Dave Hyde's take on Bill Polian's Team Building Plan

Not sure if serious.

If the Colts were built poorly, I'd like to see your personal "WELL BUILT NFL RANKINGS LIST".

 

If you hold every basketball player up to the standard of Michael Jordan, they're going to all look like they suck. Every single one of them. You're comparing their success to the success of perhaps the most successful dynasty in NFL history. It's not a fair standard.

 

The key is, whatever evidence is presented, if it doesn't favor your view point, you label it as not objective and/or systematic. Then you get to pretend everyone is thinking too "emotionally" while you the king of perspective are truly judging things with perfect objectivity.

 

Packers, Giants, Patriots, Broncos (now that Tebow is gone), 49ers are getting there, Steelers, Bengals are almost there, Falcons, Ravens were well built but I think they've held onto aging veterans too long at this point.

A team that loses their starting QB and goes 2-14 is poorly built. There's no way around it. Hell even the dolphins finished 6-10 after losing our starting QB and he's no where the caliber of Peyton Manning.

I also believe the Saints are NOT well built.

 

Every other baseball team from 1923-1962 was built poorly because they didn't win as many World Series' as the Yankees.

 

This isn't just SOME player though. This is Peyton Manning by most accounts the best in the game during his entire tenure.

 

So what you're saying is they were poorly built based off of one season...but when they were winning 12 games every year were they poorly built then also?

 

le sigh, and once again we're at hyperbole and snide remarks. Thanks for contributing.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think it's that hard to understand that i've had to say it to you 3 times now. Just because you're winning doesn't mean you're well built. Look at the 49ers of the early 90s. They circumvented the cap in attempts to win super bowls. They won one but were in cap hell for a decade because of it. Therefore they weren't well built. The Colts won a super bowl but without Peyton were the worst team in the league. Therefore they weren't well built.

 

Just making you understand what you did with your comparison and why it wasn't a correct one.

Not being the BEST does not = Poorly built

 

No offense but my first thought is, "...and?"

Dan Marino was perhaps the best in NFL history, certainly one of the best. He never won a single Super Bowl.

 

It shouldn't even be slightly controversial.

You can't and shouldn't divorce record completely from a GM, but a team's record can be wildly different from the quality of the roster and the ability of the GM. Things like coaching, injuries, player development, bad luck, etc. have huge influences on the actual performance of a team.

Bill Polian is a tremendous example of this. He drafted terribly for a very long time, but his team was still successful.

 

I don't think that was hyperbole nor snide, or at least not overly-snide. I think it was a good point.

 

So poorly built teams are perennial 12 game winners. Got it. Totally understand now.

By that logic, you're right. Jeff Ireland has built a great Dolphins team. I stand corrected. Carry on.

 

Are you even capable of having a civil exchange of opposing view points or are you just going to continue to put words in my mouth and make snide remarks?

 

We can conclude that he was amazing in the past, but the game has passed him by.

Just look at the last 4-5 drafts. They were horrible. Why is it that when Manning can't play they won 2 games....because they were stocked with talent? Put away your hate boner for Ireland, and look at this stuff for a minute.

 

Uh, who gives a ****? Everyone interested in this conversation should be, people who are interested in Bill Polian as a GM, the concept of perception vs. reality, and any number of things.

If the team won a Super Bowl despite the GM doing a bad job, that doesn't excuse the GM's performance. Absolving Polian from his actual performance because his team was successful is just basically willful ignorance of the worst kind.

 

Nope.

 

So what role does actual team success play? Does it factor at all?

 

No offense but my first though is, "...and?"

We just had a thread the other day indicting Shula for his failures as a GM.

 

Then I'll feel comfortable putting you on ignore.

 

You're out of your element.

 

Last year neither Miami nor Indy had a franchise QB. Which team was better?

 

It really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend that teams can play above or below their talent level.

Surely nobody would say the Eagles were a team with average talent last season. You could point to a lot of teams whose W/L record doesn't match the talent on the roster.

 

You're argument assumes that each non-franchise QB has the same talent level. But if you wanna play this game, how many wins do the Dolphins have with Curtis Painter at the helm?

 

For 9 straight years?

 

It should be taken into account with the proper context. There was a decent argument for a period of time that Polian's teams were fatally flawed. What caused that argument to go away? I would say it was Irsay's ability to change the rules of the game.

 

And what is the proper context here?

 

If the same inherent problems are there for that period.

 

Wow. I'd love for the Dolphins to be that poorly built.

Maybe that's the problem; Jeff Ireland is building this team TOO WELL. He needs to build it poorly.

 

lol. Ok.

Defense? You'd rather have their defense? You'd rather have their STs? Their RBs? Their OL? I guess you think with Painter we'd have 1 win or no wins?

I mean its not like their GM is responsible for bringing the horrible Painter to begin with or anything.

I guess your stance is say anything that makes Ireland look bad, even if it not about Ireland.

 

For Miami? That they whiffed on a 2nd round QB in the 08 draft and kept him on the field way too long. Thats really the most glaring issue for them over the past few years.

 

Certainly being poorly designed can be overcome if you have one of the greatest QBs in history and get to change the rules in his favor.

 

They actually missed on two QB's in the 08 draft.

 

It says they had Peyton Manning..... b/c when they didn't, they drafted #1 overall rather than in those low 1st round slots you referenced.

Looking at Polian's 2011 record we can conclude that his team was very poorly put together and lacking in talent once his "I walked into the #1 pick of Peyton Manning" was removed. At least Miami went 6-10 with a backup QB, lame duck HC, new offensive scheme, with 4 of those losses vs teams we were beating (both on the field and in the scoring column) through the first 53+ minutes of play. Miami was a playoff caliber team during the 2nd half of the season, and that was being said by a lot of people, and not just Dolphin fans---- the media, analysts, and commentators, too. That's not b/c of great coaching; it's b/c the team actually has some talent. People want to complain as if Marshall & Vontae were the only reasons we looked great the 2nd half, and that without them we're talentless and doomed, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Tannehill & Philbin alone are worth 10 Marshall & Vontaes if they're the QB & HC as advertised.

So essentially, we took what looked like a playoff caliber team (during the 2nd half of last year), removed a WR & CB, and replaced them with a potential franchise QB and HC who might have the ability to make us into Green Bay South, but now all of a sudden we're doomed? I don't get it. QB-HC trumps WR-CB all day long, making for a tremendous offseason, one that could actually turn this organization around, not one to piss an moan about, respectfully, IMHO.

 

The bolded happened because Polian had already made the best draft pick of all, acquiring an elite quarterback and surrounding him with a core of talent. And he did so by finding acorns in the way Jeff Ireland likes to believe he can; Jeff Saturday and Antoine Bethea are two excellent examples. So, Polian gets an elite quarterback and gives him one Hall of Fame receiver with a second who has a decent case, a Hall of Fame tight end, two potential Hall of Fame caliber pass rushers to protect the lead that the elite quarterback builds, and tops it off by hiring a Hall of Fame coach.

But hey, his drafting sucked for 4 years, so I guess it all evens out.

This is descending into the theater of the absurd.

 

What is so hard to understand about what he has been saying? If i can paraphrase him in his opinion a well built team will still have sucess if a piece of the puzzle is removed. A team that isn't well built crumbles if a piece of the puzzle is removed.
i totally agree with his logic.
IMO that logic is proven by looking at 2 recent teams The Colts and the Patriots. Would you agree those 2 teams are successful teams according to your standards? If i can paraphrase your standards of a successful team i would say that your idea of a successful team is based on their record (wins and losses) and their ability to go far in the playoffs and make it to the Super Bowl? Am i right? most people have that same train of thought and are usually right.
But the difference in a well built team is that they still have success if a vital piece of the puzzle is removed! Case and point is that the Colts were a succeful team but were not a well built team, which is proven by Peyton being removed and their success was also removed. This IMO proves they were a successful team but not a well built team.
On the contrary the other example is the Patriots who are not only a successful team, but also a well built team. This is proven IMO by the year Brady was taken out of the picture, they were still a successful team because they are a well built team.
Those are not the only examples of the difference in a successful team and a well built team. But they are the easiest and most recent teams to prove there is a difference in success and being well built.

 

and my first thought to this is "....and?"

 

What HoF receiver did he give him...Wayne?

Who wouldn't have picked Manning, he was Luck. That;'s why they say Luck was the surest QB bet since...Manning.

Polian got lucky to have the #1 pick the year Manning was available. That was over a decade ago. What talent has he brought to the team in the last 5 years?

 

Well, I really don't care about the continued losing seasons or lack of playoff appearances. I'm really just mad that there's no Dolphins that I can draft on my fantasy team.

/sarcasm