Denver caught their rainbow

[YDFL Commish]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Yes, we absolutely want different things. I had an absolute blast being a Colts fan during the Polian era. And I didn't come out of it saying, "Man, that sucked, the Giants got two."

I wonder if you think the Chiefs have had five straight stellar seasons moreso because their GM is aggressive or because they drafted Mahomes.

Both

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Yes, we absolutely want different things. I had an absolute blast being a Colts fan during the Polian era. And I didn't come out of it saying, "Man, that sucked, the Giants got two."

I wonder if you think the Chiefs have had five straight stellar seasons moreso because their GM is aggressive or because they drafted Mahomes.

I think the Chiefs realize that Mahomes gives them a shot every year (just as Manning did the Colts). Any half competent GM will have success with him (as with Manning). A great QB sets the floor and the GM controls the peaks. Polian’s method cut the tops off the peaks in the name of consistency. Those teams had 7 double digit win teams that didn’t win a single playoff game. Would I trade a couple 12-4 or 13-3 seasons w/ no playoff wins for another SB win? Fuck yeah I would!

Ballard is busy trying to replicate the Steelers 70s dynasty while Philly has won a SB, got rid of everyone, and are playing in another. The ultra conservative approach limits you.

[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.

Originally Posted by rm1369

Polian’s method cut the tops off the peaks in the name of consistency.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rm1369

Those teams had 7 double digit win teams that didn’t win a single playoff game.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rm1369

Would I trade a couple 12-4 or 13-3 seasons w/ no playoff wins for another SB win? Fuck yeah I would!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rm1369

The ultra conservative approach limits you.

The odds of winning it all are very low. Look at how great the Chiefs have been since 2013.https://www.pro-football-reference.c.../kan/index.htm

Looks pretty damn similar to Colts' heyday from '99 to '10.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/

If they lose Sunday, they'll have one Super Bowl to show. Some people will say the GM is over-aggressive and that he cuts the tops off the peaks.

[rm1369]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

The odds of winning it all are very low. Look at how great the Chiefs have been since 2013.https://www.pro-football-reference.c.../kan/index.htm

Looks pretty damn similar to Colts' heyday from '99 to '10.https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/

If they lose Sunday, they'll have one Super Bowl to show. Some people will say the GM is over-aggressive and that he cuts the tops off the peaks.

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?

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Yep, and they consistently underperformed in the playoffs. I'm curious as to your explanation as to why that was the case.

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.

Originally Posted by rm1369

The difference? How close they got to achieving the goal. I'm not sure why that's a question...

...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.

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?

Originally Posted by rm1369

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?

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.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I don’t want them to go as extreme as the Saints, but Ballard’s straight line method puts the team at a competitive disadvantage to a degree every year. The thought of course being they’ll never have the big down years either. I think it’s BS and a way to be mediocre for a longer period of time.

I think he would look to FA more if we have a franchise QB in place. Otherwise what’s the point of signing big huge name guy when you will just lose in the divisional round at best? Plus big FAs that do make to FA want to sign with teams that have a chance.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I think he would look to FA more if we have a franchise QB in place. Otherwise what’s the point of signing big huge name guy when you will just lose in the divisional round at best? Plus big FAs that do make to FA want to sign with teams that have a chance.

I'm skeptical, but hopefully he finds that franchise guy and we get to see.

Thing is, for me it's not so much signing "big huge name guy" as it is signing average or better players to shore up weaknesses. Or add viable depth and make guys legitimately compete. My frustration with Ballard's use of free agency has largely been how he gifts positions to young guys by having no viable alternative. And how his solution to a weakness is only very low end journeyman or rookie. There is a big class of vets I don't believe he values.

[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.

[ChaosTheory]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Man I’m sorry, we can’t even agree on simple ideas. The discussion is pointless.

Hey, I'm just trying to help you out, brother. It's got to be a miserable time as a fan when a 14-2 team isn't good enough.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory

Hey, I'm just trying to help you out, brother. It's got to be a miserable time as a fan when a 14-2 team isn't good enough.

Thanks man! I do wish that after the ‘05 Steelers loss I was as enlightened as you and was able to laugh, shrug and say “we were still 14-2, baby! Can’t change that!”.

Honestly if I really think about it, this past season was also a success. I mean some of those guys really, tried tried hard! Now I know they fell short of expectations, but even when they were getting embarrassed on national tv they didn’t hide! They stayed right there on that field and kept taking their ass kicking. I think that’s something to be proud of!

Shit man you are right. Not giving a fuck makes being a fan so much easier!