Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
I don't disagree. However, it doesn't change my belief in NFL roster construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
|
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?