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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.