Denver caught their rainbow

[Kray007]

That leaves only the Colts and Arizona left in the market for coaches.

[ChaosTheory]

1st and 2nd for Sean Payton and a 3rd. We'll see how it looks.

[rcubed]

1st and 2nd for Sean Payton and a 3rd. We'll see how it looks.
and thats after all the crap they gave up for russ.

[Oldcolt]

We only got a first for Shula. I think it turned into Don McCauley

[ChaosTheory]

and thats after all the crap they gave up for russ.

I think this is right...

In the past two offseasons, it looks like the Broncos will have received Russell Wilson, Sean Payton, a 3rd, and a 4th in exchange for...

-2022 1st
-2022 2nd
-2022 5th

-2023 1st
-2023 1st (via Bradley Chubb trade)
-2023 2nd

-2024 2nd

-QB Drew Lock
-TE Noah Fant
-DT Shelby Harris

[Butter]

They better hit on later round picks for the next few years.

[Hoopsdoc]

Meanwhile the Saints are still in cap hell 2 years removed from Sean Payton. They are projected to be 57 million over the cap.

[Oldcolt]

I predict this retread will work out about as well as our retread quarterbacks have

[ChaosTheory]

I think this is right...

In the past two offseasons, it looks like the Broncos will have received Russell Wilson, Sean Payton, a 3rd, and a 4th in exchange for...

-2022 1st
-2022 2nd
-2022 5th

-2023 1st
-2023 1st (via Bradley Chubb trade)
-2023 2nd

-2024 2nd

-QB Drew Lock
-TE Noah Fant
-DT Shelby Harris

Oh, forgot to add... Wilson's new contract is $242m over five years, $161m guaranteed. Not that they weren't already tied to this decision for the next several years.

[YDFL Commish]

At the end of that rainbow will be fools gold.

[Chromeburn]

Meanwhile the Saints are still in cap hell 2 years removed from Sean Payton. They are projected to be 57 million over the cap.

I remember at the beginning of the year the 1070 the fans sports guys criticizing the Colts for not treating the cap like the Saints do. That the cap isn’t real and you can just go around it if you want forever.

[Dam8610]

Excellent, Payton will be exposed as a fraud and Denver's going to be bad for at least a decade.

[Chromeburn]

So two people worth all that draft capital. This reminds me of other new owners. They come in and try to fix the team by throwing money around. Sometimes it works. Like the Panthers team Polian built and almost won with. Most of the time it doesn’t though.

[Dam8610]

So two people worth all that draft capital. This reminds me of other new owners. They come in and try to fix the team by throwing money around. Sometimes it works. Like the Panthers team Polian built and almost won with. Most of the time it doesn’t though.

Well, they had Bill Polian. That plus money typically equals results.

[CletusPyle]

Sean Payton without Drew Brees is mediocre…prove me wrong Payton!:D

[Colts And Orioles]

Sean Payton without Drew Brees is mediocre ...... prove me wrong, Payton !!! ) :D





o


One of the few good things that came out of the disastrous 2011 season was that it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt just how valuable Peyton Manning was to his team ...... they went 0-13 that year before finally winning a game.

The 2008 Patriots, on the other hand, went 11-5 with Matt Cassell at quarterback when Tom Brady missed the entire season with an injury.

o

[rm1369]

I remember at the beginning of the year the 1070 the fans sports guys criticizing the Colts for not treating the cap like the Saints do. That the cap isn’t real and you can just go around it if you want forever.

I don’t want them to go as extreme as the Saints, but Ballard’s straight line method puts the team at a competitive disadvantage to a degree every year. The thought of course being they’ll never have the big down years either. I think it’s BS and a way to be mediocre for a longer period of time.

[ChaosTheory]

I don’t want them to go as extreme as the Saints, but Ballard’s straight line method puts the team at a competitive disadvantage to a degree every year. The thought of course being they’ll never have the big down years either. I think it’s BS and a way to be mediocre for a longer period of time.

Or set the record for wins in a decade.

[rm1369]

Or set the record for wins in a decade.

And consistently come up short.

If you think what the Colts did with Manning was a success, then we simply want different things and measure success differently. Manning was short changed in his time here. A more aggressive GM would have won multiple SBs with him.

You are probably a Ted Thompson fan as well.

[ChaosTheory]

And consistently come up short.

If you think what the Colts did with Manning was a success, then we simply want different things and measure success differently. Manning was short changed in his time here. A more aggressive GM would have won multiple SBs with him.

You are probably a Ted Thompson fan as well.

Yes, we absolutely want different things. I had an absolute blast being a Colts fan during the Polian era. And I didn't come out of it saying, "Man, that sucked, the Giants got two."

I wonder if you think the Chiefs have had five straight stellar seasons moreso because their GM is aggressive or because they drafted Mahomes.

[YDFL Commish]

Yes, we absolutely want different things. I had an absolute blast being a Colts fan during the Polian era. And I didn't come out of it saying, "Man, that sucked, the Giants got two."

I wonder if you think the Chiefs have had five straight stellar seasons moreso because their GM is aggressive or because they drafted Mahomes.

Both

[rm1369]

Yes, we absolutely want different things. I had an absolute blast being a Colts fan during the Polian era. And I didn't come out of it saying, "Man, that sucked, the Giants got two."

I wonder if you think the Chiefs have had five straight stellar seasons moreso because their GM is aggressive or because they drafted Mahomes.

I think the Chiefs realize that Mahomes gives them a shot every year (just as Manning did the Colts). Any half competent GM will have success with him (as with Manning). A great QB sets the floor and the GM controls the peaks. Polian’s method cut the tops off the peaks in the name of consistency. Those teams had 7 double digit win teams that didn’t win a single playoff game. Would I trade a couple 12-4 or 13-3 seasons w/ no playoff wins for another SB win? Fuck yeah I would!

Ballard is busy trying to replicate the Steelers 70s dynasty while Philly has won a SB, got rid of everyone, and are playing in another. The ultra conservative approach limits you.

[ChaosTheory]

Let me get this out of the way first and then I'll respond... Despite being the measuring stick, winning the Super Bowl is not an exact science for determining the best team in football. The same is true for any elimination tournament format, especially for single-elimination. But the playoffs are A.) more practical and B.) far more dramatic and entertaining which is the whole point of the business model.

If you truly wanted to determine the best team, you'd have a round-robin style tournament, everyone play everyone, tally it up at the end. But that's impractical and, more importantly, less dramatic and entertaining.


Polian’s method cut the tops off the peaks in the name of consistency.

I don't think that idiom applies because that would imply that the Colts weren't good enough to win and that Polian held them back. It'd be different if they weren't always beating good teams.

But the Colts were consistently one of the elite teams in the league playing a 1st-place schedule every year. They would oftentimes beat the best teams in the league in a given year.

Those teams had 7 double digit win teams that didn’t win a single playoff game.

True. But if SB's are the measure, what's the difference between the '03, , '05, '07, and '09 Colts? Also, three of those one-and-done teams earned a 1st-round bye which isn't accounted for. The way we look at a playoff stat like that is flawed in my opinion.

We do it with QB's in the playoffs as well. Eli Manning won two Super Bowls and only has 4 playoff losses ever. Why? Because he missed the playoffs entirely 8 out of 14 seasons.

Would I trade a couple 12-4 or 13-3 seasons w/ no playoff wins for another SB win? Fuck yeah I would!

I hear people say this and I just don't know what it means. What sense does it make to say you'd trade a couple of seasons that didn't result in a Super Bowl after the fact? And for what? A guaranteed Super Bowl? We're not dealing in absolutes like that. And I don't know what it has to do with Polian's methods.

For example: I would take the '05 Colts team, which Polian built and that won 0 playoff games, and throw it into any 10-year window and feel good about the prospects. The fact that the Steelers knocked them out doesn't prove to me that Polian fucked up building the team or that he should've done more in free agency. That's not why they lost that game.

The ultra conservative approach limits you.

The odds of winning it all are very low. Look at how great the Chiefs have been since 2013.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kan/index.htm

Looks pretty damn similar to Colts' heyday from '99 to '10.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/

If they lose Sunday, they'll have one Super Bowl to show. Some people will say the GM is over-aggressive and that he cuts the tops off the peaks.

[rm1369]

Let me get this out of the way first and then I'll respond... Despite being the measuring stick, winning the Super Bowl is not an exact science for determining the best team in football. The same is true for any elimination tournament format, especially for single-elimination. But the playoffs are A.) more practical and B.) far more dramatic and entertaining which is the whole point of the business model.

If you truly wanted to determine the best team, you'd have a round-robin style tournament, everyone play everyone, tally it up at the end. But that's impractical and, more importantly, less dramatic and entertaining.

I don't disagree. However, it doesn't change my belief in NFL roster construction.

I don't think that idiom applies because that would imply that the Colts weren't good enough to win and that Polian held them back. It'd be different if they weren't always beating good teams.

It doesn't imply they "weren't good enough to win." A handful of teams each year are good enough. The question really is how to maximize your chances. Do you do that simply by trying to be in that handful of teams as often as possible? Or do you potentially sacrifice a couple of seasons to maximize your ability when you are one of those handful? You and Polian believe in the former, and I believe in the latter. But I definitely concede most of those Colts teams "were good enough." They just didn't maximize their chances.

But the Colts were consistently one of the elite teams in the league playing a 1st-place schedule every year. They would oftentimes beat the best teams in the league in a given year.

Yep, and they consistently underperformed in the playoffs. I'm curious as to your explanation as to why that was the case.

True. But if SB's are the measure, what's the difference between the '03, , '05, '07, and '09 Colts? Also, three of those one-and-done teams earned a 1st-round bye which isn't accounted for. The way we look at a playoff stat like that is flawed in my opinion.

The difference? How close they got to achieving the goal. I'm not sure why that's a question.

We do it with QB's in the playoffs as well. Eli Manning won two Super Bowls and only has 4 playoff losses ever. Why? Because he missed the playoffs entirely 8 out of 14 seasons.

I'd agree it's not a fair assessment for individual players - too many other factors at play. I'd never say Eli was a better QB than Peyton. Peyton carried teams in a way that Eli never could. That's not a ringing endorsement of the GM though.

I hear people say this and I just don't know what it means. What sense does it make to say you'd trade a couple of seasons that didn't result in a Super Bowl after the fact? And for what? A guaranteed Super Bowl? We're not dealing in absolutes like that. And I don't know what it has to do with Polian's methods.

It means that there is a finite amount of resources available to a team in any specific season. However, you can: 1) get creative with the cap, 2) trade future assets for assets now, 3) trade current assets for assets in the future. That means you have the ability to move resources from one time period to another. There are a few other ways to be aggressive and take chances on a specific season as well. But the overall point is that I'd have happily watched a couple 9-7 seasons (probably the very floor with Manning) to move extra resources into the D or OL for a few seasons. Does it guarantee a SB win? Of course not, but it sure would help the chances. And those few down seasons (if they occurred) would result in higher draft picks, so potential for higher peaks on the back side. And while I'm saying it now, I said it then. Just as I've been criticizing Ballard for similar methods in real-time, not just years later.

For example: I would take the '05 Colts team, which Polian built and that won 0 playoff games, and throw it into any 10-year window and feel good about the prospects. The fact that the Steelers knocked them out doesn't prove to me that Polian fucked up building the team or that he should've done more in free agency. That's not why they lost that game.

2005 was a really good team. It's an interesting one to pick though. Polian was aggressive and took a chance on Corey Simon. He used it as an excuse to not use free-agency in later years. Simon was fat and out of shape, but the team won 13 straight with him in the starting lineup. Then went 1-3 in their next 4 games with him inactive - including the playoff loss to Steelers. Coincidentally the next off-season Polian traded a 2nd for Simon's replacement, Booger McFarland. Team won the SB. Sadly, both moves were out of character for Polian.

The odds of winning it all are very low. Look at how great the Chiefs have been since 2013.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kan/index.htm

Looks pretty damn similar to Colts' heyday from '99 to '10.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/

If they lose Sunday, they'll have one Super Bowl to show. Some people will say the GM is over-aggressive and that he cuts the tops off the peaks.

Just another case of us seeing things differently. Overall records are probably similar, but they are playing in their 3rd SB in 4 years. They've made 5 straight conference title games - every year since they've had an elite QB. Colts never had that kind of postseason success. And they were a decent team prior to that but saw the limitations in their starting QB and traded up for his replacement. A risky move. I know what you are getting at - so far only won one SB. They've certainly been more aggressive than the Polian Colts were. According to your measuring stick, they have been equal to the great Polian Colts teams. By my measuring stick, they have been better. Let's see what the next few years hold. Maybe you and Polian will be right and being aggressive will lead to them totally falling apart. Unfortunately, I think they'll do just fine.

For the record, why do you think Manning accumulated the same SB record in 4 post-prime years in Denver as he did in 13 prime years in Indy? If it didn't have anything to do with the rest of the team, what was it? Simply luck?

[ChaosTheory]

Yep, and they consistently underperformed in the playoffs. I'm curious as to your explanation as to why that was the case.

I don't like to look at results and try to generalize. Patriots dynasty in '03 and '04. Steelers had a great D in '05, maybe Dungy and Harper distractions had an effect? '06 we won but we didn't have to go play the Chargers who for some reason were probably our worst match-up in the league. '07 and '08 the bracket gods put us up against those Chargers.

Lot of what-ifs, but I don't see losses due to Polian putting together a sub-par team.


The difference? How close they got to achieving the goal. I'm not sure why that's a question...

...But the overall point is that I'd have happily watched a couple 9-7 seasons (probably the very floor with Manning) to move extra resources into the D or OL for a few seasons. Does it guarantee a SB win? Of course not, but it sure would help the chances.

It's a question because none of them won the SB. You're talking about "sacrificing" seasons for the SB. Well, say you do whatever that means and have a couple bad seasons...

What kind of team do you envision fielding after this hypothetical sacrifice? Would it not be a team that goes 12-4, 13-3, 14-2, wins the division, and seeds high for the playoffs for a chance at a Super Bowl? Because that's exactly what we had in the 2000's under Polian. What else do you want a GM to provide if that's not enough?


For the record, why do you think Manning accumulated the same SB record in 4 post-prime years in Denver as he did in 13 prime years in Indy? If it didn't have anything to do with the rest of the team, what was it? Simply luck?

Nothing to do with the rest of the team? I don't follow. Look at DEN from 2012-2015 and IND from 2006-2009. Four seasons, 2 SB appearances, 1 SB win, and 2 one-and-done playoff appearances.

As I remember it, DEN was good collecting young talent. They were meddling for many years because they were missing a QB. There was also an offensive boom and other changes in 2011 that opened up passing and allowed younger guys to hit the ground running faster than before. Manning returns in 2012 and takes advantage of the 2011 effect and has a good D on the other side and they have a great 4-year run.

Difference is DEN was meddling before and bad after. The Colts had at least three Super Bowl contending teams plus two more 10-win division champs surrounding their similar run.

[Chromeburn]

I don’t want them to go as extreme as the Saints, but Ballard’s straight line method puts the team at a competitive disadvantage to a degree every year. The thought of course being they’ll never have the big down years either. I think it’s BS and a way to be mediocre for a longer period of time.

I think he would look to FA more if we have a franchise QB in place. Otherwise what’s the point of signing big huge name guy when you will just lose in the divisional round at best? Plus big FAs that do make to FA want to sign with teams that have a chance.

[rm1369]

I think he would look to FA more if we have a franchise QB in place. Otherwise what’s the point of signing big huge name guy when you will just lose in the divisional round at best? Plus big FAs that do make to FA want to sign with teams that have a chance.

I'm skeptical, but hopefully he finds that franchise guy and we get to see.

Thing is, for me it's not so much signing "big huge name guy" as it is signing average or better players to shore up weaknesses. Or add viable depth and make guys legitimately compete. My frustration with Ballard's use of free agency has largely been how he gifts positions to young guys by having no viable alternative. And how his solution to a weakness is only very low end journeyman or rookie. There is a big class of vets I don't believe he values.

[rm1369]

I don't like to look at results and try to generalize. Patriots dynasty in '03 and '04. Steelers had a great D in '05, maybe Dungy and Harper distractions had an effect? '06 we won but we didn't have to go play the Chargers who for some reason were probably our worst match-up in the league. '07 and '08 the bracket gods put us up against those Chargers.

Lot of what-ifs, but I don't see losses due to Polian putting together a sub-par team.



It's a question because none of them won the SB. You're talking about "sacrificing" seasons for the SB. Well, say you do whatever that means and have a couple bad seasons...

What kind of team do you envision fielding after this hypothetical sacrifice? Would it not be a team that goes 12-4, 13-3, 14-2, wins the division, and seeds high for the playoffs for a chance at a Super Bowl? Because that's exactly what we had in the 2000's under Polian. What else do you want a GM to provide if that's not enough?




Nothing to do with the rest of the team? I don't follow. Look at DEN from 2012-2015 and IND from 2006-2009. Four seasons, 2 SB appearances, 1 SB win, and 2 one-and-done playoff appearances.

As I remember it, DEN was good collecting young talent. They were meddling for many years because they were missing a QB. There was also an offensive boom and other changes in 2011 that opened up passing and allowed younger guys to hit the ground running faster than before. Manning returns in 2012 and takes advantage of the 2011 effect and has a good D on the other side and they have a great 4-year run.

Difference is DEN was meddling before and bad after. The Colts had at least three Super Bowl contending teams plus two more 10-win division champs surrounding their similar run.

Man I’m sorry, we can’t even agree on simple ideas. The discussion is pointless.

[ChaosTheory]

Man I’m sorry, we can’t even agree on simple ideas. The discussion is pointless.

Hey, I'm just trying to help you out, brother. It's got to be a miserable time as a fan when a 14-2 team isn't good enough.

[rm1369]

Hey, I'm just trying to help you out, brother. It's got to be a miserable time as a fan when a 14-2 team isn't good enough.

Thanks man! I do wish that after the ‘05 Steelers loss I was as enlightened as you and was able to laugh, shrug and say “we were still 14-2, baby! Can’t change that!”.

Honestly if I really think about it, this past season was also a success. I mean some of those guys really, tried tried hard! Now I know they fell short of expectations, but even when they were getting embarrassed on national tv they didn’t hide! They stayed right there on that field and kept taking their ass kicking. I think that’s something to be proud of!

Shit man you are right. Not giving a fuck makes being a fan so much easier!

[ChaosTheory]

Thanks man! I do wish that after the ‘05 Steelers loss I was as enlightened as you and was able to laugh, shrug and say “we were still 14-2, baby! Can’t change that!”.

Honestly if I really think about it, this past season was also a success. I mean some of those guys really, tried tried hard! Now I know they fell short of expectations, but even when they were getting embarrassed on national tv they didn’t hide! They stayed right there on that field and kept taking their ass kicking. I think that’s something to be proud of!

Shit man you are right. Not giving a fuck makes being a fan so much easier!

Don't get salty, it was a quick jab. Look at the extremes you just took it. What are you doing? You just invented all of that because I poked at you.

Look, I'll say this and leave you alone. Polian's job was to field a team that is capable of winning the Super Bowl. Which he did, year after year for a decade. You saying that he should have done more is purely hindsight.

If the Colts turned around in a year or two and went 13-4 and got the #1 seed using that similar Polian-style approach, you wouldn't be on here posting about how Ballard's methods are stupid... that is, until after the season if they do anything except win the Super Bowl.

Then you'll continue telling us that he knows how to "build a team" but he's no good at "team building" or whatever the fuck.

[Chromeburn]

I'm skeptical, but hopefully he finds that franchise guy and we get to see.

Thing is, for me it's not so much signing "big huge name guy" as it is signing average or better players to shore up weaknesses. Or add viable depth and make guys legitimately compete. My frustration with Ballard's use of free agency has largely been how he gifts positions to young guys by having no viable alternative. And how his solution to a weakness is only very low end journeyman or rookie. There is a big class of vets I don't believe he values.

That’s a little different. Because he has thrown his hat in on big names before but got outbid. And those players were eventually released by those teams. But yeah he likes to clear the lane for young guys to fill a position. I agree he needs more redundancy at holes I think.

But you think he has done fairly well with signing FAs he has found some good guys in there. But it’s all moot if he doesn’t eventually find a QB. We aren’t going anywhere if we don’t. See who we get this off-season.

[YDFL Commish]

Bill Polian absolutely had the Colts in position to win championships almost every year he was in Indy.

The 2005 and 2007 teams were undoubtedly the best Colts teams of that era.

The 2005 team got undone by several factors. resting players, Tony Dungy's tragic loss of his son, the Nick Harper incident etc. etc. Not to mention the Colts refusal to give Edge the ball until the opening drive of the 2nd half, where he shredded the Steelers defense on that drive and again disappeared from the game plan after that. Gotta throw in the total choke job by Vandy as well.

The 2007 team entered the SD playoff game without Mathis or Freeney due to injury. Also, I don't recall if it was the 2007 or 2008 playoff game vs the Chargers, Gonzales and Harrison went out with injuries. Remember that team lead the undefeated Pats 20 -10 with 9 minutes to go in the game during the regular season. We gave the Giants the secret sauce to defeat the Pats.

The 2003 and 2004 defeats to the Pats were well deserved and any of us could point to team building being an issue then and be right.

Gotta believe that BP saw how Brady was doing more with less and trusted that PM could do the same, which he largely did until the playoffs where the defense just could not hold up their end of the bargain.

[rm1369]

Don't get salty, it was a quick jab. Look at the extremes you just took it. What are you doing? You just invented all of that because I poked at you.

Look, I'll say this and leave you alone. Polian's job was to field a team that is capable of winning the Super Bowl. Which he did, year after year for a decade. You saying that he should have done more is purely hindsight.

If the Colts turned around in a year or two and went 13-4 and got the #1 seed using that similar Polian-style approach, you wouldn't be on here posting about how Ballard's methods are stupid... that is, until after the season if they do anything except win the Super Bowl.

Then you'll continue telling us that he knows how to "build a team" but he's no good at "team building" or whatever the fuck.

BS it was hindsight - I criticized Polians methods then. And there were others that did at the time. I’m sure you told them how nuts and miserable they were and now say it’s all hindsight. Just like has occurred with Ballard. I was criticizing his philosophy when Luck was still on the fucking team. Hell I criticize the same philosophy on other teams - the Ted Thompson Packers for example. If you want to debate the merits of the methods great let’s do it. But quit acting like you can’t understand the fucking concept. And definitely quit the standard “it’s all hindsight” BS.

And what I’ve said about Ballard is he’s great at collecting talent and poor at assembling a team. What the fuck in his 7 years as GM do you have to prove me wrong? What he did at LT this year? DE the year before? How about WR with Rivers? Maybe it’s all the premium positions he’s stocked with talent - the known winning positions of LG, off ball LB, and RB.

[Chromeburn]

Bill Polian absolutely had the Colts in position to win championships almost every year he was in Indy.

The 2005 and 2007 teams were undoubtedly the best Colts teams of that era.

The 2005 team got undone by several factors. resting players, Tony Dungy's tragic loss of his son, the Nick Harper incident etc. etc. Not to mention the Colts refusal to give Edge the ball until the opening drive of the 2nd half, where he shredded the Steelers defense on that drive and again disappeared from the game plan after that. Gotta throw in the total choke job by Vandy as well.

The 2007 team entered the SD playoff game without Mathis or Freeney due to injury. Also, I don't recall if it was the 2007 or 2008 playoff game vs the Chargers, Gonzales and Harrison went out with injuries. Remember that team lead the undefeated Pats 20 -10 with 9 minutes to go in the game during the regular season. We gave the Giants the secret sauce to defeat the Pats.

The 2003 and 2004 defeats to the Pats were well deserved and any of us could point to team building being an issue then and be right.

Gotta believe that BP saw how Brady was doing more with less and trusted that PM could do the same, which he largely did until the playoffs where the defense just could not hold up their end of the bargain.

Brady always had top ten defenses to keep games close. A clutch kicker he could lean on just to get in field goal position. Steelers took advantage of a weak defense up front. Lost to the jets that one year. I remember many on the board complaining the lines were weak. We needed a real 3tech to run Dungy’s D. But they threw scrubs at the problem till they traded for Booger. It was all flash, no substance. Now we have the opposite. We stay in games close despite having no QB. Most teams are run over with no good QB play. Now all the kids that grew up on that think it’s the only way to build a team.

[ChaosTheory]

Bill Polian absolutely had the Colts in position to win championships almost every year he was in Indy.

The 2005 and 2007 teams were undoubtedly the best Colts teams of that era.

The 2005 team got undone by several factors. resting players, Tony Dungy's tragic loss of his son, the Nick Harper incident etc. etc. Not to mention the Colts refusal to give Edge the ball until the opening drive of the 2nd half, where he shredded the Steelers defense on that drive and again disappeared from the game plan after that. Gotta throw in the total choke job by Vandy as well.

The 2007 team entered the SD playoff game without Mathis or Freeney due to injury. Also, I don't recall if it was the 2007 or 2008 playoff game vs the Chargers, Gonzales and Harrison went out with injuries. Remember that team lead the undefeated Pats 20 -10 with 9 minutes to go in the game during the regular season. We gave the Giants the secret sauce to defeat the Pats.

The 2003 and 2004 defeats to the Pats were well deserved and any of us could point to team building being an issue then and be right.

Gotta believe that BP saw how Brady was doing more with less and trusted that PM could do the same, which he largely did until the playoffs where the defense just could not hold up their end of the bargain.

I had forgotten about the injuries in '07 until you brought it up here. Looked up the game log... Addai didn't miss games but was barely getting touches for a few weeks and was still hurt. Mathis, Brock, and Bethea missed the last month of the season and were still hurt. Harrison missed 11 games going into it (big fumble in the game). And Freeney went on IR in week 9 against those same Chargers... fuck.

[ChaosTheory]

BS it was hindsight - I criticized Polians methods then. And there were others that did at the time.

Ok. Like those times when we're sitting at 7-0, 9-0, 13-0, 14-0... you're criticizing the GM because he can build a team but can't team-build. Not waiting until you see what happens in the playoffs. By all means, keep at it.

[rm1369]

Ok. Like those times when we're sitting at 7-0, 9-0, 13-0, 14-0... you're criticizing the GM because he can build a team but can't team-build. Not waiting until you see what happens in the playoffs. By all means, keep at it.

I state what I think. I've thought and stated Ballard's philosophy was bad since his second off-season. I've taken all kinds of slack from Ballard ball washers (admittedly less now that the shine is off a little), why do you think I wouldn't possibly have done the same with BP?

Man it’s really not difficult to understand. Hell, it’s not even particularly controversial or unique. I simply believe a good but more aggressive GM would have likely won less games but more SBs with Manning. I advocated for that method then as I do now with Ballard. I can understand someone disagreeing, but your lack of ability to even grasp the concept leaves me thinking you are just retarded.

[ChaosTheory]

I state what I think. I've thought and stated Ballard's philosophy was bad since his second off-season. I've taken all kinds of slack from Ballard ball washers (admittedly less now that the shine is off a little), why do you think I wouldn't possibly have done the same with BP?

Man it’s really not difficult to understand. Hell, it’s not even particularly controversial or unique. I simply believe a good but more aggressive GM would have likely won less games but more SBs with Manning. I advocated for that method then as I do now with Ballard. I can understand someone disagreeing, but your lack of ability to even grasp the concept leaves me thinking you are just retarded.

1.) I might be retarded.

With that out of the way... that has nothing to do with comprehending your point. You're right, it's not controversial or unique. It sounds like every generic local radio guy's take. When you're finished, you might as well give me a "Real quick, I gotta tell you about Lawrence Family Plumbing, the only ones I trust for all my plumbing needs." A crowd that feels like they weren't asked to dance at prom while they watch cool stuff like Albert Haynesworth or Khalil Mack blockbuster deals happen to other more exciting teams. You're Ballard's ChoppedWood. You think his take on Reich is unique?

It's not that I don't believe you were criticizing during the Polian era (you must've missed the second half of that statement). I'm just trying to get you to spell it out instead of the vague, platitude-filled posts you typically make (e.g. "a good but more aggressive GM"). I think the nuance fucks up your argument.

It's not seeing the trees for the forest, which is what a guy like Dan Dakich does in praising Ryan Grigson over Ballard. Grigson had more wins, more playoff success, that's it, end of story. Ignoring or oblivious to the thousand other factors that led to those results for both.

So as for Polian... The New England dynasty and probably Pittsburgh are the only two teams in the entire league that could argue they had a better run in the 2000's than his Colts. Saying his methods would've been bested by some other aggressive GM (by the way, discounting his drafting prowess and the top-end talent it produced) is a coping mechanism. Because who could you name? That's why I think you're vague.

Or maybe I could say retarded... but I won't...

[rm1369]

1.)

So as for Polian... The New England dynasty and probably Pittsburgh are the only two teams in the entire league that could argue they had a better run in the 2000's than his Colts. Saying his methods would've been bested by some other aggressive GM (by the way, discounting his drafting prowess and the top-end talent it produced) is a coping mechanism. Because who could you name? That's why I think you're vague.



So the only team with arguably an equivalent level QB (NE) was unquestionably better than Polian’s Colts? That same team employed a more aggressive style in building their roster and you still see no reason for my line of thinking.

Manning gets hurt and without him the team goes 2-14 - after a 10 win season and playoff appearance the year before. He then goes to another team, and on the strength of the roster, and while rapidly declining, replicates his 1-1 SB record in 4 years (what took 13 w Polian). And you still see no possible evidence for the idea that with a more complete roster, Manning would have been more successful.

You want to compare Polian’s teams to the other 30 that did not have a GOAT level QB. And even then you concede one of them (Steelers) is arguably more successful. You could put prime Manning on the 2022 Texans and they are a 10-11 win team and would have won the division. So no, all of those win totals don’t show the strength of what Polian built. They show the brilliance of Manning.

[ChaosTheory]

So the only team with arguably an equivalent level QB (NE) was unquestionably better than Polian’s Colts? That same team employed a more aggressive style in building their roster

Yes, bold statement: The 2000's New England dynasty (set aside questions of legitimacy), with Belichick as coach/GM, was better than Polian's Colts. Actually, it ended up only being the first half of a 20-year dynasty. You know who else they were better than? Quite possibly everyone in NFL history. Why is that a particular knock on Polian? Their system worked well. That doesn't invalidate Polian's system. Colts easily could've won another Super Bowl or two if they didn't play alongside that team. They were already a Dwight Freeney sprained ankle away from winning their second and tying PIT for the decade.

Also, go back and dig a little with NE and you'll see a splash like in '07, but mostly "bargain bin" guy as you say. And what Belichick was known for which was actually trading away his good players in exchange for picks, not the other way around. 100 draft picks in 10 seasons from '01-'11. [/QUOTE]

replicates a 1-1 SB record in 4 years (what took 13 w Polian).And you still see no possible evidence[/B] for the idea that with a more complete roster, Manning would have been more successful.

Yes, an almost unprecedented situation occurs and arguably the best QB in the league gets his pick of the litter to go to another team. He chose the Broncos over every other team because they were loaded with talent, much like many of his Colts teams he played on before.

What's the point here? Are we seriously going to extrapolate his four years in DEN and act like he easily would've had a more Belichick/Brady-like resumé if he'd had their FO for the bulk of his career?

And this "no possible evidence" thing... We're getting things tangled. This discussion didn't start with me saying Polian's way is the truth and the light. I have no problem acknowledging other teams' success with a different approach. It started with you, as you always do, saying that this type of method is "a good way to stay mediocre longer." Which is bullshit.

You want to compare Polian’s teams to the other 30 that did not have a GOAT level QB.

Yes, I compare them to the entire league. If your bar is to only compare teams to the 9 SB's in 18 years Patriots and you think that's realistic, then have fun. There's a lot more to that story.

And even then you concede one of them (Steelers) is arguably more successful.

Yes, the Steelers had a great run along with IND and NE. Roethlisberger is not a GOAT candidate, but as much as I hate him, he probably goes down as a top-10 guy.

The Steelers had a great run alongside IND and NE in the 2000's. And the Steelers, the Rooneys, and 22-year GM Kevin Colbert were notorious for being conservative. Just like Polian, they hyper-focused on the draft and home-grown players and used free agency sparingly.

And just like many Colts fans, many Steelers fans piss and moan about how "stingy" or "ultra-conservative" their team and GM are. I assume you don't like how the Steelers operated in the 2000's, either.

You could put prime Manning on the 2022 Texans and they are a 10-11 win team and would have won the division. So no, all of those win totals don’t show the strength of what Polian built. They show the brilliance of Manning.

That's bullshit. You're trying to imply that Manning carried dogshit rosters to hollow 12-win seasons but couldn't compete with the actual top teams in the league. They competed against a 1st-place schedule and beat or at minimum were highly competitive with the best teams the league had in a given year.

And Manning wasn't there when the Buffalo Bills that Polian built 4-peated as AFC Champs. Also wasn't there when Polian built an expansion Carolina Panthers team that beat the the SB champs and made it to the NFC Championship in year 2.

[Racehorse]

Looks to me like those three franchises both were pretty conservative in their approach, but in different ways. NE would play it conservative by relying on the draft, with a few splash moves, but not many. They relied on a cheap and young defense, except for the few real studs.

[ChaosTheory]

Looks to me like those three franchises both were pretty conservative in their approach, but in different ways. NE would play it conservative by relying on the draft, with a few splash moves, but not many. They relied on a cheap and young defense, except for the few real studs.

New England was definitely more active in free agency than IND and PIT in the 2000's, but '07 skews the perception. And like I mentioned, people forget how much Belichick stockpiled picks. 100 in a ten year stretch... 10 picks per year by trading away his players.

IND and PIT, though, were fairly similar. Both highly focused on drafting and developing homegrown talent and leery of free agency.

[IndyNorm]

I lost track of this pissing contest, but here's my take:

It's laughable that some of you are comparing Ballard to Polian.

Polian was obviously a great GM, but his teams did obviously underachieve when it came to championships. So I see rn's point that it would have been nice if Polian had gone for it more in FA.

I do think we need to realize that Polian was operating under much different salary cap rules back then. Most notably the rookie salary cap wasn't in place until '11, so he had to dedicate a much higher portion of the salary cap to the draft class. I would like to think that he would've been more aggressive in filling holes via FA and been able to keep some guys that really hurt losing (like David Thornton for example) had he been operating under today's salary cap rules.

Something that Polian was really good at was that he knew which positions were critical to success in the NFL and those were the positions he heavily invested in: QB, DE/pass rush, WR, OT. This realization is something that our current FO sorely lacks. For example the OL situation: no fucking way Polian hands out all pro LT money to a LG w/ back problems and then sticks a complete turd like Pryor next to him at LT (Chris may have done something like that but not Bill).

Something else that was really good about Polian is that he didn't get too hung up on physical traits. A lot of all time Colts greats like Freeney, Wayne, and Sanders wouldn't have been drafted by Ballard b/c they wouldn't have met his traits measuring stick.

[ChaosTheory]

I lost track of this pissing contest, but here's my take:

It's laughable that some of you are comparing Ballard to Polian.

Polian was obviously a great GM, but his teams did obviously underachieve when it came to championships. So I see rn's point that it would have been nice if Polian had gone for it more in FA.

I do think we need to realize that Polian was operating under much different salary cap rules back then. Most notably the rookie salary cap wasn't in place until '11, so he had to dedicate a much higher portion of the salary cap to the draft class. I would like to think that he would've been more aggressive in filling holes via FA and been able to keep some guys that really hurt losing (like David Thornton for example) had he been operating under today's salary cap rules.

Something that Polian was really good at was that he knew which positions were critical to success in the NFL and those were the positions he heavily invested in: QB, DE/pass rush, WR, OT. This realization is something that our current FO sorely lacks. For example the OL situation: no fucking way Polian hands out all pro LT money to a LG w/ back problems and then sticks a complete turd like Pryor next to him at LT (Chris may have done something like that but not Bill).

Something else that was really good about Polian is that he didn't get too hung up on physical traits. A lot of all time Colts greats like Freeney, Wayne, and Sanders wouldn't have been drafted by Ballard b/c they wouldn't have met his traits measuring stick.

I don't expect anybody else to read my long ass posts except RM. Main point from me is the #1 and #3 winningest teams in the 2000's, with 3 SB wins and 5 SB appearances, were IND and PIT and they had a similar philosophy. Saying it's a good way to stay mediocre is nonsense.

The Ballard/Polian comparison stops at that philosophy of valuing homegrown players and being leery of free agency. Which is where this discussion originated.

Other than that, Ballard is not in Polian's league. But that wasn't the discussion.

[Dam8610]

I know the Cheats likely wouldn't have done it, but I would've traded the 2010 1 for Seymour (he was traded after the 2009 NFL draft but before the 2009 season), and I think with Seymour the Colts beat the Saints that year. They were very close to it without him. They did get a 2011 1 from the Raiders for him, so maybe getting the pick a year earlier would've been more enticing? It certainly would've been a better use of the pick than drafting Jerry Hughes, and Seymour would've been the perfect 3-tech for Dungy's defense, similar to Buckner now. I think Polian had a thing against tall defensive lineman, though, so he probably didn't like Seymour because of his height. I don't remember a single DL from the Polian era that played a significant percentage of snaps that was 6'4" or taller.

[IndyNorm]

I don't expect anybody else to read my long ass posts except RM. Main point from me is the #1 and #3 winningest teams in the 2000's, with 3 SB wins and 5 SB appearances, were IND and PIT and they had a similar philosophy. Saying it's a good way to stay mediocre is nonsense.

The Ballard/Polian comparison stops at that philosophy of valuing homegrown players and being leery of free agency. Which is where this discussion originated.

Other than that, Ballard is not in Polian's league. But that wasn't the discussion.

LOL fair enough. Purely hypothetical, but I do think Polian would have been more aggressive in FA than Ballard has if he had been under the current salary cap rules. It's too bad that they weren't too b/c if he could have brought in some legitimate pass rush and a WR or 2 to play opposite Marvin while guys like Peyton and Edge were on their salary cap rookie deals then we may have been a juggernaut in the early 2000s.

[YDFL Commish]

IMO there is no sense being aggressive in free agency until you have your franchise QB.

We haven't had that. You're just wasting $$$ and players prime years chasing the fallacy that you can do anything meaningful without the long term QB in place.

It's hard to judge Ballard when he didn't have that key component to build around like Polian did.

[ChaosTheory]

I know the Cheats likely wouldn't have done it, but I would've traded the 2010 1 for Seymour (he was traded after the 2009 NFL draft but before the 2009 season), and I think with Seymour the Colts beat the Saints that year. They were very close to it without him.

Seymour was a monster. You're right, adding him to an undefeated team that was a sprained ankle away from a SB win could have been intriguing. Who knows? Butterfly effect.

Your first line is key. I don't know if they'd even entertain a phone call from Polian, but even if they would... they'd likely have to outbid other teams like the Raiders. So would you give up a 1st-rounder + more? Maybe.

Or Polian may not have been interested. I wouldn't know the cap situation back then, but he was already 30 and expensive.

[IndyNorm]

IMO there is no sense being aggressive in free agency until you have your franchise QB.

We haven't had that. You're just wasting $$$ and players prime years chasing the fallacy that you can do anything meaningful without the long term QB in place.

It's hard to judge Ballard when he didn't have that key component to build around like Polian did.

So what's the point in bringing in QBs like Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan then? Using your logic then they've been a waste of cap dollars and in Wentz and Ryan's cases draft capitol as well.

[Dam8610]

Other than that, Ballard is not in Polian's league. But that wasn't the discussion.

I just looked at this. Originally I was going to just say that Ballard's 2018 would beat any of Polian's drafts (which it would, 2003 is Polian's best contender), but then I started comparing their draft histories, and I will confidently say that Ballard is better at drafting talent than Polian was, primarily due to Ballard's much greater level of success with Day 2 picks, which Polian had a notoriously bad track record with. I would say let's look at Ballard's best draft, but to do that, you'd have to first choose which is better between 2018 and 2020. For comparison sake:

**** = Made an All-Pro team
*** = Made a Pro Bowl team
** = Starter or starter level contributions
* = quality backup that positively impacted the team

2018
Quenton Nelson****
Shaquille Leonard****
Braden Smith**
Kemoko Turay
Tyquan Lewis*
Nyheim Hines*
Daurice Fountain
Jordan Wilkins
Deon Cain
Matthew Adams
Zaire Franklin**

2020
DeForest Buckner**** (via trade of the 13th overall pick to SF)
Michael Pittman Jr.**
Jonathan Taylor****
Julian Blackmon**
Jacob Eason
Danny Pinter*
Robert Windsor
Isaiah Rodgers**
Dezmon Patmon
Jordan Glasgow

Let's throw 2022 in for fun, because I see that class rivaling these two in a few years, which only speaks to Ballard's drafting acumen:

2022
Alec Pierce**
Jelani Woods*
Bernhard Raimann**
Nick Cross*
Eric Johnson
Andrew Ogletree
Curtis Brooks
Rodney Thomas II**

I would argue all three of the above classes are or have the potential to be better than Polian's best draft class, which IMO is 2003, but I'll post what I believe to be his 3 best draft classes for comparison sake:

2003
Dallas Clark****
Mike Doss**
Donald Strickland
Steve Scuillo
Robert Mathis****
Keyon Whiteside
Cato June***
Makoa Freitas

2006
Joseph Addai***
Tim Jennings***
Freddy Keiaho**
Michael Toudouze
Charlie Johnson**
Antoine Bethea***
T.J. Rushing*

2001
Reggie Wayne****
Idrees Bashir**
Cory Bird
Ryan Diem**
Raymond Walls
Jason Doering*
Rick DeMulling**

If you look at the results side by side, it's scary to think what Chris Ballard might be able to do with a franchise QB and a full array of draft picks every year. Time will tell if Ballard is the better GM, but so far he's outdueling a Hall of Famer in an area both consider to be paramount to team building.

[JAFF]

After the Colts drafted edge, they were winning and drafting at the back end of future drafts, not near front. I give him credit for his work in the late round draft picks,

[ChaosTheory]

I will confidently say that Ballard is better at drafting talent than Polian was, primarily due to Ballard's much greater level of success with Day 2 picks

Good argument. Polian had a killer run of 1st-rounders and built up three franchises, and won EoY awards twice with the Bills, twice with the Panthers, and twice with the Colts. Plus he did it across eras (there were 12 rounds in the draft and no free agency when he was with the Bills, so it was two different monsters).

So that's where I was coming from. But wording probably too strong on my part. I am very happy to have Ballard.

----

Also just an aside, I thought '99 might make Polian's list with James, Mike Peterson, Brad Scioli, and Hunter Smith (I know he's just a punter), but I looked it up...

Mike Peterson never made a Pro Bowl his entire career? Even the year he was 2nd-Team All-Pro, no Pro Bowl. Even Hunter Smith never made a Pro Bowl which surprised me.

[IndyNorm]

I just looked at this. Originally I was going to just say that Ballard's 2018 would beat any of Polian's drafts (which it would, 2003 is Polian's best contender), but then I started comparing their draft histories, and I will confidently say that Ballard is better at drafting talent than Polian was, primarily due to Ballard's much greater level of success with Day 2 picks, which Polian had a notoriously bad track record with. I would say let's look at Ballard's best draft, but to do that, you'd have to first choose which is better between 2018 and 2020. For comparison sake:

**** = Made an All-Pro team
*** = Made a Pro Bowl team
** = Starter or starter level contributions
* = quality backup that positively impacted the team

2018
Quenton Nelson****
Shaquille Leonard****
Braden Smith**
Kemoko Turay
Tyquan Lewis*
Nyheim Hines*
Daurice Fountain
Jordan Wilkins
Deon Cain
Matthew Adams
Zaire Franklin**

2020
DeForest Buckner**** (via trade of the 13th overall pick to SF)
Michael Pittman Jr.**
Jonathan Taylor****
Julian Blackmon**
Jacob Eason
Danny Pinter*
Robert Windsor
Isaiah Rodgers**
Dezmon Patmon
Jordan Glasgow

Let's throw 2022 in for fun, because I see that class rivaling these two in a few years, which only speaks to Ballard's drafting acumen:

2022
Alec Pierce**
Jelani Woods*
Bernhard Raimann**
Nick Cross*
Eric Johnson
Andrew Ogletree
Curtis Brooks
Rodney Thomas II**

I would argue all three of the above classes are or have the potential to be better than Polian's best draft class, which IMO is 2003, but I'll post what I believe to be his 3 best draft classes for comparison sake:

2003
Dallas Clark****
Mike Doss**
Donald Strickland
Steve Scuillo
Robert Mathis****
Keyon Whiteside
Cato June***
Makoa Freitas

2006
Joseph Addai***
Tim Jennings***
Freddy Keiaho**
Michael Toudouze
Charlie Johnson**
Antoine Bethea***
T.J. Rushing*

2001
Reggie Wayne****
Idrees Bashir**
Cory Bird
Ryan Diem**
Raymond Walls
Jason Doering*
Rick DeMulling**

If you look at the results side by side, it's scary to think what Chris Ballard might be able to do with a franchise QB and a full array of draft picks every year. Time will tell if Ballard is the better GM, but so far he's outdueling a Hall of Famer in an area both consider to be paramount to team building.

Ballard drafts well and certainly finds value a specific positions. Few, if any of us, have said otherwise. The problem is his roster construction. He has overvalued and spent too much draft capital and cap dollars at positions that aren't that critical for success, like OG and off ball LBs. And other than DE, which he's been horrible at drafting BTW, he has undervalued the CTQ positions by spending minimal draft capital and salary cap dollars at those positions. This is how things like having a LG making elite LT money is starting next to a complete turd at LT, or having a 1 man show at WR. How has that worked out the past 2 seasons?

Also, you do realize when Ballard hasn't had a full array of draft picks it's b/c he's traded them away right?

[Dam8610]

Good argument. Polian had a killer run of 1st-rounders and built up three franchises, and won EoY awards twice with the Bills, twice with the Panthers, and twice with the Colts. Plus he did it across eras (there were 12 rounds in the draft and no free agency when he was with the Bills, so it was two different monsters).

So that's where I was coming from. But wording probably too strong on my part. I am very happy to have Ballard.

----

Also just an aside, I thought '99 might make Polian's list with James, Mike Peterson, Brad Scioli, and Hunter Smith (I know he's just a punter), but I looked it up...

Mike Peterson never made a Pro Bowl his entire career? Even the year he was 2nd-Team All-Pro, no Pro Bowl. Even Hunter Smith never made a Pro Bowl which surprised me.

I considered 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (which just illustrates how good Polian was consistently in the draft), but ultimately 2001 made the cut over those years because it had an All-Pro and likely Hall of Famer in Reggie Wayne, two long term quality OL starters in Ryan Diem and Rick DeMulling, another decent starter in Idrees Bashir, and a quality backup in Jason Doering. 4 starters beats 3, especially when one of those "starters" is a punter.

Ballard drafts well and certainly finds value a specific positions. Few, if any of us, have said otherwise. The problem is his roster construction. He has overvalued and spent too much draft capital and cap dollars at positions that aren't that critical for success, like OG and off ball LBs. And other than DE, which he's been horrible at drafting BTW, he has undervalued the CTQ positions by spending minimal draft capital and salary cap dollars at those positions. This is how things like having a LG making elite LT money is starting next to a complete turd at LT, or having a 1 man show at WR. How has that worked out the past 2 seasons?

Also, you do realize when Ballard hasn't had a full array of draft picks it's b/c he's traded them away right?

I would say Ballard's worst flaw is his evaluation of DE/ED talent, which is why I believe it is so important to retain Yannick Ngakoue. Given his weakness there, he should probably focus on filling that position through free agency or trade. I also agree with the overinvestment in non-premium positions, it's what prompted my idea of trading 4, Taylor, and Leonard for 1. That said, I don't think he has been unwilling to invest in the premium positions, he just hasn't really found them until recently. He did give Braden Smith one of the largest RT contracts in the league. He's probably going to extend MPJ. I imagine if they continue down good development paths the next few seasons, he'll extend Raimann and Pierce. As for QB, he hasn't had one to extend yet, not since Luck retired. That's why getting the choice guy this year (which IMO will be Stroud) is so important. If Ballard can't do that, it doesn't matter how good he is at everything else, unfortunately, because winning football in the modern NFL requires a franchise QB.

As for Ballard trading away picks, the only truly bad trade he's made involving picks is the Wentz trade, and that's primarily because the Colts didn't make the decision to mitigate their losses and only give up a 2 once they figured out Wentz wasn't the guy. The other time Ballard traded his 1, for DeForest Buckner, I'd argue Buckner is better than anyone the Colts could've gotten at 13.

[Dam8610]

After the Colts drafted edge, they were winning and drafting at the back end of future drafts, not near front. I give him credit for his work in the late round draft picks,

Ballard had a better draft in 2022 than most of Polian's drafts without a first round pick.

[JAFF]

Good argument. Polian had a killer run of 1st-rounders and built up three franchises, and won EoY awards twice with the Bills, twice with the Panthers, and twice with the Colts. Plus he did it across eras (there were 12 rounds in the draft and no free agency when he was with the Bills, so it was two different monsters).

So that's where I was coming from. But wording probably too strong on my part. I am very happy to have Ballard.

----

Also just an aside, I thought '99 might make Polian's list with James, Mike Peterson, Brad Scioli, and Hunter Smith (I know he's just a punter), but I looked it up...

Mike Peterson never made a Pro Bowl his entire career? Even the year he was 2nd-Team All-Pro, no Pro Bowl. Even Hunter Smith never made a Pro Bowl which surprised me.

The Colts didnt punt often enough to make it an issue. He was the fastest punter, ask Deon Sanders.

[rm1369]

So what's the point in bringing in QBs like Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan then? Using your logic then they've been a waste of cap dollars and in Wentz and Ryan's cases draft capitol as well.

There was no point to sign Rivers or trade for Ryan if you weren’t going to couple it with going in on a 1-2 yr window. Well other than selling tickets I guess. I understand Wentz slightly more in that you can argue if it worked you had multiple seasons with him in the future. Not surprisingly I disagree with that philosophy, but I understand the logic at least. Rivers are Ryan were known short term options that were just place holders in the long build.

[IndyNorm]

I considered 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (which just illustrates how good Polian was consistently in the draft), but ultimately 2001 made the cut over those years because it had an All-Pro and likely Hall of Famer in Reggie Wayne, two long term quality OL starters in Ryan Diem and Rick DeMulling, another decent starter in Idrees Bashir, and a quality backup in Jason Doering. 4 starters beats 3, especially when one of those "starters" is a punter.



I would say Ballard's worst flaw is his evaluation of DE/ED talent, which is why I believe it is so important to retain Yannick Ngakoue. Given his weakness there, he should probably focus on filling that position through free agency or trade. I also agree with the overinvestment in non-premium positions, it's what prompted my idea of trading 4, Taylor, and Leonard for 1. That said, I don't think he has been unwilling to invest in the premium positions, he just hasn't really found them until recently. He did give Braden Smith one of the largest RT contracts in the league. He's probably going to extend MPJ. I imagine if they continue down good development paths the next few seasons, he'll extend Raimann and Pierce. As for QB, he hasn't had one to extend yet, not since Luck retired. That's why getting the choice guy this year (which IMO will be Stroud) is so important. If Ballard can't do that, it doesn't matter how good he is at everything else, unfortunately, because winning football in the modern NFL requires a franchise QB.

As for Ballard trading away picks, the only truly bad trade he's made involving picks is the Wentz trade, and that's primarily because the Colts didn't make the decision to mitigate their losses and only give up a 2 once they figured out Wentz wasn't the guy. The other time Ballard traded his 1, for DeForest Buckner, I'd argue Buckner is better than anyone the Colts could've gotten at 13.

My lack of valuing the premium positions comment is mainly based on Ballard's lack of investment at WR (in 6 years the only real investment he's put into the position is 2 2nd round draft picks) and his handling of the LT situation which up to this point has been a disaster. Hopefully Raimann pans out and rights the ship there. But even if he does it was still at least a big short term fuck up that Ballard could have avoided.

Ballard also traded out of the 1st round in '19, which next to '17 is probably his worst draft. Agree on Buckner and Wentz trades. You just made it sound like Ballard's hands have been tied a bit b/c he hasn't had a full allotment of picks frequently, so I wanted to point out that it was his doing.

[IndyNorm]

Ballard had a better draft in 2022 than most of Polian's drafts without a first round pick.

You could maybe make the argument for 2020, but you're definitely counting your chickens way before they've hatched for the '22 draft class in that statement.

[Dam8610]

My lack of valuing the premium positions comment is mainly based on Ballard's lack of investment at WR (in 6 years the only real investment he's put into the position is 2 2nd round draft picks) and his handling of the LT situation which up to this point has been a disaster. Hopefully Raimann pans out and rights the ship there. But even if he does it was still at least a big short term fuck up that Ballard could have avoided.

Ballard also traded out of the 1st round in '19, which next to '17 is probably his worst draft. Agree on Buckner and Wentz trades. You just made it sound like Ballard's hands have been tied a bit b/c he hasn't had a full allotment of picks frequently, so I wanted to point out that it was his doing.

Ballard's invested 3 2nd round picks in WR (Campbell, Pittman, Pierce), and it's starting to look like all 3 of them will be valuable contributors for the Colts moving forward, provided they re-sign Campbell, which I think they should.

After Raimann was a Top 10 OT in football for the second half of last season in his third year of playing football at any level, I doubt he's going to regress to being a bad player.

Also, interestingly, the '19 trade down that you brought up also serves to illustrate Ballard's weakness at evaluating DE talent. I wanted Montez Sweat that year, didn't think he'd be there at 26. I remember my heart leaping up when Sweat fell to 26, then being completely deflated when I saw the trade down with the Commies, who then drafted Sweat, who has been a quality starter and pass rusher for them. Ironically, that 34th pick that was acquired in the trade down was used to select Rock Ya-Sin, who was eventually traded for Yannick Ngakoue, so in the end, the Colts did end up with a pass rusher from that 26th pick.

You could maybe make the argument for 2020, but you're definitely counting your chickens way before they've hatched for the '22 draft class in that statement.

I'm very confident that the Colts have 2 high quality starters from the 2022 draft going forward in Bernhard Raimann and Rodney Thomas II. A good Polian draft produced 3 starters, so for Ballard's 2022 draft to be better than a good Polian draft, and therefore my statement to be right, I need two of Alec Pierce, Jelani Woods, and Nick Cross to develop into at least decent starters, which I don't view as all that unlikely.

[IndyNorm]

Ballard's invested 3 2nd round picks in WR (Campbell, Pittman, Pierce), and it's starting to look like all 3 of them will be valuable contributors for the Colts moving forward, provided they re-sign Campbell, which I think they should.

I forgot about Campbell. Still 3 2nd round picks in 6 years isn't much investment in such a critical position. I'm on the fence w/ re-signing Campbell. As long as he comes cheap we probably should, but Ballard needs to hedge and not just trust that he's going to stay healthy. I doubt he will though b/c Ballard doesn't really hedge his bets, which is a huge weakness of his.

Also, not sold on Pierce. He pretty much disappeared in the 2nd half of the season, but that could be the whole coaching dumpster fire at fault. Also, even when he was productive early in the season he wasn't getting much (if any) separation. I think he'll be ok, but it's just concerning IMO.

After Raimann was a Top 10 OT in football for the second half of last season in his third year of playing football at any level, I doubt he's going to regress to being a bad player.

I tend to agree. He should progress and not regress, but Ballard needs to bring in quality depth just in case (again something that he's bad at). At the very least a decent swing OT to hedge injuries.

Also, interestingly, the '19 trade down that you brought up also serves to illustrate Ballard's weakness at evaluating DE talent. I wanted Montez Sweat that year, didn't think he'd be there at 26. I remember my heart leaping up when Sweat fell to 26, then being completely deflated when I saw the trade down with the Commies, who then drafted Sweat, who has been a quality starter and pass rusher for them. Ironically, that 34th pick that was acquired in the trade down was used to select Rock Ya-Sin, who was eventually traded for Yannick Ngakoue, so in the end, the Colts did end up with a pass rusher from that 26th pick.

In hindsight we should have taken Sweat, but wasn't there a lot of concern w/ a heart condition that he had? If so then I don't think you can blame Ballard for passing on him there.

I'm very confident that the Colts have 2 high quality starters from the 2022 draft going forward in Bernhard Raimann and Rodney Thomas II. A good Polian draft produced 3 starters, so for Ballard's 2022 draft to be better than a good Polian draft, and therefore my statement to be right, I need two of Alec Pierce, Jelani Woods, and Nick Cross to develop into at least decent starters, which I don't view as all that unlikely.

Still you're counting your chickens before the hatch. You may be right about the overall contributors, but I don't see any all pro, high end talent types in the draft. Most Polian drafts had at least 1 if not 2 of those type of players.

[Dam8610]

I forgot about Campbell. Still 3 2nd round picks in 6 years isn't much investment in such a critical position. I'm on the fence w/ re-signing Campbell. As long as he comes cheap we probably should, but Ballard needs to hedge and not just trust that he's going to stay healthy. I doubt he will though b/c Ballard doesn't really hedge his bets, which is a huge weakness of his.

Also, not sold on Pierce. He pretty much disappeared in the 2nd half of the season, but that could be the whole coaching dumpster fire at fault. Also, even when he was productive early in the season he wasn't getting much (if any) separation. I think he'll be ok, but it's just concerning IMO.

What I saw in the first half of the season was enough to give me hope that he'll be a good WR2 going forward, he was getting decent separation and winning contested catches then. Maybe the second half disappearance had something to do with the coaching change and/or dumpster fire level of play from the QB position? Might be something to go back and investigate, I know Campbell was consistently getting open and being missed by the QBs toward the end of the season.

How would you recommend Ballard hedge his bet on Campbell being the team's slot receiver next year?

I tend to agree. He should progress and not regress, but Ballard needs to bring in quality depth just in case (again something that he's bad at). At the very least a decent swing OT to hedge injuries.

A swing tackle is a great idea, and I'd love to see it, but a lot of times, guys who have success in those roles end up getting signed as starters to other teams because of the dearth of OL talent in the NFL generally.

In hindsight we should have taken Sweat, but wasn't there a lot of concern w/ a heart condition that he had? If so then I don't think you can blame Ballard for passing on him there.

He did have a heart condition, but 6'6" 260 DEs with some developed rush moves that run a 4.41 40 and a 7.00 3 cone just don't fall to 26. MPJ is a nice consolation prize, though.

Still you're counting your chickens before the hatch. You may be right about the overall contributors, but I don't see any all pro, high end talent types in the draft. Most Polian drafts had at least 1 if not 2 of those type of players.

There's some level of projection there, there has to be given they just completed their rookie season, but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if any or all of Pierce, Woods, Raimann, and Cross made Pro Bowls or All-Pro teams. Not saying any of them are a lock by any means, just that they're talented enough to be there. I could also see Rodney Thomas II making a Pro Bowl at some point, though I'd put that one as even less likely. Of them, I'd put Raimann and Woods as the most likely to do it.

[YDFL Commish]

There's some level of projection there, there has to be given they just completed their rookie season, but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if any or all of Pierce, Woods, Raimann, and Cross made Pro Bowls or All-Pro teams. Not saying any of them are a lock by any means, just that they're talented enough to be there. I could also see Rodney Thomas II making a Pro Bowl at some point, though I'd put that one as even less likely. Of them, I'd put Raimann and Woods as the most likely to do it.

I don't know how you can project Cross to a Pro Bowl? He's shown nothing. Did you mean Thomas?

Not that it matters the Pro Bowl now a days, is a meaningless achievement.

[YDFL Commish]

So what's the point in bringing in QBs like Rivers, Wentz, and Ryan then? Using your logic then they've been a waste of cap dollars and in Wentz and Ryan's cases draft capitol as well.

Well they were a waste in every way. Two didn't show enough to build around and the other retired.

Had Wentz produced to near franchise QB status,
Irsay would've been knocking down Ballmer's door begging for more weapons.

[Dam8610]

I don't know how you can project Cross to a Pro Bowl? He's shown nothing. Did you mean Thomas?

Not that it matters the Pro Bowl now a days, is a meaningless achievement.

There's a lot of projection there, and I'd put him as the least likely of the bunch currently, but writing off a safety entering his age 22 season with his physical gifts as a guy who won't contribute doesn't seem smart.

[IndyNorm]

What I saw in the first half of the season was enough to give me hope that he'll be a good WR2 going forward, he was getting decent separation and winning contested catches then. Maybe the second half disappearance had something to do with the coaching change and/or dumpster fire level of play from the QB position? Might be something to go back and investigate, I know Campbell was consistently getting open and being missed by the QBs toward the end of the season.

I agree. I think Pierce has a bright future, and that the coaching/QBs fiascos in the 2nd half of the season probably had a lot to do w/ him completely falling off. I didn't see him getting much separation, mostly contested catches in the first half of the season. But I did miss a couple of games for different reasons, so maybe I missed them there.

How would you recommend Ballard hedge his bet on Campbell being the team's slot receiver next year?


Spend a mid round draft pick or bring in a FA w/ a similar skill set. It doesn't have to be a big name. Just someone who can fill in when Campbell in all likelihood gets hurt again.

A swing tackle is a great idea, and I'd love to see it, but a lot of times, guys who have success in those roles end up getting signed as starters to other teams because of the dearth of OL talent in the NFL generally.

I know it's easier said than done, but Ballard needs to make this a priority. If he's unable to bring in quality FA depth then he needs to spend at least 1 day 2 pick on OT and probably another early day 3 pick on OG/OT. Even if he lands some depth in FA he should probably still spend some decent draft capital on our OL, since as last year painfully proved the unit is well overdue an influx of talent.

He did have a heart condition, but 6'6" 260 DEs with some developed rush moves that run a 4.41 40 and a 7.00 3 cone just don't fall to 26. MPJ is a nice consolation prize, though.


No doubt. In hindsight we should have picked Sweat. I was just saying that I don't think you can blame Ballard for not taking him due to the heart condition. And it's not like we were the only team to pass on him b/c he probably would have gone in the top 10 if not for the heart concerns.

There's some level of projection there, there has to be given they just completed their rookie season, but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if any or all of Pierce, Woods, Raimann, and Cross made Pro Bowls or All-Pro teams. Not saying any of them are a lock by any means, just that they're talented enough to be there. I could also see Rodney Thomas II making a Pro Bowl at some point, though I'd put that one as even less likely. Of them, I'd put Raimann and Woods as the most likely to do it.

I think Woods has the most upside and potential to be at the pro bowl/all pro level. Obviously he needs to become more consistent and our new coaching staff will have to incorporate him more than Frank did, but I can see it happening. Also, I think Thomas could make it to a pro bowl, since he seems like a good ball hawk.

I doubt Raimann will ever be in the pro bowl. Not that that means I don't think he'll work out, but for OL getting the pro bowl nod is more about reputation and incumbency than who actually had the best year. Q making the pro bowl this year is a perfect example of that.

Also, saying Cross has pro bowl potential at this point is a huge reach. I know he's a great athlete and young, but he was benched after 2 games and pretty much didn't see the field other than ST for the remainder of the season. Not saying we should give up on him, but as it stands now he's more likely to be a traits only bust rather than a pro bowler.

[Dam8610]

I agree. I think Pierce has a bright future, and that the coaching/QBs fiascos in the 2nd half of the season probably had a lot to do w/ him completely falling off. I didn't see him getting much separation, mostly contested catches in the first half of the season. But I did miss a couple of games for different reasons, so maybe I missed them there.

There were a couple of times I saw separation early in the year, but I'd have to go back and watch him specifically to really know beyond the flashes I remember seeing early in the season.

Spend a mid round draft pick or bring in a FA w/ a similar skill set. It doesn't have to be a big name. Just someone who can fill in when Campbell in all likelihood gets hurt again.

Certainly wouldn't be opposed to a mid round WR. Don't think you're going to find that in free agency.

I know it's easier said than done, but Ballard needs to make this a priority. If he's unable to bring in quality FA depth then he needs to spend at least 1 day 2 pick on OT and probably another early day 3 pick on OG/OT. Even if he lands some depth in FA he should probably still spend some decent draft capital on our OL, since as last year painfully proved the unit is well overdue an influx of talent.

Provided they're not giving up all of their draft capital moving up, I see this as a sound strategy. They probably need 2 IOL and 1 OT, but all backups, so some combination of free agency and the draft should accomplish this.

No doubt. In hindsight we should have picked Sweat. I was just saying that I don't think you can blame Ballard for not taking him due to the heart condition. And it's not like we were the only team to pass on him b/c he probably would have gone in the top 10 if not for the heart concerns.

Oh he absolutely would've gone top 10 without the heart condition. I thought he was worth the risk at the time.

I think Woods has the most upside and potential to be at the pro bowl/all pro level. Obviously he needs to become more consistent and our new coaching staff will have to incorporate him more than Frank did, but I can see it happening. Also, I think Thomas could make it to a pro bowl, since he seems like a good ball hawk.

Jelani Woods's college tape looks like Rob Gronkowski put on a Virginia #0 uniform and started playing. So yes, I agree that he's the most likely.

I doubt Raimann will ever be in the pro bowl. Not that that means I don't think he'll work out, but for OL getting the pro bowl nod is more about reputation and incumbency than who actually had the best year. Q making the pro bowl this year is a perfect example of that.

Here's the thing about Raimann: last year was his third year of playing football at any level. He was a Top 10 OT for the second half of the season. Most players that reach the NFL are at least in their 8th year of playing football in their rookie season (4 high school, 3 college, 1 NFL). I fully believe the term exponential growth could apply here. He could become one of the best OTs in the NFL.

Also, saying Cross has pro bowl potential at this point is a huge reach. I know he's a great athlete and young, but he was benched after 2 games and pretty much didn't see the field other than ST for the remainder of the season. Not saying we should give up on him, but as it stands now he's more likely to be a traits only bust rather than a pro bowler.

Some perspective: Nick Cross's age 21 season was his rookie season in the NFL. Antoine Bethea's age 21 season was his senior year in college. Bob Sanders's age 21 season was his junior year in college. Next year will be important, but he has time to improve, and development isn't linear.

[IndyNorm]

Here's the thing about Raimann: last year was his third year of playing football at any level. He was a Top 10 OT for the second half of the season. Most players that reach the NFL are at least in their 8th year of playing football in their rookie season (4 high school, 3 college, 1 NFL). I fully believe the term exponential growth could apply here. He could become one of the best OTs in the NFL.



Some perspective: Nick Cross's age 21 season was his rookie season in the NFL. Antoine Bethea's age 21 season was his senior year in college. Bob Sanders's age 21 season was his junior year in college. Next year will be important, but he has time to improve, and development isn't linear.

I'm not saying Raimann isn't going to pan out. The 2nd half of the year definitely showed a ton of promise and as you pointed out with his lack of experience he should make significant strides. The point I was trying to make is that in a lot of if not most cases the best performing OLmen don't make the pro bowl/all pro teams (especially the pro bowl). For example AC had a very good career with the Colts but didn't make a single pro bowl or all pro team. If Raimann ends up having a similar career w/ the Colts we should (and most of us will) be very happy w/ that.

As for Cross, I full understand his youth and athleticism. But if I were asked to put $100 (or really any amount of money) on if he'll make a pro bowl or not I'd definitely put my money on no based on the current knowledge I have on him.

[JAFF]

I'm not saying Raimann isn't going to pan out. The 2nd half of the year definitely showed a ton of promise and as you pointed out with his lack of experience he should make significant strides. The point I was trying to make is that in a lot of if not most cases the best performing OLmen don't make the pro bowl/all pro teams (especially the pro bowl). For example AC had a very good career with the Colts but didn't make a single pro bowl or all pro team. If Raimann ends up having a similar career w/ the Colts we should (and most of us will) be very happy w/ that.

As for Cross, I full understand his youth and athleticism. But if I were asked to put $100 (or really any amount of money) on if he'll make a pro bowl or not I'd definitely put my money on no based on the current knowledge I have on him.

Tarik Glenn didnt get near the credit he deserved

[IndyNorm]

Tarik Glenn didnt get near the credit he deserved

Another great example. Big Tarik was one of the top LTs in the league for 8 years but was only named to 3 Pro Bowls.

[Ironshaft]

Tarik Glenn didnt get near the credit he deserved
Nor, IMO, did Castonzo.

Both held down one of the hardest positions in football, did it very well and kept their mouths shut while doing it. Both were great for most of a decade each.

Hopefully, Rain Man can be a third in that list of superior Colts left tackles.

[YDFL Commish]

Costanzo took a few years to develop and unfortunately Tarik was in a conference with Ogden and Roaf.

Tarik also got a bad and undeserved rap for false starts, that actually weren't false starts most of the time.

[ChaosTheory]

Tarik Glenn played alongside several other great OT's that overshadowed him until the record-breaking '04 season shined some light.

As far as the AFC Pro Bowl... Jonathan Ogden was always there. Tony Boselli was their early in Glenn's career. Walter Jones when SEA was an AFC team. When Jones and SEA went to the NFC, here comes Willie Roaf joining the Chiefs from the the Saints.

Then you had guys like Orlando Pace and Lincoln Kennedy that were more recognized even though they weren't competing for the same spot as Glenn.

[omahacolt]

What I saw in the first half of the season was enough to give me hope that he'll be a good WR2 going forward, he was getting decent separation and winning contested catches then. Maybe the second half disappearance had something to do with the coaching change and/or dumpster fire level of play from the QB position? Might be something to go back and investigate, I know Campbell was consistently getting open and being missed by the QBs toward the end of the season.

How would you recommend Ballard hedge his bet on Campbell being the team's slot receiver next year?



A swing tackle is a great idea, and I'd love to see it, but a lot of times, guys who have success in those roles end up getting signed as starters to other teams because of the dearth of OL talent in the NFL generally.



He did have a heart condition, but 6'6" 260 DEs with some developed rush moves that run a 4.41 40 and a 7.00 3 cone just don't fall to 26. MPJ is a nice consolation prize, though.



There's some level of projection there, there has to be given they just completed their rookie season, but honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if any or all of Pierce, Woods, Raimann, and Cross made Pro Bowls or All-Pro teams. Not saying any of them are a lock by any means, just that they're talented enough to be there. I could also see Rodney Thomas II making a Pro Bowl at some point, though I'd put that one as even less likely. Of them, I'd put Raimann and Woods as the most likely to do it.

pierce will never make a pro bowl. ever.

[Dam8610]

pierce will never make a pro bowl. ever.

Stranger things have happened. Mike Doss being a starter, for example.