Polian's Comments on the Bill Polian Show [Merge]

[Superman]

I appreciate your reply and I think that it is a pretty accurrate summation. It may be a bit too simplistic to say that all of the past success is just because of Manning, but what this team has shown in it's only performances w/o him say that is the case and he does make that big of a difference. Also I do blame Polian for not winning more, he always shuts the team down at the end of the season for "rest" if position in the * cannot be improved or reduced by winning and/or losing even after this team had shown it performs better out of repitition and not taking that break. This tactic has broken the rhythm a few times and it has cost them. As for the team as a whole, IMO, he just hasn't adjusted this defense enough and the team depth is razor thin. I just think a new set of eyes on this roster may do some good, maybe that person is Chris P., who knows, but this team needs to head in a different direction and the defensive player philosophy needs to change with the putrid scheme.

I think 2009 put the whole "rust" issue to rest. We shut it down with two weeks to go, and had a bye, yet we still went to the Super Bowl with two playoff wins. I would obviously prefer that we go all out, especially when we're undefeated, but I don't think it's accurate to say that shutting key players down late in the season has ever cost us anything. There are only two late season situations where we shut it down and then lost the first playoff game, 2005 and 2007. To me, 2005 was more about James Dungy than anything else, and we still should have won that game, despite the early mistakes. In 2007, we lost because 1) Marvin Harrison and Kenton Keith couldn't hold on to the football, and 2) we couldn't rush the passer, and that had nothing to do with rust. Ironically, it was due to injury. Also ironically, in 2009, we shut our key players down, and then Freeney gets injured in the playoffs, proving that injuries can happen at anytime. Not that that's an argument for shutting it down, just pointing out that you can't prevent injuries, even by shutting it down. Like I said, I don't like shutting it down, especially with a perfect season on the line, but I don't think it's ever been the reason we've lost games.

The defensive player philosophy has changed, I think. Chris Rucker, Kevin Thomas and Jerraud Powers aren't the so-called "Cover 2" corners of the past. They can all play man coverage, and we should use them to do so. Joe Lefeged has good size for a safety. Kavell Conner is a bigger linebacker than we've typically had. Drake Nevis and Rico Mathews have great size on the line. We added 5-tech ends with Jamaal Anderson and Tyler Brayton, and it's only because of the injuries at tackle that we've had to use them inside from time to time. There was a noticeable change in the size of defensive players that we drafted the minute Dungy left. I really like Dungy, but he held us back in many ways, his "small but fast" criteria for defenders being not the least of them.

I don't see how Caldwell can survive this season, especially not after the other night. I don't see how Coyer can survive the bye week. It would be in Caldwell's best interests to cut ties with Coyer, bring in a more principled coordinator, and hope that the defense gets better and we squeak out a couple wins over the course of the last few games, and then maybe he gets another year. But if we even have one more bad showing (and Sunday wasn't bad, it was gag-inducing), it's going to be a significant blow to any chances this coaching staff has of keeping their jobs. Any kind of 450+ yard / 30+ point performance against us, and people have got to be held accountable. I still don't believe we're as bad as our record indicates. We're certainly not as bad as 62-7 says we are.

[Superman]

How about bad clock management and a far too conservative approach? Can we judge him on that? How about the Jets playoff game last year? Do you think we lose that game if we don't call the Timeout? How about three straight runs in the last minute of the first half of the Superbowl? Can I judge him on those things?

You can, but I don't think that's much to go on. The Jets game was lost with the long kickoff return, not with the timeout call (which was without a doubt a stupid timeout to call, but I don't think it cost us the game).

Three straight runs in the Super Bowl was the smart thing to do, given the field position and the time left on the clock. People always bring this up. It was 3rd and 1. We need to be able to convert 3rd and 1 on the ground. Any failure in that regard falls on the players, not the decision to run the football. 3rd and 1 is a running down. Get the yard, and then see if maybe the coach opens up the playbook now that you've minimized the risk of turning the ball over or having to punt from your own endzone. I never agreed with Polian's critique of the offensive line, because I think they played a good game overall, but that was a failure on their part, not a failure with the play-calling or the decision to run the ball. 3rd and 1 is a gimme down. Convert.

[braveheartcolt]

I think 2009 put the whole "rust" issue to rest. We shut it down with two weeks to go, and had a bye, yet we still went to the Super Bowl with two playoff wins. I would obviously prefer that we go all out, especially when we're undefeated, but I don't think it's accurate to say that shutting key players down late in the season has ever cost us anything. There are only two late season situations where we shut it down and then lost the first playoff game, 2005 and 2007. To me, 2005 was more about James Dungy than anything else, and we still should have won that game, despite the early mistakes. In 2007, we lost because 1) Marvin Harrison and Kenton Keith couldn't hold on to the football, and 2) we couldn't rush the passer, and that had nothing to do with rust. Ironically, it was due to injury. Also ironically, in 2009, we shut our key players down, and then Freeney gets injured in the playoffs, proving that injuries can happen at anytime. Not that that's an argument for shutting it down, just pointing out that you can't prevent injuries, even by shutting it down. Like I said, I don't like shutting it down, especially with a perfect season on the line, but I don't think it's ever been the reason we've lost games.

The defensive player philosophy has changed, I think. Chris Rucker, Kevin Thomas and Jerraud Powers aren't the so-called "Cover 2" corners of the past. They can all play man coverage, and we should use them to do so. Joe Lefeged has good size for a safety. Kavell Conner is a bigger linebacker than we've typically had. Drake Nevis and Rico Mathews have great size on the line. We added 5-tech ends with Jamaal Anderson and Tyler Brayton, and it's only because of the injuries at tackle that we've had to use them inside from time to time. There was a noticeable change in the size of defensive players that we drafted the minute Dungy left. I really like Dungy, but he held us back in many ways, his "small but fast" criteria for defenders being not the least of them.

I don't see how Caldwell can survive this season, especially not after the other night. I don't see how Coyer can survive the bye week. It would be in Caldwell's best interests to cut ties with Coyer, bring in a more principled coordinator, and hope that the defense gets better and we squeak out a couple wins over the course of the last few games, and then maybe he gets another year. But if we even have one more bad showing (and Sunday wasn't bad, it was gag-inducing), it's going to be a significant blow to any chances this coaching staff has of keeping their jobs. Any kind of 450+ yard / 30+ point performance against us, and people have got to be held accountable. I still don't believe we're as bad as our record indicates. We're certainly not as bad as 62-7 says we are.

We are lucky to only be 0-7 in my opinion. Rust wasnt the issue in 2009, it was heart. The players were denied the chance of immortality by the cowards in the suits. We should have went roaring into the Super Bowl, not just 'rested and ready'.

[Superman]

We are lucky to only be 0-7 in my opinion. Rust wasnt the issue in 2009, it was heart. The players were denied the chance of immortality by the cowards in the suits. We should have went roaring into the Super Bowl, not just 'rested and ready'.

I don't believe there was a lack of heart on the field. I believe that would have shown up in the first two playoff games.

[SoldierColtsFan]

You can, but I don't think that's much to go on. The Jets game was lost with the long kickoff return, not with the timeout call (which was without a doubt a stupid timeout to call, but I don't think it cost us the game).

Three straight runs in the Super Bowl was the smart thing to do, given the field position and the time left on the clock. People always bring this up. It was 3rd and 1. We need to be able to convert 3rd and 1 on the ground. Any failure in that regard falls on the players, not the decision to run the football. 3rd and 1 is a running down. Get the yard, and then see if maybe the coach opens up the playbook now that you've minimized the risk of turning the ball over or having to punt from your own endzone. I never agreed with Polian's critique of the offensive line, because I think they played a good game overall, but that was a failure on their part, not a failure with the play-calling or the decision to run the ball. 3rd and 1 is a gimme down. Convert.

Those 3 running plays to end the half during the SB were the 3 worst plays ran that game. As soon as they did that I told my wife that the Colts will lose this game, it's called playing not to lose and getting away from what the team's indentity was. Instead of going for the jugular it was like they turtled up and went into super conservative play calling, both on offense and defense. They were comfortable with the lead they had and played it safe since they were going to get the ball back after the half. Now maybe 3rd and 1 is a running down for most teams but not for this one, and I think the stats on 3rd and short conversions with the run would back that up.

These play calls were the beginning of me questioning Caldwell's ability, you have one of the greatest 2 minute QBs ever and Manning had consistantly carved teams up to end halves all that season and you are in the Super Bowl up by 10 points with the ball with 2 minutes left in the half, what do you do?? I will tell you what you don't do and that's hand the stinking ball off 3 times in a row, essentially handcuffing the best player on the field, especially given how terrible they were at running at the time. Scoring right there would have changed the entire dynamics of that game and sent a message that they were going for the kill. Completely indiotic playcalling and there is no excuse for it and Polian calling out the O line afterwards was just as ignorant as the in game hyper conservative play calling. I identify that as the moment things began going down hill for this team in general.

[smittywerb]

Those 3 running plays to end the half during the SB were the 3 worst plays ran that game. As soon as they did that I told my wife that the Colts will lose this game, it's called playing not to lose and getting away from what the team's indentity was. Instead of going for the jugular it was like they turtled up and went into super conservative play calling, both on offense and defense. They were comfortable with the lead they had and played it safe since they were going to get the ball back after the half. Now maybe 3rd and 1 is a running down for most teams but not for this one, and I think the stats on 3rd and short conversions with the run would back that up.

These play calls were the beginning of me questioning Caldwell's ability, you have one of the greatest 2 minute QBs ever and Manning had consistantly carved teams up to end halves all that season and you are in the Super Bowl up by 10 points with the ball with 2 minutes left in the half, what do you do?? I will tell you what you don't do and that's hand the stinking ball off 3 times in a row, essentially handcuffing the best player on the field, especially given how terrible they were at running at the time. Scoring right there would have changed the entire dynamics of that game and sent a message that they were going for the kill. Completely indiotic playcalling and there is no excuse for it and Polian calling out the O line afterwards was just as ignorant as the in game hyper conservative play calling. I identify that as the moment things began going down hill for this team in general.

I said the exact same thing from the beginning of you post to the end.. SMH, out of all of the losses that the Colts have, this is the most sickening because we could have really won that game if we did not let our foot off the pedal. We didn't lose that game, we gave it away.

Edited October 29, 2011 by smittywerb

[Superman]

Those 3 running plays to end the half during the SB were the 3 worst plays ran that game. As soon as they did that I told my wife that the Colts will lose this game, it's called playing not to lose and getting away from what the team's indentity was. Instead of going for the jugular it was like they turtled up and went into super conservative play calling, both on offense and defense. They were comfortable with the lead they had and played it safe since they were going to get the ball back after the half. Now maybe 3rd and 1 is a running down for most teams but not for this one, and I think the stats on 3rd and short conversions with the run would back that up.

These play calls were the beginning of me questioning Caldwell's ability, you have one of the greatest 2 minute QBs ever and Manning had consistantly carved teams up to end halves all that season and you are in the Super Bowl up by 10 points with the ball with 2 minutes left in the half, what do you do?? I will tell you what you don't do and that's hand the stinking ball off 3 times in a row, essentially handcuffing the best player on the field, especially given how terrible they were at running at the time. Scoring right there would have changed the entire dynamics of that game and sent a message that they were going for the kill. Completely indiotic playcalling and there is no excuse for it and Polian calling out the O line afterwards was just as ignorant as the in game hyper conservative play calling. I identify that as the moment things began going down hill for this team in general.

We can just agree to disagree. Like I said, I think when you run two times for 9 yards, and you get 3rd and 1, the onus is on the offensive line and the running back to convert. That's a running down. And given the field position, protecting yourself from a turnover or a safety makes perfect sense.

I did not like the general conservatism that Caldwell approached that game with, and that series certainly fits the pattern. But I don't have any problem with that decision.

[Jason_]

Those 3 running plays to end the half during the SB were the 3 worst plays ran that game. As soon as they did that I told my wife that the Colts will lose this game, it's called playing not to lose and getting away from what the team's indentity was. Instead of going for the jugular it was like they turtled up and went into super conservative play calling, both on offense and defense. They were comfortable with the lead they had and played it safe since they were going to get the ball back after the half. Now maybe 3rd and 1 is a running down for most teams but not for this one, and I think the stats on 3rd and short conversions with the run would back that up.

These play calls were the beginning of me questioning Caldwell's ability, you have one of the greatest 2 minute QBs ever and Manning had consistantly carved teams up to end halves all that season and you are in the Super Bowl up by 10 points with the ball with 2 minutes left in the half, what do you do?? I will tell you what you don't do and that's hand the stinking ball off 3 times in a row, essentially handcuffing the best player on the field, especially given how terrible they were at running at the time. Scoring right there would have changed the entire dynamics of that game and sent a message that they were going for the kill. Completely indiotic playcalling and there is no excuse for it and Polian calling out the O line afterwards was just as ignorant as the in game hyper conservative play calling. I identify that as the moment things began going down hill for this team in general.

Given the fact that most people widely believe that Manning calls the play from the LOS, what makes you so sure it was Caldwell who made the decision to run the ball on 3rd and 1 and not Manning? Yes Manning typically likes to go for the jugular in the final 2 min. of a half and if they'd converted the 3rd and 1 then I have no doubt he'd have done the same. But as much as Manning does like to score in the final 2 min he's also one of the most intelligent players in the game and understands down/distance/field position etc to know when to take chances and when not to. I'm not a Caldwell fan by any means but hating the man for a play call that may or may not have been his (and imo history would indicate it was not his) seems a bit extreme.

[SoldierColtsFan]

Given the fact that most people widely believe that Manning calls the play from the LOS, what makes you so sure it was Caldwell who made the decision to run the ball on 3rd and 1 and not Manning? Yes Manning typically likes to go for the jugular in the final 2 min. of a half and if they'd converted the 3rd and 1 then I have no doubt he'd have done the same. But as much as Manning does like to score in the final 2 min he's also one of the most intelligent players in the game and understands down/distance/field position etc to know when to take chances and when not to. I'm not a Caldwell fan by any means but hating the man for a play call that may or may not have been his (and imo history would indicate it was not his) seems a bit extreme.

He probably didn't call it, but he more than likely set the table to play it conservative on the possession and for the rest of the game and has since hung his hat on that brand of play.And hate is a very strong choice for your verbage there, I don't hate too many poeple, and I especially wouldn't hate a man I have never met and truly know nothing about on a personal level, but I do not think he is the right coach for this team and he has left me pretty unimpressed with his game management and call skills and I will leave it at that.

Now the 3rd and 1 run is not the problem in that series, it was the 1st and 10 run, followed by a 2nd down run and THEN a 3rd down run. A run mixed in keeps the D off balance, but 3 straight runs is just plain stupid, they were not on the goal line so they had space to punt and they went away from what they were that season, a passing team with the run being an afterthought.

You guys can put it in whatever way you want, it's your opinion, you may have loved those plays, more power to you, I didn't, nor will I ever and I explained why, so I say I respectfully agree to disagree on that. And this has gotten a bit off the topic being discussed in this title but if you guys want to set up a topic on the case for Caldwell I will gladly discuss the case against him, or better yet the best and worst plays called during the Super Bowl I will give my opinion on that too.

Back to the topic at hand is just how out of touch Bill Polian has gotten with the product on the field. He praised Caldwell and the secondary for the effort displayed and has since layed the old injury excuse out there. Things just aren't looking so good these days.

[Superman]

He probably didn't call it, but he more than likely set the table to play it conservative on the possession and for the rest of the game and has since hung his hat on that brand of play.And hate is a very strong choice for your verbage there, I don't hate too many poeple, and I especially wouldn't hate a man I have never met and truly know nothing about on a personal level, but I do not think he is the right coach for this team and he has left me pretty unimpressed with his game management and call skills and I will leave it at that.

Now the 3rd and 1 run is not the problem in that series, it was the 1st and 10 run, followed by a 2nd down run and THEN a 3rd down run. A run mixed in keeps the D off balance, but 3 straight runs is just plain stupid, they were not on the goal line so they had space to punt and they went away from what they were that season, a passing team with the run being an afterthought.

You guys can put it in whatever way you want, it's your opinion, you may have loved those plays, more power to you, I didn't, nor will I ever and I explained why, so I say I respectfully agree to disagree on that. And this has gotten a bit off the topic being discussed in this title but if you guys want to set up a topic on the case for Caldwell I will gladly discuss the case against him, or better yet the best and worst plays called during the Super Bowl I will give my opinion on that too.

Back to the topic at hand is just how out of touch Bill Polian has gotten with the product on the field. He praised Caldwell and the secondary for the effort displayed and has since layed the old injury excuse out there. Things just aren't looking so good these days.

The runs on first and second down were productive, both in gaining yards and in trying to keep the ball away from the Saints for the rest of the half. We ran plays that put us in third and short, and then we failed to convert on third and short. To me, it's simple: Get one yard, and then maybe things change.

It's not a defense of Caldwell. I said earlier, I hate the general conservatism he coached with in that game. Deciding to kick the long field goal with Matt Stover, playing soft shell coverage against a quarterback who is killing you and is keeping your best player on the sideline, etc. And the series you're talking about fits the pattern. It's indicative of a less than "go get it" attitude from our coaching staff, and I think it contributed greatly to the loss. But in a vacuum, I don't have a problem with the decision to run it three times in a row in that situation. If it's not the end of the half, then yes, I hate it. But the objective was to protect the lead and protect your defensive field position, while avoiding a turnover/sack/safety, and then if you give the ball back, you do so with just a few ticks left. Unfortunately, we played soft defense on the ensuing possession, and then we failed to secure the onside kickoff, so nothing we wanted to see happen as a result of that decision worked out. But that doesn't mean we made the wrong decision. Like I said, on its own, I have no problem with that decision.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Superman