Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
Chaka,
Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think I’m being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I don’t see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.
With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me it’s not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I don’t believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be aware of the long term. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be planning to always be a winner. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.
As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I don’t want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. I’m not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. It’s simply about the prioritization of resources.
Maybe I’m jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. It’s the one I’d prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place I’d probably agree with your approach. But I’m willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. I’m not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I don’t believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.
And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesn’t matter what philosophy they follow - they’ll be successful. But I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not a knock on Ballard, it’s simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.
|
Let me say at the outset that I recognize and appreciate the tone of your response here. As to the substance of your post, I understand the points you are making and I agree that they are perfectly valid. At the core, however, we just have a fundamentally different viewpoint on (1) what is achievable, and (2) how best to accomplish these achievements.
To answer your initial question, your definition of “dynasty” sounds reasonable enough to me – I don’t have a specific number of years or championships in mind , but certainly it involves multiple championships in a relatively short period of time, preferably a few in a row, and ideally with group of core players staying with the team throughout the run. Ultimately, I don’t know that there’s a perfect formula of championships and years that spells "dynasty", because for me it’s more of a “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of thing. To be honest, I kind of dislike the term “dynasty”, but it serves as convenient shorthand for what I think the Colts should be striving for – memorable long term dominance and multiple championships.
Where we disagree is the idea of whether it’s achievable today. I think it absolutely is, and its exactly what we should be striving for. Why have any lower goal? And the beauty of it is that if there is any team in the league poised to do it, it’s the Colts. We have an elite QB who, barring catastrophic injury, should have a good 10 years or more left in the league. We have some quality home-grown veterans, young stars popping up all over the team, a great coach, an outstanding GM, an owner who seems willing to stay hands-off, and tons of available cap space to work with. Yes, we have some holes, but fewer and fewer as time goes on, and lots of quality young player vying to fill those holes. I see a special situation brewing, and I don’t want the Colts to risk undermining that for a short term run of a year or two. I think it could be much better than that, and I think careful management of the salary cap can serve as the fuel to propel us towards that destination. I guess that’s what all of this comes down to.
Yes, the Polian/Manning Colts didn’t achieve quite as much as most of us thought they should have. And I understand the feeling that we missed a great opportunity and you don't want to repeat it. I don’t know what went wrong, but somebody underperformed their duties, because we had all the pieces in place. Even so, those were still some great years to be Colts fan. And maybe it’s too early to say, but I don’t see the current team/coaching makeup being as likely to underperform in those situations.