishes the season in Green Bay. He's not even in the same league as Andy Reid. Andy Reid is one of the best offensive minds/play-callers/QB-whispers the NFL has ever seen. When (if) McCarthy leaves and goes to another team , I don't think people will be saying the same thing. Reid is all-time elite, imo. 

Read this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/10/8/17951344/green-bay-packers-mike-mccarthy-aaron-rodgers

Again, I think that franchise has been held together by a generational QB , not to dissimilar to Luck. Many , I repeat many, people share that belief who cover and work within the NFL.
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I never called Wilson a generational talent, in fact, I never even mentioned his name.   But thanks so much for the Strawman argument.   You can't build around an entire defense in the modern NFL?    Really?   So says you.   Is that straight out of the Book of Truman?     Seattle was one horrible call away from winning back to back Super Bowls WITHOUT a generational talent at QB.    Isn't winning multiple Super Bowls the dream of every NFL fan?    Isn't that one of the top complaints right here?  Peyton Manning only won 1 Super Bowl.   Crime Against Humanity!   If Wilson turns and hands off to Lynch,  Seattle likely would've won back to back Super Bowls.   I think your argument is in smoldering ashes.   Bottom line:    There are many ways to win in the NFL.   Not every team has to have a generational QB to win it all.   Does the name Nick Foles ring a bell?


Introducing Seattle into the discussion was the straw man. Explaining that it's irrelevant because keeping an entire defense together is completely different to how you surround a generational QB , is not a straw man . That's eliminating white noise. We don't need it. 

I never said you can't build around a defense, btw. The rest of the paragraph is pointless. Wilson isn't generational. Rodgers, Brady and Manning are/were. 

 "Book of Truman" was nice , though. Cheers.
 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I assume you're talking about me with that crack.    I've got news for you.   The world doesn't revolve around you.    The arguments you just made about the Saints is the exact same argument I made around here long before you showed up.   When names of possible future Colts HC surfaced a few years back,  Sean Peyton's was prominent.   And some here complained that he hadn't done much since winning the SB.    And I made the argument that you did.    Horrendous drafts,  and beyond horrible cap management done by their GM, Mickey Loomis.    They've done much better the last few years,  including an incredible 2017 draft.     So, yes,  some of us do pay attention to the rest of the league.   And we did so long before you showed up here.


Ok, so we agree. The Saints have made major mistakes. Hell, their Head Coach was suspended for a year. I do like Sean Payton, though. I think he's really damn good. Ownership and roster construction have been their downfall , imo, and it seems like you agree. Hopefully they surround Brees with a good enough team and they can get one more before he retires. Love that guy-- total class act. I didn't love them trading up for Davenport , but we'll see what happens. That was a heavy price. 

I'm glad you do follow the rest of the league. I think it's vital for perspective. 

 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

  And you've been buried under a giant pile of it.    Good luck digging your way out of this.   Be careful what you wish for,  you might just get it.   (Whoops,  look at that?!   Another Cliche.   I'm so terrible.)    


stephen2-a-smith-sportazinas.jpg.4c5c3a85faee0e7c4228863b28c4ad8a.jpg
 

 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 If you think I've got no game,  then ignore me.   Otherwise,  grow up,  man up,  grow a pair and stop your complaining, moaning and wining at me.    I've seen the same damn argument from you over and over and over again practically in every other paragraph.    Other than your repeated use of the word "DUDE",  it's one of the "tells" that revealed how young and immature you are.     ENOUGH!


I'd suggest you re-read your original response. If you think I overreacted to that , then I'm not sure what to tell you. What I think happened is , you've had the Manning vs Brady debate/argument a million times on here , and you brought all of your opinions/frustrations into this discussion and wanted to just end it. 

I'm more than mature enough to realize you were beyond condescending. If you think my reaction wasn't warranted , then I'd suggest maybe re-reading it as if you were me. I can assure you , you disagreeing with me wasn't the problem. 

It has nothing to do with "growing up or growing a pair". This forum is rife with passive-aggressiveness. If I lacked "a pair" I would've just made a snide remark or gone for a basic run-and-hide insult. I think you were way outta line and I addressed it. Disagree if you want , but I took this head-on. 

 

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 I think I've just done that.    Respond if you'd like.    The irony for me over all this back and forth,  is that we both like and support what Chris Ballard is doing.    And yet,  it wasn't enough.  You just melted down at the first sign of disagreement.     Oh, Dude....


I haven't "melted" at all. In fact, I'm really not perturbed in the slightest . I think you've got this idea of a guy furiously arguing with you on the internet. No, I just didn't agree with your tone , or your ostensible sense of authority. Again. Try re-reading it from my perspective. I think I make a pretty compelling case. 

It has nothing to do with being upset , and everything to do with telling you to back off the condescension. 

Sweeping statements like "anyone outside Indiana would be laughing at you" as if that actually is supposed to make me feel less about my opinion doesn't really do it for me. 

Disagree with my comments all you want. In fact, I welcome it. 








 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Trueman said:


Not a bad place. I saw that you mentioned you only started following the Colts 7 years ago , so I wasn't sure. 

 


There is no argument. Brady was a game-manager in the early portion of his career. That is the damn truth. Look at the numbers , re-watch the games. 

Manning took the franchise on his shoulders from day 1. There's a significant difference. Had the roles been reversed , I'm quite confident Brady couldn't have elevated the franchise to same degree. Maybe later in his career he could've, but early on , he just wasn't ready for that. Whereas, if you give Peyton the best defensive coach/mind of all-time, along with a fantastic defense/special teams , I think he'd be able to replicate what Brady did. Actually , I think a few guys could've done that. Is that crazy? If you look at the underlying numbers , they would suggest not.

Brady became the man and one of the greatest , but he sure as hell didn't start off that way. From 2007 on , his career took off and the responsibility placed on his shoulders increased yearly. But again , I'm talking specifically about their first "dynasty" in the early 2000's. Aka 2000-2004. 

Compare their numbers , compare their rosters , compare the responsibility, compare the organizations. One had the weight of the organization on his shoulders , the other was allowed to become the franchise player years later. Manning was the type of talent that would've made any organization a winner. Brady? I don't think that's really as cemented. If he gets drafted to an average organization , does he become what he is? Perhaps. Does he have those 3 early SB's ? No chance. And for a lot of people , those 3 early rings are a MUCH bigger equation to his legacy as the greatest ever than they care to admit. 

Environment matters for 99% of players. Manning superseded environment. That is the difference between them early on. Brady became elite later in his career- which is fine- but, early in their careers it just wasn't that close. Truly.

And the fact that you're resorting to being pedantic about "miles better" , proves that it's really not "spectacular nonsense" , as you so eloquently put it. Spectacular nonsense would suggest I'm way off base. Which, I'm not.
 


Ok. Here:

 *xWin% is how often a quarterback would win based on everything besides his own EPA (that is, his defense, special teams, and offensive plays he was not involved in).

1) Manning’s best season (by xWin%*) was his 2004 campaign while Brady’s best was the magnificent 2007 season. 

2) Overall, Peyton’s xWin% was 69% to Brady’s 64%. Manning’s actual regular season win % was worse than Brady’s–73% to 78%–but that is because he was given worse support. An average QB given Peyton’s defense/special teams/running game would win slightly less than half their games: 46%. Brady, meanwhile, benefited from very good support with an sWin%* of 59%. Based on that, Manning has outperformed his support by nearly 25%, compared to Brady’s also-outstanding 18 %, the top two numbers of the past decade-plus.

3) Manning’s three best seasons, in order, were 2004, 2005, and 2009. Brady, meanwhile, has had his best seasons in 2007, 2011, and 2012. From 2000 through 2006 , Manning dominated Brady with an xWin% of 68% to Brady’s 51%. At this point, the perception was nowhere near reality. Brady had 3 rings and a sterling postseason record, with many preferring him to Manning who had no rings (he’d get his first following the 06 regular season) despite his multiple MVP awards.

4) In their playoff careers, Manning should have won just over 11 of his games on average.  So what explains the difference between their expected and actual records? Their support. An average QB would win just 40% of the games that Manning played while the support alone would be good enough for an average QB to win over half the time (62% sWin%) in Brady’s games.

You following that? Take an average QB. Let's say Ryan Tannehill. If Tannehill fills Manning's shoes for his whole career , he would've won 40% of the games Manning won. If he filled Brady's he would've won 62% of the games Brady won. This difference was even more dramatic earlier in their careers. The years I highlighted , and you so vehemently disagreed with. To the point of "spectacular nonsense".  

5) While Manning received positive support in just 5 of his postseason games, Brady has received better than average support in over half of his. That’s the difference. In games where Manning and Brady play great, they win. When they play poorly, they lose as often as expected. But when they play well enough to win, Brady’s defense, special teams, and running game have supported him, while Manning’s support has failed him. These are things out of a quarterback’s control that have a huge impact on the outcome of games, and therefore their legacies. All of this is supported by the numbers. 
 

 

Read above. Early 2000's it wasn't close. Brady had unbelievable support in comparison to Manning. 

2007 and beyond? You betcha. That's a different story , and that's not what I was talking about. 
 

 
It has nothing to do with hindsight. I didn't agree with it the whole time it was happening.

Process and result are entirely different. I'm critiquing the process -- not the outcome. Ballard could end up never winning a SB , and I'll still agree with his philosophy over Polian's.

Polian blatantly ignored elements of the roster for years. He had rigid rules about the value of certain positions (guards being one of them) , and free agency/trades that baffled me. He was far too dogmatic for my taste. 

Peyton did not have the elements he needed to win in the playoffs consistently. His supporting cast was sub-par. This is not opinion. It is supported massively by data. Peyton way out-performed the supporting cast. Like, to a break-the-algorithim level. We won way more games than would have with anyone else playing QB. 

A GM missing in the draft , and a fan complaining about it is a case of being "captain hindsight". Witnessing a GM build a team for a decade doing the same thing over and over , is not case of a fan acting like he knows everything. It went on for a decade and there's tons of people from around the league that have expressed the exact same opinions I'm stating. And yes, the same thing is happening with Rodgers. If you listen to rival executives/scouts , they're laughing at GB's offense. Laughing at it. That franchise would crumble without Rodgers , and everyone within the league knows it. In fact, we've seen what they look like without him on multiple occasions. 

Either way, it's the process and philosophy I'm truly disagreeing with here. This is different than saying "oh, why'd you pick that guy?!" If I was breaking down each Polian draft and looking at guys he missed on , sure , call me out. Every GM and organization does that. Not really a fair complaint against someone who did have some outstanding selections. 

So yes, roster construction is vital.  Philosophy is vital. 

For example , I didn't see the point of drafting Anthony Gonzalez in the 1st round to replace Stokley when we had holes everywhere and Peyton can make any slot receiver look reasonably good (not to mention they're not remotely hard to acquire/expensive). But, because Polian rarely used free agency , and valued skill positions so much , he used one of the team's most important assets on a position we really didn't need help in. Later in the draft? Sure. A first round pick with our holes ? C'mon now. Like I wrote earlier , the Patriots haven't drafted a receiver once in the 1st round under Belichick. Not once.

Is that actually hindsight? Really? Or is that me saying , "why the hell are we ignoring our defense/trenches --- again?"
 


You're missing the point. Some teams choose not to have balanced rosters by how they allocate draft picks/cap space. That is what I'm disagreeing with. The Patriots want(ed) to be as good as they can be everywhere -- all three phases. The Colts (during that time) wanted to be amazing in one area and "just good enough" in others. This was reflected in how we drafted , and the money spent on positional groups.

All 32 teams not being capable of having complete rosters has nothing to do with it. That happens for a myriad of reasons , ranging from incompetence to choice, to luck even. The variables are endless. 

In the case of Peyton and Brady , we have a unique case-study on our hands. We have , what I believe, the best 2 QB's of all-time (sorry Rodgers/Elway/Montana) , playing in the same era. Both playing for organizations that had vastly different beliefs towards how to build around their all-time QB. 

This is what I'm looking at. 

 


No one is saying it's easy. No one. But if you don't want to hear my opinion on Ted Thompson read this:

https://lombardiave.com/2018/03/10/packers-ted-thompson-failures-gm-exposed/

Now you don't have to agree with all of it, but there's some pretty damning evidence in there. 

As for McCarthy ... well , we'll see if he finishes the season in Green Bay. He's not even in the same league as Andy Reid. Andy Reid is one of the best offensive minds/play-callers/QB-whispers the NFL has ever seen. When (if) McCarthy leaves and goes to another team , I don't think people will be saying the same thing. Reid is all-time elite, imo. 

Read this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/10/8/17951344/green-bay-packers-mike-mccarthy-aaron-rodgers

Again, I think that franchise has been held together by a generational QB , not to dissimilar to Luck. Many , I repeat many, people share that belief who cover and work within the NFL.
 


Introducing Seattle into the discussion was the straw man. Explaining that it's irrelevant because keeping an entire defense together is completely different to how you surround a generational QB , is not a straw man . That's eliminating white noise. We don't need it. 

I never said you can't build around a defense, btw. The rest of the paragraph is pointless. Wilson isn't generational. Rodgers, Brady and Manning are/were. 

 "Book of Truman" was nice , though. Cheers.
 


Ok, so we agree. The Saints have made major mistakes. Hell, their Head Coach was suspended for a year. I do like Sean Payton, though. I think he's really damn good. Ownership and roster construction have been their downfall , imo, and it seems like you agree. Hopefully they surround Brees with a good enough team and they can get one more before he retires. Love that guy-- total class act. I didn't love them trading up for Davenport , but we'll see what happens. That was a heavy price. 

I'm glad you do follow the rest of the league. I think it's vital for perspective. 

 


stephen2-a-smith-sportazinas.jpg.4c5c3a85faee0e7c4228863b28c4ad8a.jpg
 

 


I'd suggest you re-read your original response. If you think I overreacted to that , then I'm not sure what to tell you. What I think happened is , you've had the Manning vs Brady debate/argument a million times on here , and you brought all of your opinions/frustrations into this discussion and wanted to just end it. 

I'm more than mature enough to realize you were beyond condescending. If you think my reaction wasn't warranted , then I'd suggest maybe re-reading it as if you were me. I can assure you , you disagreeing with me wasn't the problem. 

It has nothing to do with "growing up or growing a pair". This forum is rife with passive-aggressiveness. If I lacked "a pair" I would've just made a snide remark or gone for a basic run-and-hide insult. I think you were way outta line and I addressed it. Disagree if you want , but I took this head-on. 

 


I haven't "melted" at all. In fact, I'm really not perturbed in the slightest . I think you've got this idea of a guy furiously arguing with you on the internet. No, I just didn't agree with your tone , or your ostensible sense of authority. Again. Try re-reading it from my perspective. I think I make a pretty compelling case. 

It has nothing to do with being upset , and everything to do with telling you to back off the condescension. 

Sweeping statements like "anyone outside Indiana would be laughing at you" as if that actually is supposed to make me feel less about my opinion doesn't really do it for me. 

Disagree with my comments all you want. In fact, I welcome it. 
 

 

 

This will not be a long response.    I'm not doing a point by point response.

 

First,  I have no idea what xWin% is.    None.    I've never seen anyone else post this.    I have no idea if it's good, bad or what?   Where does it come from?    Who invented this?    I've never seen it used on either ESPN or NFL.com.    So, I'm agnostic...  for now. 

 

Second,   you're the first person I've seen on this website,  or anywhere else for that matter,  who has called Tom Brady,  a game manager.     I believe those were your words?    Maybe we have different definitions of the term?     In my world,  a game manager is asked not to lose a game.    Try not to make mistakes,  but you don't have to go out and win the game.    Just don't lost it.     I've never heard that term used in any other way.      Are we close on that?

 

You think Tom Brady had little part in winning those first 3 Super Bowls?    He wasn't the QB  driving the Pats to Vinnie's game winning FG's down the stretch?     He just turned and handed the ball off to.....   whomever?    Brady wasn't completing passes?     He wasn't being named MVP?   

 

If you're embracing this argument,  then we have little to discuss.    Our viewpoints are on opposite sides of the moon.   If you're not moving off your point,  then there's no gap between us to bridge and find common ground.  

 

Few last thoughts....    if explaining the difference between "miles ahead" and "better than" makes me pedantic in your view,   then we don't agree on the english language.     That's like getting bothered because I noted that you first said 10 and now you're saying 5.    If that makes me pedantic,  then I guess I'm guilty.  

 

Loved the use of the Stephan A. Smith GIF.      That's a first for me.    Props to you.

 

I'm sorry this exchange got as unpleasant as it did.    For my part,  I'll take responsibility for the "spectacular nonsense" term...    I've used it before and no one has ever reacted as you did.     Hopefully our posts in the future will be better and less confrontational.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

This will not be a long response.    I'm not doing a point by point response.

 

First,  I have no idea what xWin% is.    None.    I've never seen anyone else post this.    I have no idea if it's good, bad or what?   Where does it come from?    Who invented this?    I've never seen it used on either ESPN or NFL.com.    So, I'm agnostic...  for now. 

 

Second,   you're the first person I've seen on this website,  or anywhere else for that matter,  who has called Tom Brady,  a game manager.     I believe those were your words?    Maybe we have different definitions of the term?     In my world,  a game manager is asked not to lose a game.    Try not to make mistakes,  but you don't have to go out and win the game.    Just don't lost it.     I've never heard that term used in any other way.      Are we close on that?

 

You think Tom Brady had little part in winning those first 3 Super Bowls?    He wasn't the QB  driving the Pats to Vinnie's game winning FG's down the stretch?     He just turned and handed the ball off to.....   whomever?    Brady wasn't completing passes?     He wasn't being named MVP?   

 

If you're embracing this argument,  then we have little to discuss.    Our viewpoints are on opposite sides of the moon.   If you're not moving off your point,  then there's no gap between us to bridge and find common ground.  

 

Few last thoughts....    if explaining the difference between "miles ahead" and "better than" makes me pedantic in your view,   then we don't agree on the english language.     That's like getting bothered because I noted that you first said 10 and now you're saying 5.    If that makes me pedantic,  then I guess I'm guilty.  

 

Loved the use of the Stephan A. Smith GIF.      That's a first for me.    Props to you.

 

I'm sorry this exchange got as unpleasant as it did.    For my part,  I'll take responsibility for the "spectacular nonsense" term...    I've used it before and no one has ever reacted as you did.     Hopefully our posts in the future will be better and less confrontational.

 

All Trueman really had to say was, Peyton was the better the QB compared to Brady from 2001-2006 but Brady had the better Coach and team around him is why he won more SB's. Say that Brady was Great but didn't have to carry his team. Peyton had to carry his team more and that probably would've saved the whole debate.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

All Trueman really had to say was, Peyton was the better the QB compared to Brady from 2001-2006 but Brady had the better Coach and team around him is why he won more SB's. Say that Brady was Great but didn't have to carry his team. Peyton had to carry his team more and that probably would've saved the whole debate.  

And the Better teams in the AFC  back in the Manning days were all in their prime with the Pats, Steelers, Chargers, and Colts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ravens too. That win we had over them in 2006 at Baltimore was one my favorites.  

Yes, forgot about the Ravens.  Yes, that was a great game too! Antoine Bethea made one of the best plays in that game with that interception in the end zone on Steve McNair.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard has drafted a safety and a guard in early first round selections so far.

 

I don't care what you say, what you do, or who you are.

 

You simply do not draft a safety and a guard so early.  You might as well draft a kicker first round.  The amount of importance that a safety and a guard have on the game (due to position ONLY) is less than that of a kicker.

 

Look at Green Bay last week.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, threeflight said:

Ballard has drafted a safety and a guard in early first round selections so far.

 

I don't care what you say, what you do, or who you are.

 

You simply do not draft a safety and a guard so early.  You might as well draft a kicker first round.  The amount of importance that a safety and a guard have on the game (due to position ONLY) is less than that of a kicker.

 

Look at Green Bay last week.

Another one ready for heavy trash pick up next Friday.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Another one ready for heavy trash pick up next Friday.

 

That is fine. Personally attack.

 

I want you to name me all of the safetys and guards that are Hall of Famers or have had a huge effect on the game compared to almost every other position in football.  When it comes to rank of importance to a football team in regards to position.....guard and safety are WAY down there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Would there be horsedung in the ol trashbags sir? If so, I have to put a hazardous label on the bags :thmup:

 

10 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Another one ready for heavy trash pick up next Friday.

 

Are you both liberals by chance?

 

You go both personal faster than any lefty I know.  :)

 

And that is saying something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...