Fun With Numbers

[BOTT]

Check out the following link to the article I mentioned in a earlier post. Start from the third paragraph on page 128 "After back to back playoff appearances". Note on page 129 there is a reference to Freeney being at one point the highest paid defensive player in NFL history. There is "coin", and then there is "coin".

http://books.google.com/books?id=ax0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=why+did+the+colts+fire+jim+mora+polian%27s+reasons&source=bl&ots=8WSPPVKO5m&sig=1ntzP1VVbjvGNkweRRJKb7vVZzM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=true

The fact that you can't fathom it doesn't make it any less true.

sorry i still think he is full of it. to me it sound like he is covering for a lousy defense. it's not like the colts are the only team in the nfl that has to deal with the salary cap. in fact, on the dan dakich show dakich claimed polian was making fun of the whole "built to play with the lead" tag.

but fine, you can believe him, but i can't actually believe he is that stupid.

[MAC]

sorry i still think he is full of it. to me it sound like he is covering for a lousy defense. it's not like the colts are the only team in the nfl that has to deal with the salary cap. in fact, on the dan dakich show dakich claimed polian was making fun of the whole "built to play with the lead" tag.

but fine, you can believe him, but i can't actually believe he is that stupid.

A key element in the article regarding this issue is his publicly describing why Mora/Fangio were fired and Dungy was brought in. If this is all a fabrication, show me where any of these men - two of them in the national media on a constant basis and none of them still associated with the team - has said a word to contradict him.

Yes, I believe that the guy who has built three franchises to go to to nine league championship games while being named NFL executive of the year six times, while being held in such respect in the league office that he has been on the competition committee for seemingly forever, is telling the truth. Even if you believe - as many seem to - that his sole motivation in life is to protect his own ego (which is ridiculous by the way), it makes more sense to assume that he agreed to that interview to talk about his accomplishments - not to lie to "cover for a lousy defense". The had just won the Super Bowl for crying out loud! He was talking about how that incredibly successful team was built, not creating an elaborate foundation in anticipation of protecting himself from reactionary people after Peyton got injured 3+ years later. The man is brilliant, but I doubt that he can read tea leaves.

However it is reassuring to hear that at least you don't believe he is "that stupid". Even BBS - the loudest Polian critic out there - called him a "genius" and "without question, the very best NFL executive the league has ever seen" (his boldface) after the sixth NFL award. We are lucky to have him.

[Jason_]

your post here

I really don't understand all of the bashing on Polian. In all of the moves he's made over the years I can only think of 2 that I simply don't agree with and think were a mistake and that is Donald Brown and Jerry Hughes. And no this is not based on the hindsight I have now, I thought the same at the time they were made.

With Brown, I understand that they were switching to more of a 2 back system and they were planning on losing Dominic Rhodes. I still don't think that we had to go out and get the second half of the 2 back combo in the first round. We had many pressing issues on defense that could and should have been addressed instead, imo and we could have gone RB a little later on in the draft instead of round 1.

with Hughes, I loved that they went defense but I think looking for a Freeney Jr. was a knee jerk reaction to the amount of time we had to play without Freeney that season. Again, we had more pressing needs in other areas that I think should have been addressed first.

As to the people claiming he built a terrible defense or whatever...people have to remember that he went out and found the type of players that Dungy wanted. He didn't decide himself that he was going to get guys who were too undersized to play their respective positions. He found the best players that were available that would also work with the system Dungy was building. This is why I put the defensive woes we've had over the years on Dungy and not Polian. He's done the best he could to get the type of players the coaches wanted, and this is most evident by the change in going bigger and stronger when Caldwell and Coyer took over for Dungy and Meeks.

[MAC]

In all of the moves he's made over the years I can only think of 2 that I simply don't agree with and think were a mistake and that is Donald Brown and Jerry Hughes. And no this is not based on the hindsight I have now, I thought the same at the time they were made.

With Brown, I understand that they were switching to more of a 2 back system and they were planning on losing Dominic Rhodes. I still don't think that we had to go out and get the second half of the 2 back combo in the first round. We had many pressing issues on defense that could and should have been addressed instead, imo and we could have gone RB a little later on in the draft instead of round 1.

with Hughes, I loved that they went defense but I think looking for a Freeney Jr. was a knee jerk reaction to the amount of time we had to play without Freeney that season. Again, we had more pressing needs in other areas that I think should have been addressed first.

I must admit to liking both moves at the time, but I don't watch much college so I was just relying on the draft guides.

If I recall Joe Addai seemed vulnerable when Brown was picked, and I just assumed going in (knowing the tendency to use first rounders on skill players) that they would pick a RB. I read all the draft reviews and frankly Brown just jumped out as being "Colt" material because of the glowing comments about attitude, intelligence, speed, etc. I've read the discussions about Brown not being suited for our blocking scheme. Makes sense, and if that was evident in college than the pick was foolish. I'd love to know what the FO really thinks of him. What position did you feel was a priority?

As for Hughes, after two consecutive years of being knocked out of the playoffs largely due to injuries crippling the pass rush, I was more than happy to see a speed rusher taken in the first round. My assumption was that they had located a special talent like Freeney which would certainly justify the investment. In retrospect LT was a far more pressing issue. If Saffold had been on the team (with Johnson at guard), it's entirely possible that Peyton wouldn't have needed neck surgery in the first place. If only Ugoh had successfully switched to guard as well. Watching 8 zillion short passes with PM running for his life last year was just torture. We already know that the FO feels similarly.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I still have hopes for both players to contribute.

Did you read the article I linked above? Pretty cool perspective.

[Jason_]

I must admit to liking both moves at the time, but I don't watch much college so I was just relying on the draft guides.

What position did you feel was a priority?

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I still have hopes for both players to contribute.

Did you read the article I linked above? Pretty cool perspective.

Haven't had a chance to read the article yet. I've still got like 5 or 6 college games recorded that I'm trying to get through. As for position I felt was of bigger need...I'd really hoped they would go either DT or MLB (never been a fan of Brackett). They had tried to address the DT issue in the '07 draft with Quinn Pitcock, who I was excited to hear called. But he just couldn't stay healthy (hey I know that story lol). By the time the '09 draft came around Pitcock had already retired (he left the NFL partially due to video game addiction? Really??? Who does that?) So yeah, I was really hoping to go either DT or MLB in the first round. The did go DT in the second with Moala but that was one of the few years that they didn't draft a LB at all. Imagine if they'd have gone James Laurinitis instead of Brown.

Oh yeah, Hakeem Nicks was also someone I was thinking if they'd have decided to go offense...then again I think every expert alive thought they would go Nicks since he was still available. lol

[BOTT]

A key element in the article regarding this issue is his publicly describing why Mora/Fangio were fired and Dungy was brought in. If this is all a fabrication, show me where any of these men - two of them in the national media on a constant basis and none of them still associated with the team - has said a word to contradict him.

Yes, I believe that the guy who has built three franchises to go to to nine league championship games while being named NFL executive of the year six times, while being held in such respect in the league office that he has been on the competition committee for seemingly forever, is telling the truth. Even if you believe - as many seem to - that his sole motivation in life is to protect his own ego (which is ridiculous by the way), it makes more sense to assume that he agreed to that interview to talk about his accomplishments - not to lie to "cover for a lousy defense". The had just won the Super Bowl for crying out loud! He was talking about how that incredibly successful team was built, not creating an elaborate foundation in anticipation of protecting himself from reactionary people after Peyton got injured 3+ years later. The man is brilliant, but I doubt that he can read tea leaves.

However it is reassuring to hear that at least you don't believe he is "that stupid". Even BBS - the loudest Polian critic out there - called him a "genius" and "without question, the very best NFL executive the league has ever seen" (his boldface) after the sixth NFL award. We are lucky to have him.

[BOTT]

A key element in the article regarding this issue is his publicly describing why Mora/Fangio were fired and Dungy was brought in. If this is all a fabrication, show me where any of these men - two of them in the national media on a constant basis and none of them still associated with the team - has said a word to contradict him.

Yes, I believe that the guy who has built three franchises to go to to nine league championship games while being named NFL executive of the year six times, while being held in such respect in the league office that he has been on the competition committee for seemingly forever, is telling the truth. Even if you believe - as many seem to - that his sole motivation in life is to protect his own ego (which is ridiculous by the way), it makes more sense to assume that he agreed to that interview to talk about his accomplishments - not to lie to "cover for a lousy defense". The had just won the Super Bowl for crying out loud! He was talking about how that incredibly successful team was built, not creating an elaborate foundation in anticipation of protecting himself from reactionary people after Peyton got injured 3+ years later. The man is brilliant, but I doubt that he can read tea leaves.

However it is reassuring to hear that at least you don't believe he is "that stupid". Even BBS - the loudest Polian critic out there - called him a "genius" and "without question, the very best NFL executive the league has ever seen" (his boldface) after the sixth NFL award. We are lucky to have him.

why would they come out and say they don't believe the defense was built to play with the lead? it's not like it was national scandal.

and just because a guy is accomplished doesn't mean he doesn't tell little lies. people tell lies everyday, really, it's not a big deal. heck, yesterday he claimed curtis painter was going to be a good pro. now, does he really believe that or is just blowing a little smoke? and i never said he gave an interview just to cover up a lousy defense, so don't imply that i did.

and for some reason you seem to assume i am some sort of polian hater, which i am not. while i dislike some of his recent draft picks, coaching hires, and his attempts at free agencey, i realize he has more football knowledge is his pinky toe than i have in my entire body. and i couldn't care less about persona, or the undefeated season controversy, etc....

[MAC]

why would they come out and say they don't believe the defense was built to play with the lead? it's not like it was national scandal.

and just because a guy is accomplished doesn't mean he doesn't tell little lies. people tell lies everyday, really, it's not a big deal. heck, yesterday he claimed curtis painter was going to be a good pro. now, does he really believe that or is just blowing a little smoke? and i never said he gave an interview just to cover up a lousy defense, so don't imply that i did.

and for some reason you seem to assume i am some sort of polian hater, which i am not. while i dislike some of his recent draft picks, coaching hires, and his attempts at free agencey, i realize he has more football knowledge is his pinky toe than i have in my entire body. and i couldn't care less about persona, or the undefeated season controversy, etc....

I was referring primarily to Mora and Fangio not disputing the stated reason for them being fired (something people usually want to set straight since it impacts their future employment), thus validating Polians comments in the article about how they intended to build the defense under Dungy (simple scheme, undersized players, the least salary cap impact possible). It's not that they only desire to be able to play from the lead, it's just that the low budget limits their options (ie: rarely keeping even decent defensive players past their first contracts.)

You miss-understand what I was implying, but there is little point in my going into this again if you don't actually hate Polian. Yes, GMs find positive things to say about their players. It's part of the job and doesn't mean much. It sounded like you held some animosity ("complete bull", "full of it", "covering for a lousy defense", etc). If I assumed incorrectly I'm sorry. Every 4th post on here as much as suggests that our GM is the anti-christ (just less competent), and it gets to you after awhile.

[IndyTrav]

Last year the Colts defense averaged:

341.5 yards per game

24.25 points per game

127 rush yards per game

This year with a 2 game sample:

343.5 yards per game

30.5 points per game

136.5 rush yards per game

Last year the Colts defense averaged:

341.5 yards per game

24.25 points per game

127 rush yards per game

This year Week 3 UPDATE

365.0 yards per game (going up)

28.0 points per game (going down!)

113.3rush yards per game (going down!)

Week 3 is in the books. Is yardage going up because of passing, but in the end leading to lower scores?

[Superman]

Last year the Colts defense averaged:

341.5 yards per game

24.25 points per game

127 rush yards per game

This year Week 3 UPDATE

365.0 yards per game (going up)

28.0 points per game (going down!)

113.3rush yards per game (going down!)

Week 3 is in the books. Is yardage going up because of passing, but in the end leading to lower scores?

I think all those numbers are skewed due to factors outside the defense's control. I can live with the yardage numbers, but we've given up 21 points worth of returns and defensive touchdowns already this year. There's been several other short fields due to turnovers and returns. Just take the returns and defensive touchdowns away, and you're looking at 21 points per game.

With rushing yards per game, I don't see how anyone can ignore the fact that we've been run against more times than anyone else in the league, mostly due to the fact that we've been playing from behind. It's crazy to suggest that yards per attempt are irrelevant, especially when we're 8th at 3.3 ypc. You can't just ignore that disparity. In three games (103 attempts), we've only given up one run of more than 20 yards, none for more than 40. There's lots of room for improvement, but on the whole, our run defense has been sufficient.

I'm much more concerned with our passing defense, where we're giving up 8.5 ypa, fourth worst in the league, and allowing quarterbacks to complete 68.8% of their passes, sixth worst in the league. We've given up 13 big plays (5th worst), and 38.7% of attempts go for first downs (9th worst). All this lends to a 50% conversion rate on third down, and 35 minutes on the field for our defense (both worst in the league). We are firmly in the bottom fourth of the league, probably the bottom fifth, in pass defense, no matter how you slice it. The only stat that looks good on the surface is that we've only given up 3 passing touchdowns.

I know the team has a reputation for being soft against the run, and you look at 113 yards per game, and it looks like nothing has changed. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. And to ignore the per attempt averages because they don't fit the meme is kind of silly. Put in perspective, 113 yards a game is more a symptom of other problems with our team overall, not a sign that the run defense is failing.

[Jason_]

With rushing yards per game, I don't see how anyone can ignore the fact that we've been run against more times than anyone else in the league, mostly due to the fact that we've been playing from behind. It's crazy to suggest that yards per attempt are irrelevant, especially when we're 8th at 3.3 ypc. In three games, we've only given up one run of more than 20 yards, none for more than 40. There's lots of room for improvement, but on the whole, our run defense has been sufficient.

I know the team has a reputation for being soft against the run, and you look at 113 yards per game, and it looks like nothing has changed. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. And to ignore the per attempt averages because they don't fit the meme is kind of silly. Put in perspective, 113 yards a game is more a symptom of other problems with our team overall, not a sign that the run defense is failing.

Agreed 200%. YPC is far more important to look at right now than overall yards per game. I believe the Colts are still last in the number of carries by the other team....you don't get the ball enough to run 40+ times per game if the other team's offense (Colts offense that is) can't get anything done. YPC has consistently come down from week 1 to week 3, 4.1 ypc in week 1, 3.3 in week 2 and 2.7 in week 3. If those aren't exact then they're very close. the number of carries is coming down as well as the Colts offense has gradually been able to move the ball a little more each game. I think by the end of the season the Colts run D could finish in the top 5.

The pass D on the other hand....if there isn't some improvement made then we could wind up giving up a record number of passing yards.

[Superman]

Agreed 200%. YPC is far more important to look at right now than overall yards per game. I believe the Colts are still last in the number of carries by the other team....you don't get the ball enough to run 40+ times per game if the other team's offense (Colts offense that is) can't get anything done. YPC has consistently come down from week 1 to week 3, 4.1 ypc in week 1, 3.3 in week 2 and 2.7 in week 3. If those aren't exact then they're very close. the number of carries is coming down as well as the Colts offense has gradually been able to move the ball a little more each game. I think by the end of the season the Colts run D could finish in the top 5.

If you're talking about 2006, when we're dead last in both yards per game and yards per attempt, then yeah, there's no need to make a distinction. But when there's a wide gap between the two, I believe it's folly to favor one over the other.

[Jason_]

If you're talking about 2006, when we're dead last in both yards per game and yards per attempt, then yeah, there's no need to make a distinction. But when there's a wide gap between the two, I believe it's folly to favor one over the other.

Again, I agree....that's why I said

YPC is far more important to look at right now than overall yards per game

The only reason the total rushing yards allowed appears high is because teams are running against the colts more than they are any other team, which is in large part due to the ineffectiveness of the offense. Each game, however, the offense has made some improvements and at least been able to move the ball a little bit so that the time of possession isn't so greatly lopsided and as that happens, the other team's carries go down.

[Superman]

Again, I agree....that's why I said

Sorry, I know you were agreeing with me. I was just adding on.

[JoKeR]

Last year the Colts defense averaged:

341.5 yards per game

24.25 points per game

127 rush yards per game

This year with a 2 game sample:

343.5 yards per game

30.5 points per game

136.5 rush yards per game

A case of same poo different pile, or is the sample size for this year still to small?

Umm its not the sample size, its just that the numbers your using don't tell the whole story.

The fact our offense can't stay on the field is a huge contributor to those crapy stats.

Show me a top defense that literally had no offense to back it up...

[IndyTrav]

Last year the Colts defense averaged:

341.5 yards per game

24.25 points per game

127 rush yards per game

This year with a 5 game sample:

399.4 yards per game

27.2 points per game

145.2 rush yards per game

Lookin for some more ' but ifs' and other excuses from fans about the team. These #'s have been compiled by Hou/Cle/Pitt/TB/KC. Can this team run the tables in reverse?