Denver caught their rainbow
 

That leaves only the Colts and Arizona left in the market for coaches.

1st and 2nd for Sean Payton and a 3rd. We'll see how it looks.

and thats after all the crap they gave up for russ.

We only got a first for Shula. I think it turned into Don McCauley

I think this is right...

In the past two offseasons, it looks like the Broncos will have received Russell Wilson, Sean Payton, a 3rd, and a 4th in exchange for...

-2022 1st
-2022 2nd
-2022 5th

-2023 1st
-2023 1st (via Bradley Chubb trade)
-2023 2nd

-2024 2nd

-QB Drew Lock
-TE Noah Fant
-DT Shelby Harris

They better hit on later round picks for the next few years.

Meanwhile the Saints are still in cap hell 2 years removed from Sean Payton. They are projected to be 57 million over the cap.

I predict this retread will work out about as well as our retread quarterbacks have

Oh, forgot to add... Wilson's new contract is $242m over five years, $161m guaranteed. Not that they weren't already tied to this decision for the next several years.

At the end of that rainbow will be fools gold.

I remember at the beginning of the year the 1070 the fans sports guys criticizing the Colts for not treating the cap like the Saints do. That the cap isn’t real and you can just go around it if you want forever.

Excellent, Payton will be exposed as a fraud and Denver's going to be bad for at least a decade.

So two people worth all that draft capital. This reminds me of other new owners. They come in and try to fix the team by throwing money around. Sometimes it works. Like the Panthers team Polian built and almost won with. Most of the time it doesn’t though.

Well, they had Bill Polian. That plus money typically equals results.

Sean Payton without Drew Brees is mediocre…prove me wrong Payton!:D

o


One of the few good things that came out of the disastrous 2011 season was that it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt just how valuable Peyton Manning was to his team ...... they went 0-13 that year before finally winning a game.

The 2008 Patriots, on the other hand, went 11-5 with Matt Cassell at quarterback when Tom Brady missed the entire season with an injury.

o

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.

Or set the record for wins in a decade.

And consistently come up short.

If you think what the Colts did with Manning was a success, then we simply want different things and measure success differently. Manning was short changed in his time here. A more aggressive GM would have won multiple SBs with him.

You are probably a Ted Thompson fan as well.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't disagree. However, it doesn't change my belief in NFL roster construction.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

Don't get salty, it was a quick jab. Look at the extremes you just took it. What are you doing? You just invented all of that because I poked at you.

Look, I'll say this and leave you alone. Polian's job was to field a team that is capable of winning the Super Bowl. Which he did, year after year for a decade. You saying that he should have done more is purely hindsight.

If the Colts turned around in a year or two and went 13-4 and got the #1 seed using that similar Polian-style approach, you wouldn't be on here posting about how Ballard's methods are stupid... that is, until after the season if they do anything except win the Super Bowl.

Then you'll continue telling us that he knows how to "build a team" but he's no good at "team building" or whatever the fuck.

That’s a little different. Because he has thrown his hat in on big names before but got outbid. And those players were eventually released by those teams. But yeah he likes to clear the lane for young guys to fill a position. I agree he needs more redundancy at holes I think.

But you think he has done fairly well with signing FAs he has found some good guys in there. But it’s all moot if he doesn’t eventually find a QB. We aren’t going anywhere if we don’t. See who we get this off-season.

Bill Polian absolutely had the Colts in position to win championships almost every year he was in Indy.

The 2005 and 2007 teams were undoubtedly the best Colts teams of that era.

The 2005 team got undone by several factors. resting players, Tony Dungy's tragic loss of his son, the Nick Harper incident etc. etc. Not to mention the Colts refusal to give Edge the ball until the opening drive of the 2nd half, where he shredded the Steelers defense on that drive and again disappeared from the game plan after that. Gotta throw in the total choke job by Vandy as well.

The 2007 team entered the SD playoff game without Mathis or Freeney due to injury. Also, I don't recall if it was the 2007 or 2008 playoff game vs the Chargers, Gonzales and Harrison went out with injuries. Remember that team lead the undefeated Pats 20 -10 with 9 minutes to go in the game during the regular season. We gave the Giants the secret sauce to defeat the Pats.

The 2003 and 2004 defeats to the Pats were well deserved and any of us could point to team building being an issue then and be right.

Gotta believe that BP saw how Brady was doing more with less and trusted that PM could do the same, which he largely did until the playoffs where the defense just could not hold up their end of the bargain.

BS it was hindsight - I criticized Polians methods then. And there were others that did at the time. I’m sure you told them how nuts and miserable they were and now say it’s all hindsight. Just like has occurred with Ballard. I was criticizing his philosophy when Luck was still on the fucking team. Hell I criticize the same philosophy on other teams - the Ted Thompson Packers for example. If you want to debate the merits of the methods great let’s do it. But quit acting like you can’t understand the fucking concept. And definitely quit the standard “it’s all hindsight” BS.

And what I’ve said about Ballard is he’s great at collecting talent and poor at assembling a team. What the fuck in his 7 years as GM do you have to prove me wrong? What he did at LT this year? DE the year before? How about WR with Rivers? Maybe it’s all the premium positions he’s stocked with talent - the known winning positions of LG, off ball LB, and RB.

Brady always had top ten defenses to keep games close. A clutch kicker he could lean on just to get in field goal position. Steelers took advantage of a weak defense up front. Lost to the jets that one year. I remember many on the board complaining the lines were weak. We needed a real 3tech to run Dungy’s D. But they threw scrubs at the problem till they traded for Booger. It was all flash, no substance. Now we have the opposite. We stay in games close despite having no QB. Most teams are run over with no good QB play. Now all the kids that grew up on that think it’s the only way to build a team.

I had forgotten about the injuries in '07 until you brought it up here. Looked up the game log... Addai didn't miss games but was barely getting touches for a few weeks and was still hurt. Mathis, Brock, and Bethea missed the last month of the season and were still hurt. Harrison missed 11 games going into it (big fumble in the game). And Freeney went on IR in week 9 against those same Chargers... fuck.

Ok. Like those times when we're sitting at 7-0, 9-0, 13-0, 14-0... you're criticizing the GM because he can build a team but can't team-build. Not waiting until you see what happens in the playoffs. By all means, keep at it.

I state what I think. I've thought and stated Ballard's philosophy was bad since his second off-season. I've taken all kinds of slack from Ballard ball washers (admittedly less now that the shine is off a little), why do you think I wouldn't possibly have done the same with BP?

Man it’s really not difficult to understand. Hell, it’s not even particularly controversial or unique. I simply believe a good but more aggressive GM would have likely won less games but more SBs with Manning. I advocated for that method then as I do now with Ballard. I can understand someone disagreeing, but your lack of ability to even grasp the concept leaves me thinking you are just retarded.

1.) I might be retarded.

With that out of the way... that has nothing to do with comprehending your point. You're right, it's not controversial or unique. It sounds like every generic local radio guy's take. When you're finished, you might as well give me a "Real quick, I gotta tell you about Lawrence Family Plumbing, the only ones I trust for all my plumbing needs." A crowd that feels like they weren't asked to dance at prom while they watch cool stuff like Albert Haynesworth or Khalil Mack blockbuster deals happen to other more exciting teams. You're Ballard's ChoppedWood. You think his take on Reich is unique?

It's not that I don't believe you were criticizing during the Polian era (you must've missed the second half of that statement). I'm just trying to get you to spell it out instead of the vague, platitude-filled posts you typically make (e.g. "a good but more aggressive GM"). I think the nuance fucks up your argument.

It's not seeing the trees for the forest, which is what a guy like Dan Dakich does in praising Ryan Grigson over Ballard. Grigson had more wins, more playoff success, that's it, end of story. Ignoring or oblivious to the thousand other factors that led to those results for both.

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.

Or maybe I could say retarded... but I won't...

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.