[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

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.