Polian...or Reese?

Afc46...

Why do you eliminate polian's previous 12 years as a GM before coming to the colts? Because it doesn't suit your silly arguement? And why in the hell would this entire issue pertain to only your critera?

For starters reese was GM for the oilers for 3 years before polian took over the colts. Does that mean that if the colts make it to the super bowl in the next three years your arguement is invalid?

How are you with math? Polian has been a GM for 20 years. His teams have made the playoffs 13 times or 65%

Reese has been GM for the oilers-titans for 11 years and the team has made 4 playoffs, 36% of the time.

Question, is 65% greater or less than 36%?

In polian's 20 years as GM his tams have been to 4 super bowls. 20% of the time.

In floyd reese's 11 years his teams have been to one super bowl. 9%.

Question, is 20% greater than or less than 9%?

What is so hard to understand about those facts?

 

So, when it comes to who you would rather have, you choose the guy that is better than you as opposed to trying to be the best yourself? That's like Obi-Wan deciding that he could make himself right at home on the deathstar. Afterall, over time and experience on the other side of the force, Vader is clearly the better knight.

 

Gunny..

There was no free agency in the 1980s like we have now so not having a cap didn't help you guy big name players. The bills were not a mega rich team anyway.

Polians other team was the panthers from 95-97 and there was a cap.


So the man has won in 2 different eras which only lends credibility to my arguement.

 

It is a tough argument to make.

You can really only compare the times they have been at it at the same time.

 

So gunny...

We can't compare any players, coaches or GMs if they are from different eras? Why?

Are you saying that polian's accomplishments prior to 1995 don't matter? It's like they didn't happen?

What this is all about is that you and others didn't know about polian's past accomplishments and now you are trying to slime your way past the fact.

Polian has been with the colts 8 years and they have been to the post season 6 times. Reese has been with the titans 11 years and they have been to the playoffs 4 times. What is better 6-8 or 4-11?

 

I have to agree with Rolltide on this. Polian has consistently built superbowl contenders and always seems to put a good team together. Reese had one stretch where we were a legitimate condender for about 4 years, and now we have fallen off the face of the NFL map. Its not even debateable in my opinion. Reese has been good certainly, but Polian is a lot more proven. If Reese gets this turned around in a year or so then you can bring Reese back into the debate, at this point you cant say he is in the same league as Polian.

 

Actually, we were only a contender for 4 of those 6 years because of injuries in 2001 and 2005. But the fact is, Reese managed to hold together the roster of a contending team for 6 years. It was only after 2005 that they cut a bunch of the vets and started rebuilding.

As for the years prior to 1999, there's no way you can reasonably say that Reese could have possibly built a contender. He became GM in 1994. Immediately, he had to slash the Oilers' roster at the beginning of the salary cap era and did away with a ton of veteran starters. Less than 2 years later, they officially became a vagabond team with a wagon train moving from Houston to Nashville.

Reese managed to build a winner that he didn't inherit from anyone. And he kept them together for a long time. He hasn't been as successful as Polian in terms of longevity. But I'd say he has been just as good in terms of level of success.

Like I said, it's pretty much a draw. But since it's a Titans' board, of course people will pick our GM since there's no clearly better candidate.

 

Are you saying Reese has been as sucessful compared to Polian with the Colts, or compared to Polian over all? With the colts you have an argument, but comparing Reese's career to Polians entire career isnt debateable in the least bit. Just asking for clarification.

 

Polian's career has been longer. If you want to argue that he has been a top GM for longer than Reese, I can see that point. Polian has been more successful than Reese based entirely on the fact that he has been around longer. Of course, polian hasn't achieved a higher level of success (i.e. Super Bowl championship), but he has lost more Super Bowls, so I guess that's something...

But I'd say both are on the same level as far as how good they are right now, which is the question that was asked. I wouldn't dump Reese today if I could get Polian instead.

 

Fair points. I think Reese is at a point where he has something to prove right now though. While Polian is still a superbowl contender, Reese's team is picking in the top 10 for the second straight year and is not expected to be a contender next season, while Polians is.

Now you can certainly argue that the cap problems are the reason for our downfall, which is true, but the cap problems are more or less Reeses doing. I can understand why he wanted to keep the team together, but he now has to prove he can rebuild the team back up, so he does have a lot to prove at this point. ANd also keep in mind, that our superbowl year we beat a 13-3 colts team in the playoffs, so they have been just about as good as long as we have, and now longer since we are rebuilding. I wouldnt say I would want to get rid of Reese for Polian at this point either, but I also cant say that I believe that Reese is a quite as good as Polian. If he gets this team back together then Ill make that argument.