Bill Polian takes shots at Mike Lombardi and "the system" in interview with Indiana radio station
When Bill Polian talks, we listen. Sometimes, it's a painful endeavor, especially when the Big Redhead goes on one of his angry tirades, attacking his own players and insulting paying fans along the way. Other times, it's a genuine pleasure to hear him pontificate on subjects like how football has evolved over the years and the intricacies of the modern game.
Today, we kind of got a bit of both.
While Bill held off on taking shots at players or fans, in an interview with 1070 the Fan's John "JMV" Michael Vincent, he did answer a gaggle of questions on subjects such as most improved team in the AFC, the labor situation, Bob Sanders' health, and much more. After the jump, we pluck out the highlights:
When asked about the difficulties in signing rookie defensive end Jerry Hughes, Polian went into a little speech about how the "system" for signing rookies needs to be changed.
Here is a prime example: The agent that represents [Jerry Hughes], Tom Condon, also represented four or five other first round players. He tends to focus his attention nearer the reporting date of the teams that of which he has players and guys who are higher [in the draft]. Most notably, the St. Louis quarter back [Sam Bradford]. So, by the time he gets to our player, it’s later in the process. That’s no one’s fault, except the system. And so, you just recognize that, shrug your shoulders, and hope that we can make a better system down the road.
When asked about the problems with "the system":
We need to change the rookie system because to have, for example, Sam Bradford paid $50 million dollars in guaranteed money for never having taken a snap in the National Football League is just wrong. That money should go to veteran players who have earned it in the National Football League. That’s a very stark example, but it exists. Its there, and it needs to be changed. And I don’t think many other people other than those such as agents who have a vested interest in the present system, would have a problem with that.
Well, I think Domonique Foxworth, a powerful voice within the NFL Player's Association union, seems to like the "pay for potential" system. While veterans may scoff at rookies getting so much money, the union probably likes it. Rookies or vets, doesn't matter. As long as the money rolls in.
When asked why the Colts typically do not have Darrelle Revis-like holdouts:
The players and the agents recognize that we have a plan and that we are very consistent in sticking to the plan. The vast majority of our players play out their contracts. That’s our philosophy. And it starts with the idea that when we sign a player to a contract, we say what we mean and we when what we say. And we don’t, and have not, done a lot of machinations with the salary cap. We have not done things with the salary cap only in mind. We’ve tried to do it with good, sound business planning. Every once in a while, you will run across a player and an agent that feels that [the player] has played out the value of his contract, that he’s worth more than what he’s being paid. But, bottom line is, we’ve tried to build those contracts with fairness in mind. And even agents of players who would like new deals would be the first to tell you, I like if they were completely honest, hey, the colts pay fairly in the first instance. We’ve never tried to get a discontent, if you will. We’ve always paid to market value. And, conversely, our position then is having paid to market value, even though the market may change down the road, we expect that the player will play out his contract.
When asked about the team's expectations for Bob Sanders coming off another injury-plagued year:
I think its appropriate to say that the so-called rumor, or the whatever you want to call it, the unsubstantiated charge that Bob’s rehabilitation had hit a rough spot and that he wasn’t going to be ready, etc., etc., was proven wrong this morning if you saw him flying around. He was the same old Bob. Let’s hope that he stays that way. The rehabilitation is 100% on schedule. It was on schedule. There was nothing to the charge that he had hit a rough spot or had fallen behind or we were worried about him. I don’t know where that came from; certainly not someone in our organization.
I'm not sure how taking mini-shots at Mike Lombardi, the source of the story, was really "appropriate" there. Vincent never even mentioned Lombardi's name or his story in the question, which was about team expectations for Bob Sanders and Anthony Gonzalez. Bill was too worked up blabbing about proving Lombardi "wrong" to even answer the Gonzo question. But, whatever. I'll harp more on this later. As long as both Bob and Gonzo are healthy, I'm happy.
Finally, Bill talked about the most improved teams in the AFC. Last year, around this time, Bill said the Bengals were a playoff team. Several people "scoffed" at Bill's prediction. The Bengals won the AFC North division in 2009, and hosted a playoff game. This year, Bill's surprise team is... the Jaguars?
I see Jacksonville as both a very improved football team and a team that has changed 90 degrees in terms of their approach to personnel, their approach to playing the game. And they may not be a playoff team yet because this division is so strong, but they are gonna be probably THE most improved team certainly in this division and I would say without question in the AFC. [Tyson Alualu] is a terrific addition. Their draft, top to bottom, we thought was absolutely first rate. They’ve made great additions throughout the year. Last year, they took away the people that were non contributors. They moved them on. And Jack Del Rio and his general manager are right on the same page. And they’re doing a heck of job. Look for them to be a contender.
I'll admit I'm a little surprised by this prediction, but it does seem reasonably sound. However, while I'm sure Alualu is a good player, he was not a top ten pick. Top ten picks need to be difference makers, and unless Alualu is some kind of Warren Sapp 2.0, he was not a good pick at number 10.
That said, Bill is pretty good at judging teams before a ball is ever snapped. You can listen to the entire interview here.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No, I'm not
Please watch what you say, especially when you make baseless accusations like that. Spreading a “baseless rumor” seems to suggest that I believed Mike Lombardi without further looking into the story. This is what I wrote when the Lombardi story broke: “We’ll post more on this when we hear it. For me, the news changes nothing. I’m still cautiously optimistic about Bob Sanders, but I’m not confident.”
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
Accountability
Lombardi was apparently wrong in both of his ascertations that Sanders couldn’t play AND he took a pay cut. When questioned, he said he stood by his story.
He’s usually pretty well connected, which makes me really wonder who his source was? I know he’ll never say who, or admit he was wrong, but it points out there’s no accountability amongst those guys. They’ll report anything without confirming with a second source.
Accountability
Again, in general, Mike is usually spot on with several pieces. The issue here is he probably got some bad info from an inside source and just ran with it without fully checking the info. It happens to reporters and information people like Jay Glazer all the time. The “accountability” part if Lombardi will likely never listen to that “source” ever again.
Also, just FYI: Since getting exposed to how teams lie, cheat, and misuse information behind the scenes, it is extremely difficult for anyone to get a “second source” on breaking information. The system is set up so that he who “breaks” the story gets the glory. You can thank ESPN for that model. So, in the case of Mike not getting a second source, I think he gets a pass on that. Sometimes you just have to roll with what you have and hope it’s right.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
The way I read it
he didn’t say “a team source tells me there is a concern that Sanders may not play;” He just said “there is some concern he might not,” which is nothing more than his own speculation or an echoing of a talking point of fans. Unless he posted more on the topic or followed it up. I didn’t find it at all dishonest, though it surely also didn’t really warrant saying.
That said, I have no problem with Polian “attacking” it in return, because I’m sure once it was printed he got pestered about it endlessly and it pissed him off. It’s not really worth getting worked up over, but it’s showing itself to be untrue, and we all know how much human nature tends to influence fiery people like us to point out when someone else is wrong…
I don’t see why it’s a big deal on either end.
Cookie Cookie Cookie starts with C!
How can you defend a guy who reported a story that was incorrect or can not be verify? Who cares if that is how ESPN choses to report the news. I dont watch ESPN anymore b/c I am sick of how they covers sports. If other sites copy there style I dont see them lasting.
by Darren Watkins on Aug 3, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Polian just pointed out the false story
he didn’t say Lombardi’s name either (at least I didn’t hear it). He sounded neither “worked up” nor was he “blabbing”.
The story
He was pretty obviously referring to Lombardi. No one else was reporting on Sanders’ condition like that save Lombardi.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
and Polian was right in
saying Bob was out there hitting hard and that the story was false. I don’t see the issue and I don’t see how he was worked up or blabbing. Those characterizations make it seem like you are worked up.
Thank you coltus
Go back and re-read the story. When you do, kindly stop getting worked up yourself over semantics. The point was Polian seemed to oddly call out Lombardi’s story when the interviewer never brought it up. Polian talked about it so much that he didn’t even fully answer the interviewer’s question. For someone who often states he “doesn’t care” what the “prognosticators and the pundits” say or think, Polian sure seemed to care what Mike Lombardi wrote.
That’s the point of my comment. It’s not even that big of a big deal. In other news, Tom Santi was waived.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
Go back and re-read the story. When you do, kindly stop getting worked up yourself over semantics.
Honestly, it seems like in this case the semantics argument goes both ways. It could also be that he let Lombardi off easy by not directly mentioning it, a la
I don’t know where that came from; certainly not someone in our organization.
by lord gloom on Aug 2, 2010 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, Jags fan here
and I had no idea who he was talking about. I had heard the rumors about Bob but Polian certainly wasn’t calling out the guy who wrote them.
He couldn’t have been more vague and still answered the question. Heck, the rumor is the only reason for the question to be asked so not addressing it wouldn’t have been right either.
At some point
You need to get off your self righteous trip about Polian and the way he handles himself with regard to the media. Just as much as it gets old listening to Polian rant against the media or fans it gets just as tiresome for BBS to take open or veiled shot at Polin anytime his name is mentioned.
6-2, 185
by brown11b on Aug 2, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Reading Bill Polian quotes
is actually not a waste of time. Like Dungy, he always seems to answer sincerely and insightfully, and you always feel you know more about football after you’ve heard him speak.
Go BP! Screw the haters!
God hates the New England Patriots
by Juri on Aug 2, 2010 7:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It's not that big of a deal
but you are going to harp more on it later?
Also, I must point out that Big P most likely doesn’t give a hoot what the prognosticators and pundits think. I would bet my house that he is not scouring the web looking for thoughts on the Colts like we do. BUT, I would also bet my house that he got 50 phone calls after that little tidbit by Lombardi came out because this is the age of instant news and that makes any seeming innocuous little statement at the end of an article about Terrell Owens big news if it is spread around correctly (and it was). So, you cannot knock him for completely dispelling the mistruth.
Anyway, sucks about Santi but meh, he was always injured anyway.
by coltus on Aug 2, 2010 7:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
There's a difference between attacking the argument and attacking the arguer
I read Polians remark as doing the former, not the latter. But Brad, you wrote:
I’m not sure how taking mini-shots at Mike Lombardi, the source of the story, was really “appropriate” there
Are you really sure that’s a mini-shot at Lombardi himself? Yes, I know it’s patently obvious who’s story he was referring to, but the bulk of the refutation was around 1. Bob’s physicality in camp, and 2. The lack of substantiation for the charge that Sanders “… hit a rough spot or had fallen behind”. My point in bringing this up is to note that I’m having trouble seeing how that’s a shot at the writer himself; it reads more as a critique of the substance of the writer’s story. There is a difference between the two.
------
"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."
by E.M.H. on Aug 2, 2010 7:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree that it is crazy seeing Bradford and some other rookies get so much money.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
I agree, but as BBS pointed out, the player's union is all for it
And for obvious reasons too: It allows an upwards spiral of salaries. Personally, I’m for some way to improve things for veterans above and beyond what’s in place now, but I’m just a fan on the street.
------
"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."
It isn't that obvious to me
There is a limit on how much you can spend on players.
As such, the Union should want low wages for rookies, allowing for more money for veterans, which is what you see in all other union-regulated workplaces.
Of course, it may very well be that the few people making the big bucks indeed run the union to their own advantage – and to the detriment of the huge majority of veterans with average salaries.
God hates the New England Patriots
by Juri on Aug 2, 2010 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
nicely said
Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president
I read and transcribed the entire interview...
I didn’t get the impression that Bill was ever worked up, babbled, or wasted any of the interview time on unnecessary issues. In fact, he may have offered an answer about Gonzalez but JMV seemed more interested in moving on to the next question rather than get an answer. When he was interested in getting a specific answer to other topics, he pressed on, interjected, or made sure he continued the line of questioning that interested him.
Also, for whatever it is worth, I think the reason this sticks out to the readers of Stampede Blue is because the assertion/charge that Polian was taking shots at someone is stated directly in the title of the story. In this case, very little of the interview had anything to do with the story, and it’s questionable that he took a shot at all, so that’s why people are either responding negatively, or making a big deal out of semantics.
Either way, Colts football is back! YAY!
by bamock on Aug 2, 2010 10:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Get off it BBS
It looks to me like you are looking to argue. Just move on to something else. We know you aren’t a Polian fan and you were just repeating Lombardi’s story. He was wrong, no big deal. Focus on the football my friend.

by 













