When Someone Leaves The Organization, Is It Easier To Evaluate Them Objectively?

[chad72]

Just curious. When players left our organization and they did something elsewhere, like David Thornton, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja etc., it gave us a chance to evaluate them a little more objectively, IMO. We didn't have to remove our blue-colored glasses while evaluating them since they didn't wear Colts blue anymore.

Will that be the case with Peyton too? Will most of us (MOST being the keyword) be able to evaluate Peyton objectively now that he has left the organization?

We had the urge to find out what it would be like to not have Dungy when we were getting tired of his and Ron Meeks' schemes. Caldwell and Coyer came in like a 1 yr. savior and then, things went south since that Saints SB. Then, we had the urge to see what life would be without Caldwell and the Polians. Here we are, without Caldwell, Polians and even Peyton.

Questions we feel will be answered now:

1) Can Peyton, the former Colt, win with a better supporting cast?

2) Can the different organizational philosophy of not building the team exclusively around your QB work better in the long run? Will the Bill Polian philosophy be exposed or will we be regretting his absence?

3) Will a possibly different offensive and defensive philosophy give us more success when our rookie QB (assuming Luck) does pan out as well as Peyton did or even Matt Ryan did in his early years once you give him a good supporting cast?

Does it allow us to evaluate all of this objectively? Thoughts???

[GoDeep]

Wow, a thoughtful thread.

I am really inteersted to see if Peyton wins with a supporting cast like in Denver. But Peyton will have to play better in some circumstances.

Random thoughts:

He still threw a pick to ice the SB.

Can he ice the Chargers PO game by NOT having an empty backfield on 3rd and short?

Peyton needs to fine tune that "clutch" thing, I guess. A running game and a D can help that. Maybe he doesn't have to throw so much to win a SB. His legacy depends on what he does with a new team. If they can run the ball well (like we did early- mid 2000's) he will look great again.

[jskinnz]

Just curious. When players left our organization and they did something elsewhere, like David Thornton, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja etc., it gave us a chance to evaluate them a little more objectively, IMO. We didn't have to remove our blue-colored glasses while evaluating them since they didn't wear Colts blue anymore.

Will that be the case with Peyton too? Will most of us (MOST being the keyword) be able to evaluate Peyton objectively now that he has left the organization?

We had the urge to find out what it would be like to not have Dungy when we were getting tired of his and Ron Meeks' schemes. Caldwell and Coyer came in like a 1 yr. savior and then, things went south since that Saints SB. Then, we had the urge to see what life would be without Caldwell and the Polians. Here we are, without Caldwell, Polians and even Peyton.

Questions we feel will be answered now:

1) Can Peyton, the former Colt, win with a better supporting cast?

2) Can the different organizational philosophy of not building the team exclusively around your QB work better in the long run? Will the Bill Polian philosophy be exposed or will we be regretting his absence?

3) Will a possibly different offensive and defensive philosophy give us more success when our rookie QB (assuming Luck) does pan out as well as Peyton did or even Matt Ryan did in his early years once you give him a good supporting cast?

Does it allow us to evaluate all of this objectively? Thoughts???

I have always thought of myself as being able to see things objectively so I don't think Manning or Polian being gone will impact that.

One thing though, kind off topic but kind of not, is the philosophy change with regards to free agency. I always like the fact that most Colts players were "home grown." I always liked that the Colts were not big winners or even participants in free agency but knew that when the games started they would be just fine. I recognize there are many effective ways to build a team and that free agency is one of those, but it strikes me as odd that a guy that I used to cheer against because of the team he played on will now be a guy I want to see do well and help my team. That is an odd shirt in mind-set for me.

[schwamm]

I don't think objectivity and being a fan really ever coexist. When people leave the organization you cheer for, it is too easy to turn them into a diety (Manning) or to blame them for everything (Polian), and we are only able to recognize the evidence that supports our desire to see them that way.

I think of all the threads and posts that seek to blame someone for each and every departure, whether it is that a player sucked (when they usually weren't as bad as stated), or that coaches/FO were stupid to let that player go (when the decision may have been more complicated than just about talent).

[Jaric]

I would normally say yes, but after a decade of arguing Manning is better than Brady, I still think Colt fans are way too entrenched in the idea that Manning is the best ever to play that I don't see many people changing arguments now that he's a Bronco even if evidence dictates that he is not.

and

[GoDeep]

And having a balanced team SHOULD be a better philosophy. Our "from out of nowhere" dominant defense had as much to do with our SB run after the '06 season.

[chad72]

I don't think objectivity and being a fan really ever coexist. When people leave the organization you cheer for, it is too easy to turn them into a diety (Manning) or to blame them for everything (Polian), and we are only able to recognize the evidence that supports our desire to see them that way.

I think of all the threads and posts that seek to blame someone for each and every departure, whether it is that a player sucked (when they usually weren't as bad as stated), or that coaches/FO were stupid to let that player go (when the decision may have been more complicated than just about talent).

You are still brewing over the anti-Irsay crowd, it seems like, the connotations of your post suggest that .

There are still a LOT of posters on here that I feel can evaluate a player or GM or coach objectively, and I firmly believe that.

Monetarily, I feel we have a greater chance to field a balanced team with the current Colts, IMO. How far it gets us, only time will tell.

We will get to evaluate Wayne without Peyton, Garcon without Peyton, Gonzo without Peyton etc. and I am curious to find that out as well.

[schwamm]

You are still brewing over the anti-Irsay crowd, it seems like, the connotations of your post suggest that .

There are still a LOT of posters on here that I feel can evaluate a player or GM or coach objectively, and I firmly believe that.

No, I'm still brewing over the Cato June threads, the Ryan Lilja threads, the Tim Jennings threads, the (add player name here) threads. I'm still brewing over the decades of bar stool chats with friends about players, coaches and FO staff.

The reality, in my mind, is that most (clearly not you ) cannot seperate their emotions in evaluating. I think it is part of being a fan. I get it... I am emotional about the Colts.

[MAC]

Wow, a thoughtful thread.

I am really inteersted to see if Peyton wins with a supporting cast like in Denver. But Peyton will have to play better in some circumstances.

Random thoughts:

He still threw a pick to ice the SB.

Can he ice the Chargers PO game by NOT having an empty backfield on 3rd and short?

Peyton needs to fine tune that "clutch" thing, I guess. A running game and a D can help that. Maybe he doesn't have to throw so much to win a SB. His legacy depends on what he does with a new team. If they can run the ball well (like we did early- mid 2000's) he will look great again.

First of all, I wouldn't assume Denver has a better supporting cast. The Colts have slipped recently, but I'm sure that the Colts roster for many years was a lot better than the Broncos roster is now. Those who think that Peyton was the entire team are deluding themselves. I'm thrilled that he chose the Broncos, but he has his work cut out for him.

Second, I have DVDs of quite a number of utterly stunning clutch performances by Peyton. You're comments sound like the national media perception of him in 2005. Not fair at all.

But I do agree that the possibility of a strong running game is the best thing for him. If he can develop their wide receivers and they bring in a good tight end (and hopefully a deep threat) that offense could be something special.

[GoDeep]

I would normally say yes, but after a decade of arguing Manning is better than Brady, I still think Colt fans are way too entrenched in the idea that Manning is the best ever to play that I don't see many people changing arguments now that he's a Bronco even if evidence dictates that he is not.

and

I did FIRMLY believe that Manning was better than Brady.

Until the last couple of years.

How much of it supporting cast? I don't know. And history will probably fail to even mention that.

Super Bowls:

Brady 3-2

Manning 1-1

THAT is what history will remember.

[GoDeep]

First of all, I wouldn't assume Denver has a better supporting cast. The Colts have slipped recently, but I'm sure that the Colts roster for many years was a lot better than the Broncos roster is now. Those who think that Peyton was the entire team are deluding themselves. I'm thrilled that he chose the Broncos, but he has his work cut out for him.

Second, I have DVDs of quite a number of utterly stunning clutch performances by Peyton. You're comments sound like the national media perception of him in 2005. Not fair at all.

But I do agree that the possibility of a strong running game is the best thing for him. If he can develop their wide receivers and they bring in a good tight end (and hopefully a deep threat) that offense could be something special.

And I have DVDs of some let downs. The fact is that our D really got us through the playoffs in 2006. The Chiefs didn't get a first down until the 2nd half. We had a battle of FG's with the Ravens. And the AFCCG was some D and some Peyton...in the 2nd half.

[chad72]

No, I'm still brewing over the Cato June threads, the Ryan Lilja threads, the Tim Jennings threads, the (add player name here) threads. I'm still brewing over the decades of bar stool chats with friends about players, coaches and FO staff.

The reality, in my mind, is that most (clearly not you ) cannot seperate their emotions in evaluating. I think it is part of being a fan. I get it... I am emotional about the Colts.

Got it.

When (a big IF ) Jerry Hughes succeeds in the 3-4/4-3 hybrid as a 3-4 OLB, do we give Pagano credit for maximizing his skill or the Polians credit for bringing him here in the first place? Those are the things that I hope to discuss.

[Jaric]

I did FIRMLY believe that Manning was better than Brady.

Until the last couple of years.

How much of it supporting cast? I don't know. And history will probably fail to even mention that.

Super Bowls:

Brady 3-2

Manning 1-1

THAT is what history will remember.

Personally, I have a hard time proclaiming a QB with a sub .500 playoff record as the best quarterback ever to play.

Now don't get me wrong, Manning still makes my best 5 of all time, but I can't put him in the top slot of a guy like Montana. Remember, if the defense doesn't decide to play out of it's mind in the 2006 playoffs, Manning is still the new Dan Marino and we likely go one and done in 2006.

[chad72]

Personally, I have a hard time proclaiming a QB with a sub .500 playoff record as the best quarterback ever to play.

Now don't get me wrong, Manning still makes my best 5 of all time, but I can't put him in the top slot of a guy like Montana. Remember, if the defense doesn't decide to play out of it's mind in the 2006 playoffs, Manning is still the new Dan Marino and we likely go one and done in 2006.

I am sure the ones enjoying this discussion the most are Pats fans , LOL

I was talking to my neighbor and he said the same thing. Unless Peyton wins 1 SB or more with the Broncos, he is going to be just a good playoff QB for me. Great citizen, great representative for the organization but just a good QB come playoff time, he never elevated his level of play then to be called great. There were enough opportunities he missed out on cashing in.

The term he used was "Peyton was a great regular season stat QB" and I cant argue that part . That is what my neighbor said and that was probably the reason I felt people might come around to objectively evaluate Peyton eventually. If they can evaluate Peyton objectively, they can do so for everyone else, IMO.

[GoDeep]

Personally, I have a hard time proclaiming a QB with a sub .500 playoff record as the best quarterback ever to play.

Now don't get me wrong, Manning still makes my best 5 of all time, but I can't put him in the top slot of a guy like Montana. Remember, if the defense doesn't decide to play out of it's mind in the 2006 playoffs, Manning is still the new Dan Marino and we likely go one and done in 2006.

Agreed, the D was on fire and Peyton doesn't win, otherwise.

[MAC]

And I have DVDs of some let downs. The fact is that our D really got us through the playoffs in 2006. The Chiefs didn't get a first down until the 2nd half. We had a battle of FG's with the Ravens. And the AFCCG was some D and some Peyton...in the 2nd half.

You must have an incredibly small DVD collection.

The AFC Championship game was "some Peyton"? OK. The greatest comeback ever in a championship game, culminating with as clutch a TD drive as anything that build the legends of Montana and Elway, and you're talking about the defense. But I suppose that Brady is "clutch" for a couple of field goal drives while playing behind the best defense in the league? Are you just mentally preparing yourself for life without him, or have you always felt this way? If the later, that's a bit out there.

[MAC]

Personally, I have a hard time proclaiming a QB with a sub .500 playoff record as the best quarterback ever to play.

Now don't get me wrong, Manning still makes my best 5 of all time, but I can't put him in the top slot of a guy like Montana. Remember, if the defense doesn't decide to play out of it's mind in the 2006 playoffs, Manning is still the new Dan Marino and we likely go one and done in 2006.

I'm sure that you're trying to be fair, but that would also require acknowledging that the 49ers had a terrific defense throughout the entirety of their run - during a period where you could just add more and more depth without regard for the salary cap. Montana didn't exactly do it on his own, and he was placed in a system which emphasized short passes for a reason. It was a great coach, system, team, from top to bottom, and he was the perfect component - but I doubt very much that he could do what Peyton has done. Ironically as time passes people tend to remember only the good parts of legends like Montana, while you guys are trying hard to find Peytons recent flaws in the name of being "fair".

[UndecidedFrog]

Just curious. When players left our organization and they did something elsewhere, like David Thornton, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja etc., it gave us a chance to evaluate them a little more objectively, IMO. We didn't have to remove our blue-colored glasses while evaluating them since they didn't wear Colts blue anymore.

Will that be the case with Peyton too? Will most of us (MOST being the keyword) be able to evaluate Peyton objectively now that he has left the organization?

We had the urge to find out what it would be like to not have Dungy when we were getting tired of his and Ron Meeks' schemes. Caldwell and Coyer came in like a 1 yr. savior and then, things went south since that Saints SB. Then, we had the urge to see what life would be without Caldwell and the Polians. Here we are, without Caldwell, Polians and even Peyton.

Questions we feel will be answered now:

1) Can Peyton, the former Colt, win with a better supporting cast?

2) Can the different organizational philosophy of not building the team exclusively around your QB work better in the long run? Will the Bill Polian philosophy be exposed or will we be regretting his absence?

3) Will a possibly different offensive and defensive philosophy give us more success when our rookie QB (assuming Luck) does pan out as well as Peyton did or even Matt Ryan did in his early years once you give him a good supporting cast?

Does it allow us to evaluate all of this objectively? Thoughts???

For some of us, it is quite easy to evaluate things objectively, when we step outside our fanhood. It is similar to evaluating managed employees without letting your personal bias as their manager interfere. You evaluate them on objectives met, achievements and goals satisfied.

1) Yes, Peyton, or any other QB, can win with a better supporting cast. In fact, the probability of winning increases when you increase the quality of the supporting cast.

2) Yes, building an organization that can succeed with different critical components is much more flexible, and has greater probability to succeed than building an organization that is dependent on one critical component, when any component may fail. The BP philosophy was exposed last season and evidenced by our 2-14 record.

3) Philosophy is good, but more important is getting the personnel that can execute. If you can get the latter, the new QB will have more success.

[Jaric]

I'm sure that you're trying to be fair, but that would also require that the 49ers had a terrific defense throughout the entirety of their run - during a period where you could just add more and more depth without regard for the salary cap. Montana didn't exactly do it on his own, and he was placed in a system which emphasized short passes for a reason. It was a great coach, system, team, from top to bottom, and he was the perfect component - but I doubt very much that he could do what Peyton has done. Ironically as time passes people tend to remember only the good parts of legends like Montana, while you guys are trying hard to find Peytons recent flaws in the name of being "fair".

I never said Montana did it on his own. I'm also not buying the salary cap argument because none of the other teams Montana played against had to deal with the salary cap either. Every team Manning plays against has the same restrictions on players salaries the Colts are dealing with.

I also disagree that I'm "trying hard" to find flaws in his game or that the flaws I've mentioned are somehow "recent." First off, you don't have to try very hard to find where Manning's resume falls short. You just have to google "What is Peyton Manning's playoff record?" Secondly, those flaws are hardly recent considering it took 6 years before we even won a playoff game. We've gone one and done SEVEN out of the eleven times we'd made the playoffs in Manning's career.

Was that all his fault? Of course not. I'm sure someone is going to point to the defense and how bad they sucked. My response to that is to be careful what you wish for. If we built a balanced team instead of spending every high pick available on offensive talent, we might have a better playoff record, but all those numbers and offensive brilliance we like to crow about when talking about Manning likely goes out the window as well. Part of the reason our offense was so successful, is because we poured resourced into making it that way. In other words that argument works both ways.

Now, I'm not trying to take anything away from Manning. Like I said previously, he still makes my top 5 QB of all time list. I'm just looking at the facts and trying to come to an unbiased conclusion.

[MAC]

I never said Montana did it on his own. I'm also not buying the salary cap argument because none of the other teams Montana played against had to deal with the salary cap either. Every team Manning plays against has the same restrictions on players salaries the Colts are dealing with.

I also disagree that I'm "trying hard" to find flaws in his game or that the flaws I've mentioned are somehow "recent." First off, you don't have to try very hard to find where Manning's resume falls short. You just have to google "What is Peyton Manning's playoff record?" Secondly, those flaws are hardly recent considering it took 6 years before we even won a playoff game. We've gone one and done SEVEN out of the eleven times we'd made the playoffs in Manning's career.

Was that all his fault? Of course not. I'm sure someone is going to point to the defense and how bad they sucked. My response to that is to be careful what you wish for. If we built a balanced team instead of spending every high pick available on offensive talent, we might have a better playoff record, but all those numbers and offensive brilliance we like to crow about when talking about Manning likely goes out the window as well. Part of the reason our offense was so successful, is because we poured resourced into making it that way. In other words that argument works both ways.

Now, I'm not trying to take anything away from Manning. Like I said previously, he still makes my top 5 QB of all time list. I'm just looking at the facts and trying to come to an unbiased conclusion.

I agree with you for the most part, but when talking about playoff failures I maintain that Peyton was a different QB in 2004 than in 2001, and better yet in 2006, and better yet in 2008. What makes him unique is the extent to which he wins with his brain, and he's never stopped improving. Belichick "got him" twice in a row in the playoffs, but things changed as time went on. I would take the recent vintage Peyton over any QB in history - hands down.

I've been arguing with people for weeks about the "NOW we'll finally have a balanced team" nonsense. I wouldn't trade the past 14 years for any(sports related)thing. Just magical. Those who seem envious of the Ravens or the Steelers over the same time period as if "that's how you run a real team" are either fans of defense only, or they are a bit short-sighted. I wonder if they will wake up one day and miss "the old days".

[GoDeep]

You must have an incredibly small DVD collection.

The AFC Championship game was "some Peyton"? OK. The greatest comeback ever in a championship game, culminating with as clutch a TD drive as anything that build the legends of Montana and Elway, and you're talking about the defense. But I suppose that Brady is "clutch" for a couple of field goal drives while playing behind the best defense in the league? Are you just mentally preparing yourself for life without him, or have you always felt this way? If the later, that's a bit out there.

Ummm, pretty sure he didn't have a good first half. I was there, I remember it.

The comeback wouldn't have been neccesary had we executed better in the first half.

And Montana has four Super Bowls? Peyton 1.

I was a HUGE Peyton fan, but I am really trying to view this from the perspective of his legacy.

Like Jaric pointed out: 7 out of 11 one and dones. 1-1 in Super Bowls.

Do you think Peyton is the GOAT?

[GrizzColt]

Polian, Dungy and Irsay all caved in to Peyton and made us an offensive juggernaut....meanwhile, teams with great defenses were winning the Super Bowl. We should have bolstered the defense (I bet anything that Dungy wanted more/better defensive players in the draft) despite Peyton. Peyton proved he could score TD's with the lamest of talent. Look how great Tom Brady is with a great offense and a poor defense. Hasn't won a Super Bowl yet and he won't ever until BB gives him a good defense.

[Flash7]

We look at Peyton with a different perspective. We have such an emotional attachment to him, that it's very difficult to judge him objectively. If you look at other fans throughout the league who are football savvy, they would tell you that Peyton is great but not the greatest. Perhaps that's the consensus. No one doubts his greatness on the football field, and everyone would say he's among the greates to ever play. Beyond that, it's just personal opinion.

[oldunclemark]

Yes..I've hear so many bad things about Dallas Clark...locally..

..and I fully expect him to return to his all-pro level..

[MAC]

And Montana has four Super Bowls? Peyton 1.

I was a HUGE Peyton fan, but I am really trying to view this from the perspective of his legacy.

Like Jaric pointed out: 7 out of 11 one and dones. 1-1 in Super Bowls.

Do you think Peyton is the GOAT?

I think that Peyton is the greatest player of his generation without a doubt. Comparing across generations is an exercise in futility. He is certainly ONE of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

And in a team game, comparing just super bowl victories is of minimum value. If you "were" (sorry, I just don't get that) a Peyton HUGE fan, than surely you've made his argument a time or two regarding a guy named Tom Brady. Perfect example. Brady's "legend" was born with the 9-0 start to his playoff career and 3 titles. Of course he was little more than a game manager at the time. Since then his record has been similar to Peytons, with a couple of 0-1's of his own - yet ironically he is 10 times the QB that he used to be. Doesn't that tell you something? Not to mention the fact that he couldn't even start for his own team when drafted until being forced in by injury. There is more to a career than simply the Super Bowl.

Similarly Montana couldn't even start for his team at first, and had four 0-1s of his own. Elway had three 0-1's. He didn't even MAKE the playoffs six times (Manning, Montana and Brady each had two I believe). It's nice that some people dismiss Peyton as just being a regular season QB, but isn't winning in the regular season kind of a prerequisite to being a great playoff QB? As I said, perceptions change over time, and people chose not to remember older QBs failings.

Perfect example, the Packers/Colts Starr/Unitas were an unending story in the 60s. Like Brady and Montana, Starr won a LOT of championships. Name one person who even utters his name in the same breath as Johnny U? They talk about Lombardi and the Packers defense. (And note that at this point Peyton has made it to the playoffs as many or more times as any of these guys - though Elway and Montana played until 38. That alone is an accomplishment, and his story doesn't seem to be over yet.) If Peyton helps the Broncos leap forward, and gets another SB win, I think that all these silly complaints go away.

By that time he may also own every significant career QB record - just like Unitas did when he retired. Does that not count for something?

[GoDeep]

I think that Peyton is the greatest player of his generation without a doubt. Comparing across generations is an exercise in futility. He is certainly ONE of the greatest QBs to ever play the game.

And in a team game, comparing just super bowl victories is of minimum value. If you "were" (sorry, I just don't get that) a Peyton HUGE fan, than surely you've made his argument a time or two regarding a guy named Tom Brady. Perfect example. Brady's "legend" was born with the 9-0 start to his playoff career and 3 titles. Of course he was little more than a game manager at the time. Since then his record has been similar to Peytons, with a couple of 0-1's of his own - yet ironically he is 10 times the QB that he used to be. Doesn't that tell you something? Not to mention the fact that he couldn't even start for his own team when drafted until being forced in by injury. There is more to a career than simply the Super Bowl.

Similarly Montana couldn't even start for his team at first, and had four 0-1s of his own. Elway had three 0-1's. He didn't even MAKE the playoffs six times (Manning, Montana and Brady each had two I believe). It's nice that some people dismiss Peyton as just being a regular season QB, but isn't winning in the regular season kind of a prerequisite to being a great playoff QB? As I said, perceptions change over time, and people chose not to remember older QBs failings.

Perfect example, the Packers/Colts Starr/Unitas were an unending story in the 60s. Like Brady and Montana, Starr won a LOT of championships. Name one person who even utters his name in the same breath as Johnny U? They talk about Lombardi and the Packers defense. (And note that at this point Peyton has made it to the playoffs as many or more times as any of these guys - though Elway and Montana played until 38. That alone is an accomplishment, and his story doesn't seem to be over yet.) If Peyton helps the Broncos leap forward, and gets another SB win, I think that all these silly complaints go away.

By that time he may also own every significant career QB record - just like Unitas did when he retired. Does that not count for something?

I was a huge fan. I still like the guy, but he isn't our guy anymore. I am a Colts.

I live in Louisville, so NFL fandom here is all over the place. I work with people that say they won't follow the Colts anymore.

Welp, you weren't a Colts fan, you were a Manning fan.

And it all counts for a lot. I'm just trying to look more objectively at Peyton now that he isn't our guy (like the OP suggested). I once thought PM was the GOAT. Last few years, I began to wonder.

I sure am glad that Eli won this year, because my work buddy that I talk football with and play FF with, declared that Brady winning his fourth this year would cement him as the GOAT for sure.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just curious. When players left our organization and they did something elsewhere, like David Thornton, Jake Scott, Ryan Lilja etc., it gave us a chance to evaluate them a little more objectively, IMO. We didn't have to remove our blue-colored glasses while evaluating them since they didn't wear Colts blue anymore.

Will that be the case with Peyton too? Will most of us (MOST being the keyword) be able to evaluate Peyton objectively now that he has left the organization?

We had the urge to find out what it would be like to not have Dungy when we were getting tired of his and Ron Meeks' schemes. Caldwell and Coyer came in like a 1 yr. savior and then, things went south since that Saints SB. Then, we had the urge to see what life would be without Caldwell and the Polians. Here we are, without Caldwell, Polians and even Peyton.

Questions we feel will be answered now:

1) Can Peyton, the former Colt, win with a better supporting cast?

2) Can the different organizational philosophy of not building the team exclusively around your QB work better in the long run? Will the Bill Polian philosophy be exposed or will we be regretting his absence?

3) Will a possibly different offensive and defensive philosophy give us more success when our rookie QB (assuming Luck) does pan out as well as Peyton did or even Matt Ryan did in his early years once you give him a good supporting cast?

Does it allow us to evaluate all of this objectively? Thoughts???

Not for most fans. Look at what happened to Edge, he left and Colts fans talked about how he wasn't that good and backs like him are a dime a dozen, some even accused him of chasing the money (even though the Colts didn't offer him a contract).

Or Harrison, a top 3 WR of all time, to hear some Colt fans he was only good because he had Manning throwing to him and Wayne on the other side drawing the double teams.

Sometimes the reverse is true as well

Mike Peterson, who was an average LB for the Colts, fans started acting like he was the next coming of Ray Lewis a year or two after he was gone.

Or Tarik Glenn or became a complete LT after the Colts drafted Freeney, fans act like he was an elite LT his entire career when he only became elite the last 4 years of his career. Before that he was a good LT that struggled against speed rushers.

So, no I don't think a player leaving allows fans to evaluate them more objectively.

[MAC]

I was a huge fan. I still like the guy, but he isn't our guy anymore. I am a Colts.

I live in Louisville, so NFL fandom here is all over the place. I work with people that say they won't follow the Colts anymore.

Welp, you weren't a Colts fan, you were a Manning fan.

And it all counts for a lot. I'm just trying to look more objectively at Peyton now that he isn't our guy (like the OP suggested). I once thought PM was the GOAT. Last few years, I began to wonder.

I sure am glad that Eli won this year, because my work buddy that I talk football with and play FF with, declared that Brady winning his fourth this year would cement him as the GOAT for sure.

So I guess that you are confident that you are incapable of looking objectively at someone when they play for the Colts, so they must be automatically devalued when they leave. Not sure what issues you're working through, but I have no such concerns. I looked at Manning objectively when he was Colt, and I continue to view him objectively now that he is not. It really isn't that hard.

Ironically I'm trying to read your comments objectively as well, and not conclude that you are accusing me of being a "Manning fan" rather than a Colts fan. That nonsense has been ripping this forum apart. For what it is worth, I've been a Colts fan since 1967-8. Nothing has ever threatened that. I'm choosing to root for Manning wherever he goes (just like I chose to root for Tom Seaver when he was traded to the Reds, and Guy Lafleur when he came to the Rangers, and Patrick Roy when he was traded to the Avalanche, and Edgerrin James when he went to the Cardinals, Danilo Gallinari when he was traded to the Nuggets, and probably a few dozen other examples). I really don't see the need to force yourself to push away someone who has meant a lot to you. It doesn't make you less of a fan of your current team. Sports isn't war, its a game, and if you like someone, then you like them. Why would the uniform change that? Why punish yourself as if pushing them aside is an unpleasant exercise that you have to do to prove your loyalty? Who cares? Just relax and enjoy the games.

[oldunclemark]

''Its far to simplistic to judge a QB by how many Super Bowls you've won,

Once you win one..you are a 'made man'

..and the discussion of your greatness can go to other things...

[MAC]

Amusingly enough, I'm listening to Denver sports radio at the moment, and they just had a caller RIPPING John Elway. Utterly useless player who looked sick in the Super Bowl, never did a thing - it was all Terrell Davis. Wants the team to fire him now - bringing in Peyton is a complete joke.

People are nuts everywhere. I'm sure there are Montana haters in SF as well. Can you imagine what that city would have been like during the changeover to Young if they had internet access like we do now.

[GoDeep]

So I guess that you are confident that you are incapable of looking objectively at someone when they play for the Colts, so they must be automatically devalued when they leave. Not sure what issues you're working through, but I have no such concerns. I looked at Manning objectively when he was Colt, and I continue to view him objectively now that he is not. It really isn't that hard.

Ironically I'm trying to read your comments objectively as well, and not conclude that you are accusing me of being a "Manning fan" rather than a Colts fan. That nonsense has been ripping this forum apart. For what it is worth, I've been a Colts fan since 1967-8. Nothing has ever threatened that. I'm choosing to root for Manning wherever he goes (just like I chose to root for Tom Seaver when he was traded to the Reds, and Guy Lafleur when he came to the Rangers, and Patrick Roy when he was traded to the Avalanche, and Edgerrin James when he went to the Cardinals, Danilo Gallinari when he was traded to the Nuggets, and probably a few dozen other examples). I really don't see the need to force yourself to push away someone who has meant a lot to you. It doesn't make you less of a fan of your current team. Sports isn't war, its a game, and if you like someone, then you like them. Why would the uniform change that? Why punish yourself as if pushing them aside is an unpleasant exercise that you have to do to prove your loyalty? Who cares? Just relax and enjoy the games.

I'm not calling you anything, MAC.

I have LOTS of issues, you have no idea

[oldunclemark]

Amusingly enough, I'm listening to Denver sports radio at the moment, and they just had a caller RIPPING John Elway. Utterly useless player who looked sick in the Super Bowl, never did a thing - it was all Terrell Davis. Wants the team to fire him now - bringing in Peyton is a complete joke.

People are nuts everywhere. I'm sure there are Montana haters in SF as well. Can you imagine what that city would have been like during the changeover to Young if they had internet access like we do now.

I am doing what you are doing MAC..and its amazing..

John Elway was arguably better than Peyton Manning and now he's come back to build another champion for the franchise he's played for..

..and the people are now turning butt-ugly on him because they're drunk in love with a boy who says he loves Jesus every 10 minutes.

..sounds like cult behavior'

[GoDeep]

Amusingly enough, I'm listening to Denver sports radio at the moment, and they just had a caller RIPPING John Elway. Utterly useless player who looked sick in the Super Bowl, never did a thing - it was all Terrell Davis. Wants the team to fire him now - bringing in Peyton is a complete joke.

People are nuts everywhere. I'm sure there are Montana haters in SF as well. Can you imagine what that city would have been like during the changeover to Young if they had internet access like we do now.

I think Mannig is GREAT. I am sad to see him go. Denver couldn't have done better IMHO.

Now let's see if he can return to form...and this Luck kid better be good.

[Jaric]

I've been arguing with people for weeks about the "NOW we'll finally have a balanced team" nonsense. I wouldn't trade the past 14 years for any(sports related)thing. Just magical. Those who seem envious of the Ravens or the Steelers over the same time period as if "that's how you run a real team" are either fans of defense only, or they are a bit short-sighted. I wonder if they will wake up one day and miss "the old days".

I define "balance" differently than most people here. When I talk about balance, I'm talking about salaries. I get that you have to pay a guy like Manning whatever the market will bear. But 20 million dollars for Dwight Freeney? Just to run after the quarterback regardless of down or distance? That to me is madness. One all star backed up and surrounded by undrafted free agents and midround guys playing under their rookie contracts is a recipe for disaster when all star player gets hurt or double teamed.

But you spread that 20 million out among 3 or 4 guys and suddenly you have a team that is much harder to defend because you can't focus in on one or two players.

That's why we had so much dang trouble beating the Patriots because Belichick's greatest strength has always been taking away your best player. Well when we only have one or two superstar players surrounded by cast offs if you do take that one player away the drop off is incredibly dramatic. Yeah that means sometimes you have to let a guy you like move on but long term it's a better way to build a team.

So when you see me talk about balance, that's what I'm talking about. Not that I'm opposed to making a defensive commitment mind you (quite the opposite) just that I think it's more important to spread out your resources rather than bet the farm on one or two guys (franchise Qbs excluded)

[MAC]

I define "balance" differently than most people here. When I talk about balance, I'm talking about salaries. I get that you have to pay a guy like Manning whatever the market will bear. But 20 million dollars for Dwight Freeney? Just to run after the quarterback regardless of down or distance? That to me is madness. One all start backed up and surrounded by undrafted free agents and midround guys playing under their rookie contracts is a recipe for disaster when all start player gets hurt or double teamed.

But you spread that 20 million out among 3 or 4 guys and suddenly you have a team that is much harder to defend because you can't focus in on one or two players.

That's why we had so much dang trouble beating the Patriots because Belichick's greatest strength has always been taking away your best player. Well when we only have one or two superstar players surrounded by cast offs if you do take that one player away the drop off is incredibly dramatic. Yeah that means sometimes you have to let a guy you like move on but long term it's a better way to build a team.

So when you see me talk about balance, that's what I'm talking about. Not that I'm opposed to making a defensive commitment mind you (quite the opposite) just that I think it's more important to spread out your resources rather than bet the farm on one or two guys (franchise Qbs excluded)

I would agree with you. The key is to continue to draft well so that you can replace key players when the hit free agency.

People lose sight of how good the Colts were a few years ago in the fretting about their "demise". The fact is that the quality of the o-line, receivers, dbacks, among other things declined, yet the team was still pushing the salary cap - and they felt the need to overpay people (Addai, etc) because their replacements weren't on the roster. Belichick drafts well, and signs usable free agents for less than superstar salaries. Waste is unacceptable.

[21isSuperman]

I would normally say yes, but after a decade of arguing Manning is better than Brady, I still think Colt fans are way too entrenched in the idea that Manning is the best ever to play that I don't see many people changing arguments now that he's a Bronco even if evidence dictates that he is not.

and

Exactly. If a guy like Bullitt leaves, you can be more objective about it. But if it's Peyton, a guy we have been following for the last 10+ years, it's much harder