My take on the management of the team

[pacolts56]

As an outside perspective, I have always gotten the sense that the Colts are in no man's land with their football philosophy. When Irsay released Manning and fired Polian and his staff, he was bent on winning a different way by building this monster of a run game and smash mouth defense. The problem is he drafted Luck who is a prolific QB and can sling it with the best of them. When they ask Luck to drop back and just throw it then it appears they are abandoning the new Irsay philosophy. When they are more conservative and run and try to play good defense but lose than they are scolded for not letting Luck loose.

 

I have never understood why Irsay was so staunch on doing things differently. I get the fact that he feels like Indy should have won more titles with Polian and Manning but a smart owner and GM understand where the strength of the team is and build around that. Now, I am not suggesting that they go back to just surrounding the QB with gobs of talent but I think maybe the mindset has to change and there needs to be balance in the approach. If they feel like they have to win a certain way versus just winning then that can cause problems from the very top down in terms of how they build their team and how they coach it in terms of scheme and play calls.

 

One other thing to consider. Dome teams traditionally have never been smash mouth. They have always been finesse, track teams. I think playing in a controlled environment has an effect on the psyche versus playing outdoors especially outdoors in a cold weather environment. In other words, a dome team in Indy is not going to morph into the mindset of an eastern team like the Ravens, Steelers or Pats. And I don't think they should either. I think there are benefits to both as dome teams have had great success doing things their way while outdoor teams have had success their way. I think what I am getting at is the Colts are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in their approach. That is my view anyways the last three years ...

I'm pretty sure this is what Irsay meant....and Grigson and Pagano are trying to make happen. Executing it in 3 seasons is easier said than done...and IMO, the next 24 months are make or break for both of them to succeed in executing the plan.

 

But under these guys, it's not an either/or mentality....and I believe you're somewhat confusing their recent results with their overall plan. Once Ahmad Bradshaw fell again to injury and Trent Richardson proved to be a "rolling ball of butter knives"....we had little choice but to lean on Andrew Luck. Again.

 

Now, during the Polian/Manning era....I DO believe there was a philosophical "pass heavy" approach not only to the offense, especially later in Manning's tenure in Indy....but also to the defense the entire time Manning was here, with a "get a 14 or 21-point lead and set Freeney and Mathis loose" template. 

 

It worked wonders in the regular season and then fell badly short in the playoffs against teams that could both run the ball....and stop the run. The memories of how often Manning would lead us to 3-minute TD drives, only to agonize for the next 8-10 minutes as our defense absolutely sucked against ball control offenses is still a source of aggravation to me....and something I DO NOT want to watch for another 10 years.

 

Striking out at drafting/signing/coaching-up impact players at both interior lines was, and is still a problem that better get fixed.

 

More often than not...Super Bowl champions have a credible measure and balance of all these capabilities.

 

The Colts fell particularly short on run defense and "smashmouth" rushing capability at very key, very specific times....and playoff exits were the result. Playoff exits versus San Diego and the SB loss to the Saints (a potential 10-point swing as the 1st half closed) are what I'm talking about.

 

IMO....the Colts management now have the right instinct in adding the balance of stout run defense and a "smashmouth" element to the ground game. They just need to finish off the job of doing it.

 

And one other thing....it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference what kind of stadium they play in. I won't argue that it may have played into the team's philosophy in the past....but if it did, then that part of the philosophy has been utterly discredited. 

 

It's still a game of keep-away....so whether fans attending the game stay warm and dry as opposed to cold and wet shouldn't have a damn thing to do with how a Super Bowl roster gets built.

[amfootball]

I'm pretty sure this is what Irsay meant....and Grigson and Pagano are trying to make happen. Executing it in 3 seasons is easier said than done...and IMO, the next 24 months are make or break for both of them to succeed in executing the plan.

 

But under these guys, it's not an either/or mentality....and I believe you're somewhat confusing their recent results with their overall plan. Once Ahmad Bradshaw fell again to injury and Trent Richardson proved to be a "rolling ball of butter knives"....we had little choice but to lean on Andrew Luck. Again.

 

Now, during the Polian/Manning era....I DO believe there was a philosophical "pass heavy" approach not only to the offense, especially later in Manning's tenure in Indy....but also to the defense the entire time Manning was here, with a "get a 14 or 21-point lead and set Freeney and Mathis loose" template. 

 

It worked wonders in the regular season and then fell badly short in the playoffs against teams that could both run the ball....and stop the run. The memories of how often Manning would lead us to 3-minute TD drives, only to agonize for the next 8-10 minutes as our defense absolutely sucked against ball control offenses is still a source of aggravation to me....and something I DO NOT want to watch for another 10 years.

 

Striking out at drafting/signing/coaching-up impact players at both interior lines was, and is still a problem that better get fixed.

 

More often than not...Super Bowl champions have a credible measure and balance of all these capabilities.

 

The Colts fell particularly short on run defense and "smashmouth" rushing capability at very key, very specific times....and playoff exits were the result. Playoff exits versus San Diego and the SB loss to the Saints (a potential 10-point swing as the 1st half closed) are what I'm talking about.

 

IMO....the Colts management now have the right instinct in adding the balance of stout run defense and a "smashmouth" element to the ground game. They just need to finish off the job of doing it.

 

And one other thing....it doesn't make a dimes worth of difference what kind of stadium they play in. I won't argue that it may have played into the team's philosophy in the past....but if it did, then that part of the philosophy has been utterly discredited. 

 

It's still a game of keep-away....so whether fans attending the game stay warm and dry as opposed to cold and wet shouldn't have a damn thing to do with how a Super Bowl roster gets built.

Thanks for the well articulated response. I think often owners and GMs can get stuck on what has been successful in the league and then lose of sight of the balance piece as you say. When I look at the Pats last year, it would be easy to look at the season and chalk the success up to finally getting an elite CB in Revis but that view is very short sighted IMO. The addition of LaFell and the emergence of Jamie Collins, Hightower and a retooled offensive line contributed as much or more so than Revis. The team overall got more physical and versatile and managed to stay healthy as well - a big key to any championship run.

 

I think what can be difficult to figure out in the off-season is how you want the team to take shape. I get that the Colts want to have a run game but have yet to build the offensive line to have a ground and pound run game like the Cowboys or Ravens. They want the smash mouth defense but did not add any of the smash guys in FA. Yet they did add two skill guys on the offensive side. This is what I mean by no man's land. Does the FO really want to commit to the monster or build around Luck? I think that part has to be figured out and as you say the next season will be a proving ground of sorts.

[pacolts56]

Thanks for the well articulated response. I think often owners and GMs can get stuck on what has been successful in the league and then lose of sight of the balance piece as you say. When I look at the Pats last year, it would be easy to look at the season and chalk the success up to finally getting an elite CB in Revis but that view is very short sighted IMO. The addition of LaFell and the emergence of Jamie Collins, Hightower and a retooled offensive line contributed as much or more so than Revis. The team overall got more physical and versatile and managed to stay healthy as well - a big key to any championship run.

 

I think what can be difficult to figure out in the off-season is how you want the team to take shape. I get that the Colts want to have a run game but have yet to build the offensive line to have a ground and pound run game like the Cowboys or Ravens. They want the smash mouth defense but did not add any of the smash guys in FA. Yet they did add two skill guys on the offensive side. This is what I mean by no man's land. Does the FO really want to commit to the monster or build around Luck? I think that part has to be figured out and as you say the next season will be a proving ground of sorts.

Briefly to your first point...Belichick and Co. did a very good job across the board fortifying their lineup. However, having a CB such as Revis and a cover S like McCourty makes coverage responsibilities of guys like Collins and the overall run-stopping/pass rush job of the Front 7 infinitely less difficult. And then there's guys like Malcolm Butler.

 

But under Grigson and Pagano, with Luck as our centerpiece, the teams are at two very different stages of roster/system/coaching maturity, and as well as Grigs and Pagano have done cobbling together enough talent around Luck to make encouraging strides....it's clear they have critical off-season choices to take the final step starting with these FA signings and this weekend's draft.

 

You bring up fair points as far as the Colts not decisively addressing the "smash mouth" piece in FA....but I DO think our rushing attack with the addition of Gore, Herremans up front, added development for Mewhort and Holmes, and perhaps a solid young RT and RB thru the draft could hopefully begin to solve THAT side of the ball. Andre Johnson, at the very least, commands attention opposite TY Hilton.

 

Run defense is another story....we clearly need more "down the middle" physical talent at NT/ILB/SS. I for one was hoping we'd land Haloti Ngata at a decent price, but it looks like once Ozzie Newsome realized the Ravens were at an impasse with Ngata, he had no intentions of him winding up anywhere near an AFC rival.

 

IMO, Grigson and Pagano need to stay with the "monster" philosophy, but do a better job making it happen in both their capacities. And for me....another 24 months is a fair time frame.

[ProblChld32]

I think people fail to realize that they are doing the best with what they currently have. When a team has gone through a rebuilding phase it takes a minimum of 3-5 years to get the pieces to the puzzle. Everything cant be done in a season or two. If you look at the past seasons we are improving as a team. Management is doing the best with what they are given. 

[Superman]

Does the FO really want to commit to the monster or build around Luck?

 

It's not an either/or proposition. 

[amfootball]

It's not an either/or proposition. 

It seems to be according to Irsay.

[Superman]

It seems to be according to Irsay.

 

Then you misunderstood Irsay.

[amfootball]

Then you misunderstood Irsay.

He was pretty clear when he released Manning and fired Polian about how he wanted to win going forward.

[Superman]

He was pretty clear when he released Manning and fired Polian about how he wanted to win going forward.

 

So, by releasing Manning and firing Polian, you believe he signaled that he doesn't want to build around Luck?

 

The departure from Manning and Polian has nothing to do with whether he wants to build around Luck "or" have a balanced, physical football team. He wants to build a balanced, physical football team around Luck.

[amfootball]

So, by releasing Manning and firing Polian, you believe he signaled that he doesn't want to build around Luck?

 

The departure from Manning and Polian has nothing to do with whether he wants to build around Luck "or" have a balanced, physical football team. He wants to build a balanced, physical football team around Luck.

His comments from two years ago when he said he did not want Star War numbers anymore and specifically cited the Pats, Giants, Ravens and Steelers as teams that have the model he wans to emulate. That does not mean he is not going to build around Luck but he does not want the same model that Polian had with Manning. But yet Luck is as prolific as Manning and may end up breaking the marks that Manning set last year and will set this year. This is why I say it is no man's land. Of course the goal is to build as balanced a team as you can but in the cap/FA era there will be holes and you have to decide where you will focus.

[Superman]

His comments from two years ago when he said he did not want Star War numbers anymore and specifically cited the Pats, Giants, Ravens and Steelers as teams that have the model he wans to emulate. That does not mean he is not going to build around Luck but he does not want the same model that Polian had with Manning. But yet Luck is as prolific as Manning and may end up breaking the marks that Manning set last year and will set this year. This is why I say it is no man's land. Of course the goal is to build as balanced a team as you can but in the cap/FA era there will be holes and you have to decide where you will focus.

 

 

Irsay didn't say he didn't want Star Wars numbers. He said wanted a balanced team that has a better chance at winning multiple championships.

 

At no point has Irsay implied that building around the QB or having a strong passing game isn't what he wants. The point is that the other aspects of the team -- consistent running game, strong defense, good special teams -- need to be better. Polian was fired because, over 14 seasons, he didn't build a balanced team. Manning was released because between his injury status and contract status, and Luck's availability, there was a perfect storm. It wasn't a repudiation of building around the QB or having a prolific passing attack. 

 

As I said, it's not an either/or proposition. Irsay wants a balanced team around his QB. It's quite simple, really.

[amfootball]

 

Irsay didn't say he didn't want Star Wars numbers. He said wanted a balanced team that has a better chance at winning multiple championships.

Semantics. He correlated Star War numbers with not winning rings. You can't have both is his point and he would rather focus on the balanced team than the star war numbers. The problem is he has the QB to put up those numbers ...

[Jason_]

Semantics. He correlated Star War numbers with not winning rings. You can't have both is his point and he would rather focus on the balanced team than the star war numbers. The problem is he has the QB to put up those numbers ...

 

so now having a good franchise QB is a problem?  that puts you in "no man's land" now?  is it preseason yet?

[Valpo2004]

O-line is better then a lot of people think it is.  Boom Herron who's not considered a top RB by any means gained 4.5 ypc last year.  That's better then Marshawn Lynch's ypc the year they won the superbowl.

 

I'm not saying Herron is as good as Lynch because a huge part of being a top RB is handling a 280+ carry workload and compiling a lot of yards like Lynch does and so far Herron has not handled anything close to Lynch's workload.

 

But I do think our O-line is better then most people think it is.  And for a while I was one of the ones that wanted to blame it on the O-line for a while, but really we just need an RB with vision.  But Herron shows those yards can be gained like that.

[Superman]

Semantics. He correlated Star War numbers with not winning rings. You can't have both is his point and he would rather focus on the balanced team than the star war numbers. The problem is he has the QB to put up those numbers ...

 

It's not semantics. It's a proper understanding of what he said, rather than reading headlines and forming a stubborn opinion.

 

You can jump to conclusions if you wish, but that doesn't make what you're saying true. He didn't say you can't have both, nor did he imply that he wouldn't want to build around his QB. You are completely missing the point, as are many.

 

Having a great QB is NEVER a problem.

[amfootball]

It's not semantics. It's a proper understanding of what he said, rather than reading headlines and forming a stubborn opinion.

 

You can jump to conclusions if you wish, but that doesn't make what you're saying true. He didn't say you can't have both, nor did he imply that he wouldn't want to build around his QB. You are completely missing the point, as are many.

 

Having a great QB is NEVER a problem.

I am quite certain of what he said and what he meant. And who ever said having a great QB is a problem? But you still have to figure out how you are going to build the team. Both the Pats and Seahawks were flawed last year yet built their teams to be able to cover the flaws and contend for the ring. There is no such thing as the balanced team in the cap/FA era so you have to shade toward one side or the other and certainly having a great QB goes a long way to covering up many weaknesses on a team but in the Colts case shading toward Luck willl make this regime look the same as the old one which is what Irsay does not want. He made that abundantly clear. He will sacrifice Star Wars numbers for rings. Because he knows you can't have both in this era.

[Jason_]

He will sacrifice Star Wars numbers for rings. Because he knows you can't have both in this era.

 

Really?  How can a Pats fan say that with a straight face?

[Superman]

I am quite certain of what he said and what he meant. And who ever said having a great QB is a problem? But you still have to figure out how you are going to build the team. Both the Pats and Seahawks were flawed last year yet built their teams to be able to cover the flaws and contend for the ring. There is no such thing as the balanced team in the cap/FA era so you have to shade toward one side or the other and certainly having a great QB goes a long way to covering up many weaknesses on a team but in the Colts case shading toward Luck willl make this regime look the same as the old one which is what Irsay does not want. He made that abundantly clear. He will sacrifice Star Wars numbers for rings. Because he knows you can't have both in this era.

 

You are not, evidently. Because several times you've said that he said something he didn't, and that he meant something he didn't. Sorry, but you're plain wrong.

 

And you said, literally: The problem is he has the QB to put up those numbers

 

Both the Pats and the Seahawks are more balanced than the Colts. Perfect balance is rare, but it's the ideal to strive for. Doesn't mean you purposely or consciously undermine the things you already do well. It means you get better at the things that are lacking. Polian had 14 years to do so, and never did. Grigson has had 3 years. It's really premature to start holding Grigson against the ideal of what Irsay wished Polian had done over the course of 14 years.

 

Also, to the "he knows you can't have both" line, please stop. Teams with good passing attacks win Super Bowls, if they are balanced. It is not one or the other. This is a flawed premise to begin with.

[amfootball]

You are not, evidently. Because several times you've said that he said something he didn't, and that he meant something he didn't. Sorry, but you're plain wrong.

 

And you said, literally: The problem is he has the QB to put up those numbers

 

Both the Pats and the Seahawks are more balanced than the Colts. Perfect balance is rare, but it's the ideal to strive for. Doesn't mean you purposely or consciously undermine the things you already do well. It means you get better at the things that are lacking. Polian had 14 years to do so, and never did. Grigson has had 3 years. It's really premature to start holding Grigson against the ideal of what Irsay wished Polian had done over the course of 14 years.

 

Also, to the "he knows you can't have both" line, please stop. Teams with good passing attacks win Super Bowls, if they are balanced. It is not one or the other. This is a flawed premise to begin with.

I think may be the fan base may be setting itself up for disappointment if there is an expectation that Grigson will surpass Polian's success. I realize I may be in the minority on those that think Polian did a great job as your GM but perhaps Grigson is up against it as really the only way he can surpass Polian is to reach three SBs and win two of them while continuing to win in the double digits every season ...

[Superman]

I think may be the fan base may be setting itself up for disappointment if there is an expectation that Grigson will surpass Polian's success. I realize I may be in the minority on those that think Polian did a great job as your GM but perhaps Grigson is up against it as really the only way he can surpass Polian is to reach three SBs and win two of them while continuing to win in the double digits every season ...

 

I don't think Irsay is trying to manage expectations with the fan base. He's setting lofty expectations himself, privately and publicly. He wants a consistent Super Bowl contender, hopefully one that wins multiple championships each decade. That's his stated objective.

 

That's why I don't understand the comparison to Polian in the first place. Grigson doesn't have to just do better than Polian. He and his entire staff have to put out a product that meets Irsay's expectations, and those don't really have anything to do with Polian. Whether Polian was great or not, Grigson needs to do the job he was hired to do. It's not about making the fans happy, it's about making Irsay happy.

[amfootball]

I don't think Irsay is trying to manage expectations with the fan base. He's setting lofty expectations himself, privately and publicly. He wants a consistent Super Bowl contender, hopefully one that wins multiple championships each decade. That's his stated objective.

 

That's why I don't understand the comparison to Polian in the first place. Grigson doesn't have to just do better than Polian. He and his entire staff have to put out a product that meets Irsay's expectations, and those don't really have anything to do with Polian. Whether Polian was great or not, Grigson needs to do the job he was hired to do. It's not about making the fans happy, it's about making Irsay happy.

I think it is more how he is getting there that is the issue. I think once he moved on from Manning and Polian he felt the need to try to justify those moves to the fanbase beyond just saying it was a football decision. And as owner he acutely understands that he needs to satisfy his fanbase. His expectations don't exist in a vacuum and in the end he really wants to make money like all owners and that comes via the fans ...

[Superman]

I think it is more how he is getting there that is the issue. I think once he moved on from Manning and Polian he felt the need to try to justify those moves to the fanbase beyond just saying it was a football decision. And as owner he acutely understands that he needs to satisfy his fanbase. His expectations don't exist in a vacuum and in the end he really wants to make money like all owners and that comes via the fans ...

 

I don't think that he felt the need to justify getting rid of Polian. The Colts had already gone 11-5 and were 5-3 in 2013 when Irsay made those comments. There was little question among the fanbase about why Polian was fired, and even less about whether it was a good decision. Grigson was Exec of the Year, Luck was awesome, the Colts had rebounded, and things looked good. 

 

Irsay's expectations are what Grigson's job performance will be measured against. Irsay telling the fans that he wants to have a perennial contender and multiple rings is separate. And even if you find it overly ambitious, that doesn't change what Irsay's expectations are.

 

Again, it's really simple. I don't know how much contorting needs to be done to understand that Irsay wants a balanced team around his franchise QB. He felt that was lacking last time, and wants it done better this time, because he wants to have a better shot at winning multiple championships over a long stretch of time. I think it takes contorting to miss the point, actually. 

[12dalegend]

We will see if they are serious about what they say with the first pick in the draft. If it's not a lineman or safety then I'm gonna

be disappointed in thinking they are truly wanting to steer from their old philosophy. We are making gains in the playoffs, but the

running game on both sides of the ball are stopping us from getting over the hump.

 

You're right, it's good to be a Colts fan. We may be spoiled but we have a QB that can win multiples if they get the right blueprint.

I would like a S but if Collins is gone thereʻs no other S worth taking in the 1st but  if a good CB is available Iʻd take him instead of a DL, we have a young promising bunch that are developing but if not then DL or OL but if Gurley or Gordon is available at that pick it could be interesting   

[amfootball]

 

Again, it's really simple. I don't know how much contorting needs to be done to understand that Irsay wants a balanced team around his franchise QB. He felt that was lacking last time, and wants it done better this time, because he wants to have a better shot at winning multiple championships over a long stretch of time. I think it takes contorting to miss the point, actually. 

I think because there are many ways to skin a cat. When you have a stud QB you typically ride him into the sunset. This "balanced" team mantra really is just owner speak. Everyone wants balance to a point but every team with the exception of a handful that already have elite QBs would trade in all of it to have Luck at the helm. And there in lies the quandary I think for Irsay and Grigson. A team not built around Luck looks forced and will most likely not be unsuccessful. A team built around Luck that wins the Super Bowl will draw the comparisons to Polian/Manning. My point is not sure if Irsay can have his cake and eat it too and I think his desire to win differently compromises Grigson to a certain extent. I mean afterall as flawed as you seem to think Polian's model was, it yielded a championship, a shot at a perfect season that was not sought after, and double digit wins year after year. Whatever flaws there were still produced a team that was better than every single other team in the league in the '00s decade except for the Pats.

[Coltscrazy]

Grigs bld the lines plz,

 

 I think there are more of us than it seems.  Amen to winning the line of scrimmage.  I get that Grigs is trying, and I am spoiled to be a Colts fan.  I have heard some strange things lately on building an OL.  Some say talent doesn't matter.  Some say fans don't want to watch people run the ball.  The biggest argument is the one AM Football is refering to, that running the ball wastes Luck's talent.  The argument is to get a line that is just good enough to pass block and let Luck win it for you.  History shows that this will not work.  To further this argument, we say sure we can't run the ball, but we will give Luck an elite defense so that he can still score enough to win it for us. 

 

Like I said, I know Grigs is trying, and I will keep the faith.  Keep investing in the trenches, and we will get results.  I wouldn't just settle for a few mid round guys though and say problem solved.  Just because we spent one third rounder on an OL doesn't mean we are not allowed to spend another 3rd for the next ten years on that position. 

 

Control the line, control the game.

[Coltscrazy]

amfootball,

 

Balance does seem to be a huge problem under the cap.  Many believe that a team can build every area, and that there are no restrictions, but you do have to pick your battles.  Just because we have a great QB doesn't mean we have to play fairy ball or we are wasting Luck's talent.  If we give Luck the line of scrimmage, I am convinced this can put the Colt's over the top.  I agree the cap is restrictive, but I would not neglect the Oline.  If we put our money at those six positions, and fill everything else out to the best of our ability, with a slight shade to defense, then I think that gives us the best chance to win the title.   If I had to choose between Luck and an elite defense or Luck with an elite Oline, I'd definately go with the line.  The sad thing is, we do have to choose.  You can't have everything. 

[Superman]

I think because there are many ways to skin a cat. When you have a stud QB you typically ride him into the sunset. This "balanced" team mantra really is just owner speak. Everyone wants balance to a point but every team with the exception of a handful that already have elite QBs would trade in all of it to have Luck at the helm. And there in lies the quandary I think for Irsay and Grigson. A team not built around Luck looks forced and will most likely not be unsuccessful. A team built around Luck that wins the Super Bowl will draw the comparisons to Polian/Manning. My point is not sure if Irsay can have his cake and eat it too and I think his desire to win differently compromises Grigson to a certain extent. I mean afterall as flawed as you seem to think Polian's model was, it yielded a championship, a shot at a perfect season that was not sought after, and double digit wins year after year. Whatever flaws there were still produced a team that was better than every single other team in the league in the '00s decade except for the Pats.

 

Let me say this another way then: Building around a great QB and having a balanced roster are not mutually exclusive.

 

You can have an effective running game, a good defense, and a great QB. The hardest one to get is the QB, actually. I don't know why we're acting like the other aspects are unobtainable. I'm not saying it's easy and just a snap of the fingers, but once you have the QB, everything else opens up to you much more readily.

 

And that's really what Irsay's point is. All these teams in the league that would kill to have an elite QB, and here he continually has one, and is always in the playoffs, but only has one ring. He wants more. The QB isn't the problem, it's building out the rest of the roster. I'm not here to take shots at Polian, but it's not hard to look back at his rosters and see that they had some issues. Some of those issues -- defense and special teams -- never got fixed. Irsay says 'I have the QB, now I want the other stuff, too.' As a matter of fact, Irsay said that they won the Super Bowl because the defense got hot and the run game was clicking, and that he knows that you have to have those things to win. It's not "win differently;" it's "win more, and here's what we need to do." 

 

It's not a quandary. It doesn't put Grigson in a tough situation, and even if it does, who cares? You have a leg up already with one of the best QB prospects ever; deal with it. Lofty expectations are inevitable when you have a great QB. If you can't handle it, go back to being a scout where you don't have to deal with the pressures of the job. Grigson knew what he signed up for, and he knows what he committed to when he accepted the job. Having the QB makes his job easier, not harder.

[Superman]

amfootball,

 

Balance does seem to be a huge problem under the cap.  

 

I have to nitpick this. You said later in this post that the cap is restrictive, and I obviously agree with that.

 

But the real key is that you have to draft well. It's really as simple as that. If you have the QB, and you nail the draft, and your coaching staff knows what they're doing, you can have a balanced roster. It's a continual process, because you're always making cap-based sacrifices and losing players to free agency, so it's not like you can just build a balanced roster and then say "whew, got that out of the way." You have to continually draft well, develop players, and manage your cap.

 

The Ravens are an excellent example of this. They don't have a perfect roster, but they have a good balance of offense and defense. Put Luck on that team, and they might be the best in the league. 

 

Once Luck gets into his second contract, the importance of drafting well is further heightened. It's not that it's easy to execute, but the formula is simple. 

[zibby43]

Teams that have won Super Bowls recently have been good in the trenches.  They've had good ground games as well.

 

What do they also have?  Damn good QBs - Brady, Wilson, Flacco, E. Manning, Rodgers, Drew Brees, Roethlisberger, P. Manning.

 

IMHO, it's much harder to find a SB-caliber QB than it is to build a SB-worthy ground game/defense.

 

We will get there.  We will have our opportunities. 

[C0LT5]

To be clear,  the efforts have not paid off.   At least,  not yet.   Hopefully we all see improvement in guys like Holmes, Thornton,  Cherilus (if healthy)   Thomas (if healthy)   Herremans,  Reitz, Heenan,   Harrison....    am I leaving anyone out?

 

Only Hughes, Chapman, Kerr and Heenan.

[amfootball]

Let me say this another way then: Building around a great QB and having a balanced roster are not mutually exclusive.

 

You can have an effective running game, a good defense, and a great QB. The hardest one to get is the QB, actually. I don't know why we're acting like the other aspects are unobtainable. I'm not saying it's easy and just a snap of the fingers, but once you have the QB, everything else opens up to you much more readily.

 

And that's really what Irsay's point is. All these teams in the league that would kill to have an elite QB, and here he continually has one, and is always in the playoffs, but only has one ring. He wants more. The QB isn't the problem, it's building out the rest of the roster. I'm not here to take shots at Polian, but it's not hard to look back at his rosters and see that they had some issues. Some of those issues -- defense and special teams -- never got fixed. Irsay says 'I have the QB, now I want the other stuff, too.' As a matter of fact, Irsay said that they won the Super Bowl because the defense got hot and the run game was clicking, and that he knows that you have to have those things to win. It's not "win differently;" it's "win more, and here's what we need to do." 

 

It's not a quandary. It doesn't put Grigson in a tough situation, and even if it does, who cares? You have a leg up already with one of the best QB prospects ever; deal with it. Lofty expectations are inevitable when you have a great QB. If you can't handle it, go back to being a scout where you don't have to deal with the pressures of the job. Grigson knew what he signed up for, and he knows what he committed to when he accepted the job. Having the QB makes his job easier, not harder.

Perhaps the disagreement here is that I think Polian had SB worthy rosters but fell short for a myriad of reasons. It is hard to blame him for Roethlisberger making a game saving tackle while running backwards or Sean Payton deciding to pull an onsides kick at half of the SB along with Freeney's injury that completely changed the second half of that game. So many great teams and QBs have had one SB win like Favre or none like Marino, Kelly and Tarkenton.

 

As you say, it is easier said than done and maybe when Grigson's tenure is over Polian may be more lauded among Colts fans for the job he did year in and year out.

[NewColtsFan]

Only Hughes, Chapman, Kerr and Heenan.

 

In this particular sentence, I was referring to the OL.

 

Sorry for the confusion.....

[Archer]

It cracks me up when I read post whining that management is purblind because the lines aren't good enough.  It's not like they haven't tried to build the lines.  Heck a 2nd round OG last year and a 3rd and 4th round interior lineman the year before.  A top RT three years ago.  We've put a lot of resources towards the OL in recent years, but you can't wave a wand and say, "Let them all be Pro Bowers!"  On the DL, we spent a lot of Money on Redding, Jones, RJF, and Langford in the last three years,  Management hasn't ignored the needs, and I think it's highly likely that both lines will play better this year...

[Warhorse]

It cracks me up when I read post whining that management is purblind because the lines aren't good enough.  It's not like they haven't tried to build the lines.  Heck a 2nd round OG last year and a 3rd and 4th round interior lineman the year before.  A top RT three years ago.  We've put a lot of resources towards the OL in recent years, but you can't wave a wand and say, "Let them all be Pro Bowers!"  On the DL, we spent a lot of Money on Redding, Jones, RJF, and Langford in the last three years,  Management hasn't ignored the needs, and I think it's highly likely that both lines will play better this year...

Or that fans feel they have to defend these actions to others or on the other hand to degrade them. Could not be more proud of the front office. They have done wonders in three years. I would not trade Grigs for any GM in the NFL. His future in bright. 

[Archer]

Or that fans feel they have to defend these actions to others or on the other hand to degrade them. Could not be more proud of the front office. They have done wonders in three years. I would not trade Grigs for any GM in the NFL. His future in bright. 

I agree.  What he's gotten right has far outweighed what he got wrong.

[BOTT]

Or that fans feel they have to defend these actions to others or on the other hand to degrade them. Could not be more proud of the front office. They have done wonders in three years. I would not trade Grigs for any GM in the NFL. His future in bright.

You wouldn't trade Grigson for Ozzie Newsome? Ok........

[Grigs build the lines plz.]

Grigs bld the lines plz,

 

 I think there are more of us than it seems.  Amen to winning the line of scrimmage.  I get that Grigs is trying, and I am spoiled to be a Colts fan.  I have heard some strange things lately on building an OL.  Some say talent doesn't matter.  Some say fans don't want to watch people run the ball.  The biggest argument is the one AM Football is refering to, that running the ball wastes Luck's talent.  The argument is to get a line that is just good enough to pass block and let Luck win it for you.  History shows that this will not work.  To further this argument, we say sure we can't run the ball, but we will give Luck an elite defense so that he can still score enough to win it for us. 

 

Like I said, I know Grigs is trying, and I will keep the faith.  Keep investing in the trenches, and we will get results.  I wouldn't just settle for a few mid round guys though and say problem solved.  Just because we spent one third rounder on an OL doesn't mean we are not allowed to spend another 3rd for the next ten years on that position. 

 

Control the line, control the game.

Couldn't agree more with your post, especially in red. ^ Having an elite defense would be nice also

[wig]

My only hope is they start using the majority of the resources on defense. With Luck, the offense will be good but we need more than one playmaker on D.

[southwest1]

As an outside perspective, I have always gotten the sense that the Colts are in no man's land with their football philosophy. When Irsay released Manning and fired Polian and his staff, he was bent on winning a different way by building this monster of a run game and smash mouth defense. The problem is he drafted Luck who is a prolific QB and can sling it with the best of them. When they ask Luck to drop back and just throw it then it appears they are abandoning the new Irsay philosophy. When they are more conservative and run and try to play good defense but lose than they are scolded for not letting Luck loose.

 

I have never understood why Irsay was so staunch on doing things differently. I get the fact that he feels like Indy should have won more titles with Polian and Manning but a smart owner and GM understand where the strength of the team is and build around that. Now, I am not suggesting that they go back to just surrounding the QB with gobs of talent but I think maybe the mindset has to change and there needs to be balance in the approach. If they feel like they have to win a certain way versus just winning then that can cause problems from the very top down in terms of how they build their team and how they coach it in terms of scheme and play calls.

 

One other thing to consider. Dome teams traditionally have never been smash mouth. They have always been finesse, track teams. I think playing in a controlled environment has an effect on the psyche versus playing outdoors especially outdoors in a cold weather environment. In other words, a dome team in Indy is not going to morph into the mindset of an eastern team like the Ravens, Steelers or Pats. And I don't think they should either. I think there are benefits to both as dome teams have had great success doing things their way while outdoor teams have had success their way. I think what I am getting at is the Colts are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in their approach. That is my view anyways the last three years ...

I liked your post AMF until I got to your 3rd paragraph & that nonsense about "finesse" dome track teams. It's not like players under Jim Mora, Tony Dungy, Jim Caldwell, or Chuck Pagano never practiced outside in chilly temperatures. Perhaps, you were trying to make the point that always practicing outside toughens a team up so NE has never practiced indoors during severe lightning huh? 

 

I always find it funny how people love to watch SBs in a dome, but if your stadium has a roof on it you're automatically considered a wuss & soft as a club? Seriously? You believe that hogwash really? Sigh...You're entitled to your opinion naturally & I'm free to respectfully disagree with your overall conclusion my friend. 

 

I seem to recall head coach Bill Belichick getting fired as head coach of the Browns at First Energy Stadium in Ohio & that outdoor environment didn't garner or generate him any Lombardi trophies. A QB named Brady did. 

 

[southwest1]

Let me say this another way then: Building around a great QB and having a balanced roster are not mutually exclusive.

 

You can have an effective running game, a good defense, and a great QB. The hardest one to get is the QB, actually. I don't know why we're acting like the other aspects are unobtainable. I'm not saying it's easy and just a snap of the fingers, but once you have the QB, everything else opens up to you much more readily.

 

And that's really what Irsay's point is. All these teams in the league that would kill to have an elite QB, and here he continually has one, and is always in the playoffs, but only has one ring. He wants more. The QB isn't the problem, it's building out the rest of the roster. I'm not here to take shots at Polian, but it's not hard to look back at his rosters and see that they had some issues. Some of those issues -- defense and special teams -- never got fixed. Irsay says 'I have the QB, now I want the other stuff, too.' As a matter of fact, Irsay said that they won the Super Bowl because the defense got hot and the run game was clicking, and that he knows that you have to have those things to win. It's not "win differently;" it's "win more, and here's what we need to do." 

 

It's not a quandary. It doesn't put Grigson in a tough situation, and even if it does, who cares? You have a leg up already with one of the best QB prospects ever; deal with it. Lofty expectations are inevitable when you have a great QB. If you can't handle it, go back to being a scout where you don't have to deal with the pressures of the job. Grigson knew what he signed up for, and he knows what he committed to when he accepted the job. Having the QB makes his job easier, not harder.

Bingo Superman, our former GM never focused on Special Teams like he should have. A point that rarely gets mentioned & I'm not taking about Adam or Pat either. I'm taking about punt returns & blocking downfield creating the running lanes to maneuver thru. Typically, our special teams has been an achilles heel for a long time & a shorter distance to a TD in the endzone is always paradise to any franchise QB.