For The Past Three Years, Mike Pollak Has Been BAD At His Job
Pro Football Focus continues their series of articles evaluating the play of offensive line, and we dive into their writings to see where Colts linemen are ranked.
While I agree with my friend and colleague Matt Grecco ('I hate subjective stats'), I think that PFF offers a point of view on football is is both unique and insightful. It's not the complete truth, but it does tell us something that is, in my opinion, worth discussing.
Plus, no one else is doing these kinds of evaluations; singling out players and determining if they were able to perform at a high level, or not. Yes, it's subjective. But, all player evaluations are.
PFF's article yesterday focused on offensive linemen playing for the last three years. I took particular interest in this because I wanted to see where the Colts 2008 second round pick, Mike Pollak, landed on the evaluation charts. I've never been a fan of Pollak's. For a high pick, he simply hasn't lived up to expectations. He's been benched twice in his three year career, and both times the person who replaced him was an undrafted rookie. And while Bill Polian might think that Pollak is 'a good contributor,' the reality is 'good contributors' don't get benched multiple times for inept play.
'Good contributors' also don't rank in the bottom 15 when grading their pass blocking efficiency.
Between 2008-2010, Mike Pollak was the 8th worst offensive guard in football. In 1,270 snaps, he surrendered 62 pressures for a rating of 3.76. Now, compare that with someone like Logan Mankins for the Patriots. Mankins played over 400 more snaps than Pollak, but surrendered only 54 pressures. Like the Colts, the Pats run a very pass happy system.
Pollak's ranking puts him just slightly worse than Floyd Womack, who is a pretty putrid guard.
For me, I don't see PFF's system as 'proof' Pollak stinks. I don't need proof. I watched the games, and I saw him stink up the Luke when he played. And, I wasn't the only one. Also, players who are 'good' don't get benched twice in one calendar year in favor of undrafted rookies than no one has heard of. The PFF evaluations simply offer another point of view, and it's one that agrees with what I think is the correct assessment: Mike Pollak is a bad football player who is, in essence, playing for his career this season. He did close the 2010 season strong, winning back his starting job (for the second time). So, there is hope for the former-Arizona State center, but I'm not holding my breath.
This is a big year for Pollak. If he wants to shake off that 'bust' label, he needs to go out there and dominate at his position. Jacques McClendon and Ben Ijalana weren't drafted just because the Polians liked the sound of their unique names. Also, Charlie Johnson is a natural guard, and Anthony Castonzo was drafted to take his place at left tackle. It's likely Charlie is going back to guard, which means Pollak has less of an opportunity to shake the 'bust' label.
Side note: Speaking of Charlie, he was ranked as the 14th worst left tackle from 2008-2010. He surrendered 150 QB pressures, second most behind Levi Brown. It really is amazing just how prolifically awesome Peyton Manning is. Bill Polian put utter garbage in front of him from 2008-2010, and yet Manning won two league MVPs and took the Colts to a Super Bowl with that. Unbelievable. Imagine if he'd have had a proper o-line during that span.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That sidenote is painful to think about.
Also on the list of things that are bitter pills.
What if Freeney doesn’t get hurt in ’07 and ’09?
What if Kelvin Hayden and/or Powers could have played the 4th quarter of SB XLIV?
What if the tragedy had not occurred during the ’05 season?
It just feels like we have been snake bitten out of at least 2 other Super Bowls. It makes me think about the one we did win. Thank God for that one.
Thank God for that one indeed
But honestly, that’s what makes this league great, parity. We’re not going to win back-to-back superbowls for the next 6 years – it’s just reality. At least with our front office, our roster and specifically #18 – we know we’ll have a chance to do that.
Can’t forget about Nick Harper running down the sideline or Shank Baskett staying on top of the onside kick.
by kferguson2002 on Jun 18, 2011 6:49 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Had to go back over the last three years...
Because the 2010 numbers were much better than 2008 and 2009. I’m not heralding Pollak as a great guard, but he was much better last year than in previous years. Him getting benched for Linkenbach was one of the worst benchings in recent memory, and the reason he was promptly back in the lineup was because he was the best option at right guard. He was actually playing okay before he got benched.
We should get off his back for now. He finished the season well, and we actually ran the ball well on the right side. We have some options at guard now, and maybe he won’t be a starter this season. Maybe it won’t even matter how good or bad he is. But it’s not exactly like he’s been the reason our line has sucked the past three years. It’s sucked because of injuries and some other personnel mismanagement. Give Pollak a break.
no
he wasnt playing ok when he was benched
its a sad day when colts fans think pollak has ever played ok. did you guys forget what a decent guard plays like?
So, your word is truth?
The numbers bear out that he played better in 2010 than he did the previous two years. Which is the entire reason BBS wrote this article, so that he could “prove” that Pollak isn’t a good guard with numbers. Had to use the numbers over the past three years because his 2010 numbers weren’t as bad as BBS expected them to be. And the reason for that, plain and simple, is that he wasn’t as bad in 2010 as people make him out to be.
If you want to be sensational about it, like BBS is being, and pretend that it’s either “Pro Bowl or bust” for Mike Pollak, go right ahead. But in reality, while he’s far from a Pro Bowler, he was playing fine last season before he was benched. And he played fine when he got back in the lineup. Blind insistence to the contrary is sad.
by Superman2k1 on Jun 20, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
So your word is truth?
The numbers bear out that he played better in 2010 than he did the previous two years. Which is the entire reason BBS wrote this article, so that he could "prove" that Pollak isn’t a good guard with numbers. Had to use the numbers over the past three years because his 2010 numbers weren’t as bad as BBS expected them to be. And the reason for that, plain and simple, is that he wasn’t as bad in 2010 as people make him out to be.
If you want to be sensational about it, like BBS is being, and pretend that it’s either "Pro Bowl or bust" for Mike Pollak, go right ahead. But in reality, while he’s far from a Pro Bowler, he was playing fine last season before he was benched. And he played fine when he got back in the lineup. Blind insistence to the contrary is sad.
by Superman2k1 on Jun 20, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

by 
































