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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.