Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
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.