This Is Eerily Familiar....

[TrueBlueHorseshoe]

Is there anything wrong with a decade of unprecedented success?  One Super Bowl is still one more than a lot of teams got in that era. You can't win them all, and like it or not pure chance plays a big part in winning.

[dgambill]

We have this thread every other week.

just wait until we lose our first game of the season then I'm sure we will really hear it. People just have subjective recollection or plain and simple don't understand football at its core I find. They forget that the offense failed to move the ball...defense racking up more and more minutes even on a short field. You put any defense on the field that long and it's going to start missing tackles and looking like Swiss cheese. I also seem to remember grigson going out and signing solid to big name free agents like redding, d Jackson, Arthur jones, toler, Landry, cole, Langford trading for Davis drafting Werner in the first....how has he neglected the defense? He replaced a whole roster and for every dollar he has spent on the offense he has spent more on the defense...I guess we should just not re-sign luck next year and use that money on defense....maybe trade for jj watts. Grigsons moves haven't all been great but to suggest he hasn't been even handed is laughable at best IMO.

[theanarchist]

"Playmakers" win football games in the NFL. Most games come down to a handful of big plays and the team that has the most playmakers usually wins.  We have several on the offensive side of the ball. We have one, maybe 2 on defense. That's Mathis, when he returns, and Davis. We can get by with good, solid, average at a lot of places but we need to add another playermaker to the defense.

 

When you compare this team to the Peyton era teams you cant even compare this defense to that defense in terms of playmakers because Peyton's defenses, after 2002, included Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis and Bob Sanders when he was healthy that is. Mathis and Freeney were always near the top of league leaders in sacks and Sanders had a DPOY in 2006 i believe it was. As it stands right now we don't have near that type of production from anyone on the defense. If MAthis comes back and plays back to form, and thats a big IF, then we gain a playmaker but otherwise this defense is just average to below average a lot of positions.

[Restored]

"Playmakers" win football games in the NFL. We have several on the offensive side of the ball. We have one, maybe 2 on defense. That's Mathis, when he returns, and Davis. We can get by with good, solid, average at a lot of placed but we need to add another playermaker to the defense.

 

When you compare this team to the Peyton era teams you cant even compare this defense to that defense in terms of playmakers because Peyton's defenses, after 2002, included Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis and Bob Sanders when he was healthy that is. Mathis and Freeney were always near the top of league leaders in sacks and Sanders had a DPOY in 2006 i believe it was. As it stands right now we don't have near that type of production from anyone on the defense. If MAthis comes back and plays back to form, and thats a big IF, then we gain a playmaker but otherwise this defense is just average to below average a lot of positions.

 

Completely agree. For all the flack that Polian got for only building one side of the ball, he atleast was able to get some playmakers on the defensive side of the ball. Grigson has yet to do that.

[deedub75]

Grigson just seems to have no backup plan.  He makes splashes in free agency to improve the O line and defense but never seems acquire any good depth when those players go down.  It seems like he signs good players and crosses his fingers hoping they don't get hurt.  

[BOTT]

Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." I really thought the Colts had learned from past mistakes, but unfortunately, the team's blueprint during the Manning and Luck eras looks eerily similar.

I will say that Manning had a much better o-line early in his career than Luck has had so far. I think 2008 was the beginning of Indy's o-line troubles as the run blocking suffered greatly and Manning had to get rid of the ball much quicker when the pass blocking went south as well.

...and yes...Luck has had better postseason success early (3-3 start vs Manning not getting a win until season 6). It also seems that we've been blown out more in games during the Pagano era. Even when we lost against the Pats with Dungy/Caldwell, the games were close up until the 2012 season.

I'm really curious to see how the run game develops this season because a solid run game will allow us to sustain drives, eat some clock, and make us consistent. Also, our 3rd down D greatly improved last season, but disappeared in the playoffs against the Pats. Those areas need to show up in the playoffs if we want a successful Super Bowl run.

You started with a sentence that isn't true. Just nitpicking

[12dalegend]

This is an interesting debate and there are two ways to look at it.  I'm not here to say one is right or one is wrong, but rather to explain both sides of it.

 

On the one hand, when you have a great QB talent like Luck or Peyton Manning, you want to surround them with as much offensive talent as possible to get the most out of their abilities.  Give him good receivers and good running backs and all that so he can do his job as easily as possible and really reaches his potential.

 

On the other hand, great QBs can make the guys around them better.  You can give Luck guys like Griff Whalen, and Trent Richardson, and he will still play well.  Given that, you want to boost your team with greater investments in areas your QB can't control, like the defense.  It will make the QBs job more difficult because he's playing with subpar talent, but you'll have a more complete team. 

 

I personally advocate for the latter method, but some people say you should focus on your strengths and do your best to get the most out of your once-in-a-decade QB.  I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.  However, no matter what you do, you'll never please everyone.  If you invest heavily in defense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your great QB to play with mediocre talent.  If you invest heavily in offense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your QB/your offense to carry your team.

We should be glad or shall I say Lucky to have drafted two tremendous QBʻs...1st Manning....and now Luck....most teams are not so fortunate....now we can concentrate on the defense in next yearʻs FA or draft GO COLTS!

[cbear]

Maybe that's just the way things unfolded.  If you believe that Polian and Grigson draft BPA, then this could happen.  Reggie, Dallas on up to Dorsett this year. 

[JPFolks]

This is an interesting debate and there are two ways to look at it.  I'm not here to say one is right or one is wrong, but rather to explain both sides of it.

 

On the one hand, when you have a great QB talent like Luck or Peyton Manning, you want to surround them with as much offensive talent as possible to get the most out of their abilities.  Give him good receivers and good running backs and all that so he can do his job as easily as possible and really reaches his potential.

 

On the other hand, great QBs can make the guys around them better.  You can give Luck guys like Griff Whalen, and Trent Richardson, and he will still play well.  Given that, you want to boost your team with greater investments in areas your QB can't control, like the defense.  It will make the QBs job more difficult because he's playing with subpar talent, but you'll have a more complete team. 

 

I personally advocate for the latter method, but some people say you should focus on your strengths and do your best to get the most out of your once-in-a-decade QB.  I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.  However, no matter what you do, you'll never please everyone.  If you invest heavily in defense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your great QB to play with mediocre talent.  If you invest heavily in offense, you'll have people who say you're forcing your QB/your offense to carry your team.

How about a little better balance.  I think a great run game plus a great defense would make Luck's job VERY easy even with a corps of Griff Whalen's, but they don't seem to do it.  So if you are not going to build what Pep coaches or what Pagano COULD coach on Defense, we're going to be like most great offensive teams, we kick butt in the regular season and suck in the playoffs.  Most Superbowl winners have solid to great defenses and more often than not, if they have to be weak on one side or the other, go with being weak on Offense and killer on Defense to win the Super Bowl.   Seattle wasn't great offensively, they were solid running, serviceable passing and killer on D.  The Patriots always have a solid to great D (with amazing Corners last year) and on Offense, they have a 6th round QB and a cast of misfits few others wanted surrounding him and yet they win and win and win.  Green Bay has the best QB in the league and only 1 SB to show for it.  The Colts were the same with Peyton.  Now I agree we're heading down the same path with Luck.  I also think that beyond a problem with Grigs or Pagano, the common denominator is Irsay.  He's more involved than he leads on and his fingerprints on this offense heavy team are unmistakable.  We won 1 Super Bowl in large part to 1 defender playing out of his mind during the playoff run lifting the rest of our D with him.  But Sanders was usually hurt the rest of the time, playing injured or missing games.  He was the Closest thing the Colts ever had to a Peyton on Defense.  Vontae could equal him in talent, but apparently not in leadership or influence/lift of the D.  

 

That said, we had a solid Defensive draft this year.  Perhaps another one on top of it that includes a couple O-linemen and D-lineman and perhaps a HIT on a first Round Defender on ANY position, and we could build a team set for a SB run.  I am not sure if Anderson and Parry can take us there along with Vontae and our aging and inadequate Linebackers.  But for us to win a Super Bowl, they'll need to rise to the occasion. Good post Indee and Superman. 

[zibby43]

If Jim irsay really wants to win multiple titles with luck, he has to have a talk with Grigson on the type of players to go after. He should know that with having Andrew luck, you can still have a great offense if you had a dominant OL as opposed to dominant weapons.

For the defense, there simply needs to be more of an emphasis on the DL and LB core. So basically, build the trenches and everything else will fall into place.

 

I think the Colts' LB corps is absolutely on point right now.

 

Mathis, Newsome, Cole, N. Irving (a darn good run stuffer), Jackson, Freeman, Herrara, S. Moore (recently acquired from Raiders).

 

I mean, that is a STACKED LB corps.  And the DL is starting to improve.  Anderson and Parry were studs at Stanford and they have impressed throughout the preseason.

 

It really sucks that Jones went down because, on paper, the D was actually starting to look very talented.

 

A lot of teams would like to have Adams, Toler, Butler, and Davis in the secondary, too.

 

I agree completely re: the OL, though.  The OL is shaky at best.  Anthony and Jack are both very talented players but the interior of the line seems like a revolving door (in more ways than one).

[zibby43]

"Playmakers" win football games in the NFL. Most games come down to a handful of big plays and the team that has the most playmakers usually wins.  We have several on the offensive side of the ball. We have one, maybe 2 on defense. That's Mathis, when he returns, and Davis. We can get by with good, solid, average at a lot of places but we need to add another playermaker to the defense.

 

When you compare this team to the Peyton era teams you cant even compare this defense to that defense in terms of playmakers because Peyton's defenses, after 2002, included Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis and Bob Sanders when he was healthy that is. Mathis and Freeney were always near the top of league leaders in sacks and Sanders had a DPOY in 2006 i believe it was. As it stands right now we don't have near that type of production from anyone on the defense. If MAthis comes back and plays back to form, and thats a big IF, then we gain a playmaker but otherwise this defense is just average to below average a lot of positions.

 

Mike Adams is a playmaker on defense.

 

A guy that leads the league in turnovers (7 total) has to be in the playmaker conversation.

 

I'd argue that D. Butler is a playmaker in the sense that he is extremely solid at the Nickel - he defends/breaks up a lot of passes.  I think there are a few more guys on D that are on the cusp of earning the playmaker moniker, too.

[akcolt]

You can only do so much year to year. This year we added Langford Anderson and Parry to the DLine.

We added Cole Irving Herrera Moore and potentially Slyvestre to LB

Then we brought in Geathers, Lowry and Smith on the back end.

The Offense we have Holmes healthy and brought in Herremans moved Mewhort to RT potentially giving us our book ends of the future. We also added Arkin and Good who look useful. We tried with Heenan but the injury bug got him

Skill positions add Gore Dre Dorsett JR Carter maybe Varga

It's the first time the same 5 guys have made it to week 1 in recent memory. That's going to be big. Should we have done more with the O Line? I at least would like to see them play before I call it a total failure. It's not Grig's fault Heenan went down.

Grig's added a lot of young talent to every position group. Heenan hurt the O Line. A healthy Holmes and Mewhort to RT may really help. If we end up with both T positions covered by young guys that's a really good thing.

I just don't see how anyone can say we aren't building. I count 18 new face that will contribute for sure and a handful more that may before it's all said and done

[C0LT5]

If the OL is not improved you are just waiting for a disaster to happen .... Luck injury! There is no way in hell we run the ball with that OL. I know it, you know it and I guarantee you that Frank Gore knows it as well. If it was not for the paycheck , no way he comes here.  And the two's , forget about it. That is like putting a  dysfunctional family on the field. How a couple blocking assignments are blown on every play is beyond me. As long as this problem persists we will not have an effective run game and when you are one dimensional ,anyone can be stopped a la 45-7 style..

 

This is ridiculous. If Gore knew this he wouldn't of backed out of the deal with the Eagles, who have a really good line. No one had trouble last year running behind this OL, except 1 running back.

[Jules]

I won't really worry until I see some games play out soon.....

 

Time will tell this year.

[C0LT5]

Grigson's two biggest free agent signings were an OL and a DL, Cherilus and Jones. Why do we have to act like there haven't been significant efforts to improve both lines?

 

I think it's because it only counts as an effort if it works. We've used a second, third and fourth round draft picks for the OL as well and people mention how we haven't drafted for the OL.

[C0LT5]

Completely agree. For all the flack that Polian got for only building one side of the ball, he atleast was able to get some playmakers on the defensive side of the ball. Grigson has yet to do that.

 

Davis doesn't count?

[akcolt]

I think it's because it only counts as an effort if it works. We've used a second, third and fourth round draft picks for the OL as well and people mention how we haven't drafted for the OL.

The 2nd and the 4th are both starting this year. Hopefully the 3rd's light comes on and he pushes for time as well.

We could sign all former pro bowlers and this board wouldn't be happy. Imagine the outrage at how stupid Grig's is if he had signed Iupati as most wanted.

[James Harden]

To be able to let go of GOAT Peyton Manning and then the transition to Andrew Luck is a blessing. This is a QB league. I know you need more than a franchise QB to win the Superbowl but I rather have a top tier QB to be able to compete competitively every year. I feel like this year is our year! Maybe the monster will finally come out of hiding. 

[masterlock]

THANK YOU!!  A couple people who finally get it!  I have been saying this for the past 2 1/2 seasons.  However, people still like to argue.  We can pay them all, because of the new cap goes up each year...  I get that, but you're forgetting about our mediocre defense, and lack of depth.  The 2nd and 3rd (OL and front 7) focus points on a team are not up to potential.  We obviously have the correct formula with the most important part (QB), which makes up for A LOT of missing pieces to the puzzle.  Sure we can have a great team, and they can be very entertaining how we are now, but we won't ever win 3+ SB's (like the Pats, Cowboys, 49ers) unless the front office understands this concept. 

 

I was in a debate about paying TY the money he wanted.  Nothing against TY, I'm glad he's here, but there is many more important things to a team than paying a WR that much money.  With a GREAT OL (Cowboys/Pats) Luck will have time to call his wife and family in the pocket.  THAT IS PARTIALLY WHY BRADY WAS SO SUCCESSFUL.  He didn't need a Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne w/ 2 TE's like Manning or Luck now.  WHY?  Because WR is one of the most overrated positions in the NFL.  It looks flashy to get a 50 yard bomb for a quick score, but it's more disheartening/tiring (and the end result is the same) for a brick wall to shove the defense back 12-15 plays while an offense marches down the field.  It also control TOP, which is another thing.  Then you have your hardnosed defense, that can force a couple turnovers, stay after the QB and TACKLE the ball carrier the FIRST time.  It is fine if the offense scores every once in awhile, because that fearful OL is coming back out, and you do have play makers on defense that can come up big!

 

I just don't understand why people can understand that formula.  I swear people are caught up in fantasy football and love to see skilled players make electrifying plays.  I agree it is entertaining, however if that's how you plan on winning in the playoffs, then your in a fantasy land.  Playoff games are generally not that high scoring, and defenses buckle down.  Without any playmakers on the other side of the ball, there is no way to stop above average offense, and our prolific offense will be limited by the slow tempo of the game.  Now, there is an exception every once in awhile but generally that's the difference between the regular season and playoffs!

 

Very well put. And I agree with your point on TY. A stud offensive line and an elite QB can make less flashy receivers and RBs look much better, AND not get pushed around as easily by a championship-caliber defense in January.

[theanarchist]

Mike Adams is a playmaker on defense.

 

A guy that leads the league in turnovers (7 total) has to be in the playmaker conversation.

 

I'd argue that D. Butler is a playmaker in the sense that he is extremely solid at the Nickel - he defends/breaks up a lot of passes.  I think there are a few more guys on D that are on the cusp of earning the playmaker moniker, too.

Well, you might put Mike Adams as a playmaker but I don't. I'm not taking anything away from what he did last year he had a great year. When I say playmaker I mean a guy that the other team has to game plan against. Teams game plan against Andrew Luck, they have to account for TY, they have to take into account that Davis is going to lock down on a receiver. Teams have to game plan against speed rushers like Mathis. I don't think teams have to do that with Adams. He's a good Safety but he's not a player that the other team has to account for all the time. I think Frank Gore could be a guy like that, he certainly was in his prime. We need another guy that the offense has to worry about when we are on defense. JMO

[zibby43]

Well, you might put Mike Adams as a playmaker but I don't. I'm not taking anything away from what he did last year he had a great year. When I say playmaker I mean a guy that the other team has to game plan against. Teams game plan against Andrew Luck, they have to account for TY, they have to take into account that Davis is going to lock down on a receiver. Teams have to game plan against speed rushers like Mathis. I don't think teams have to do that with Adams. He's a good Safety but he's not a player that the other team has to account for all the time. I think Frank Gore could be a guy like that, he certainly was in his prime. We need another guy that the offense has to worry about when we are on defense. JMO

 

Fair enough.  I think your points are sound, but playmaker is a pretty broad term.

 

Perhaps you're defining "game changers."

 

Because Adams is definitely a playmaker (anyone that leads the league in turnovers is a playmaker), but I agree that he isn't someone the opposing teams have to scheme around (e.g., Mathis in his prime). 

[BOTT]

I think the Colts' LB corps is absolutely on point right now.

Mathis, Newsome, Cole, N. Irving (a darn good run stuffer), Jackson, Freeman, Herrara, S. Moore (recently acquired from Raiders).

I mean, that is a STACKED LB corps. And the DL is starting to improve. Anderson and Parry were studs at Stanford and they have impressed throughout the preseason.

It really sucks that Jones went down because, on paper, the D was actually starting to look very talented.

A lot of teams would like to have Adams, Toler, Butler, and Davis in the secondary, too.

I agree completely re: the OL, though. The OL is shaky at best. Anthony and Jack are both very talented players but the interior of the line seems like a revolving door (in more ways than one).

I'm sure you are very knowledgeable on all facets of the game of football, but Zibby, my good lad, I believe you to be mistaken about the quality of the Colts' LB core. While I do not wish to disparage the great players that wear the proud Horseshoe, I view the talent at that position as merely adequate. Best wishes, BOTT

[peytonmanning18]

It seems like around the 02/03 season the media started in on SB or bust for the Peyton era and in year 4 of the Luck era the expectations are the same now in the media. That's the biggest thing I see similar.

The Luck era hasn't had a D or an O line as good as what Manning had for 6/7 years.

Yeah people forget that Peyton had one of the best running backs in the league his first few years. Luck has never had anything even remotely close to that.

[Gavin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWAHD3b8Vec

 

THIS is the kind player at ILB we need...Our ILB's simply don't come down hill looking to lay a bone jarring soul crushing hit on anyone.....I once thought when we first got Freeman he was capable of being that TONE SETTER BUT he don't come down hill with a vengeance but prefers it seems to catch the Back and drag him down anymore. Our other ILB's are just blah......I have some hope in Sio Moore but expect it will take time for him to learn the defense

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOUfDNut2Y

 

 

THIS is what Freeman needs to be

[Restored]

Davis doesn't count?

 

One player. Polian atleast had Bob Sanders (when healthy), Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Cato June, and Marcus Washington among others during his era.

[Chucklez]

Davis doesn't count?

Mike Adams was pretty sick for us last year too.... Even if he is just a one year wonder in our D, he had a genuine probowl season.

[Chucklez]

One player. Polian atleast had Bob Sanders (when healthy), Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Cato June, and Marcus Washington among others during his era.

So we are judging Grigson's 3 years as GM v.s. Polian's 23 years on equal terms eh?...... riiiiiiiight,,,,,,,

If we extrapolate Grigson's 3 years to the same timescale as Polians then Grigson will come out with 7 big time D players vs the 5 you mentioned for Polian......

[Restored]

So we are judging Grigson's 3 years as GM v.s. Polian's 23 years on equal terms eh?...... riiiiiiiight,,,,,,,

If we extrapolate Grigson's 3 years to the same timescale as Polians then Grigson will come out with 7 big time D players vs the 5 you mentioned for Polian......

 

Don't know where you are getting 23 years from considering Polian was the Colts GM for 13 years.

 

What "7 big time D players" are you referring to?

[Chucklez]

Don't know where you are getting 23 years from considering Polian was the Colts GM for 13 years.

 

What "7 big time D players" are you referring to?

Whoops, my brain decided it didnt want to do math when I worked that one out....

Still, my point was that it is unfair to compaire Polians 13 year career with the Colts vs Grigsons 3 and saying look at all the defensive talent Polian drafted compared to Grigson....

The "7 big time D players" was me being facetious and saying give Grigson the same amount of time and he would have at least 7 compared to the 5 you mentioned.....

[Restored]

Whoops, my brain decided it didnt want to do math when I worked that one out....

Still, my point was that it is unfair to compaire Polians 13 year career with the Colts vs Grigsons 3 and saying look at all the defensive talent Polian drafted compared to Grigson....

The "7 big time D players" was me being facetious and saying give Grigson the same amount of time and he would have at least 7 compared to the 5 you mentioned.....

 

All good. Yes it is a little unfair to compared 13 to 3 but the problem is that none of Grigson's defensive picks (Davis wasn't actually drafted by him) have panned out so far. For me, I would have atleast SOME reason for optimism if some of them have panned out but that really hasn't been the case so far. Obviously the jury is out on Parry, Anderson and Geathers but as of today, his defensive picks in the drafts have been largely underwhelming. Same applies to a lot of the free agency moves he's made concerning the defense as well (Landry, RJF to name a few).

[Chucklez]

All good. Yes it is a little unfair to compared 13 to 3 but the problem is that none of Grigson's defensive picks (Davis wasn't actually drafted by him) have panned out so far. For me, I would have atleast SOME reason for optimism if some of them have panned out but that really hasn't been the case so far. Obviously the jury is out on Parry, Anderson and Geathers but as of today, his defensive picks in the drafts have been largely underwhelming. Same applies to a lot of the free agency moves he's made concerning the defense as well (Landry, RJF to name a few).

 

I'll grant you his defensive drafting hasn't been great thus far, but it looks as though Geathers, Parry, Anderson and Newsome could all be good players at least... Given time, Smith might come under this one too.

 

FA wise - Walden looks as though he has been pretty solid and is getting better... Mike Adams was a pro bowler last season,... Greg Toler is great (when healthy).... We have been very very unlucky with Art Jones getting injured like he has.....

It's unfair to say Grigson hasnt tried or made any good trades.

[bleevit]

I have been wanting to bring up this observation for awhile now, but with Art Jones latest setback this is as good as of time as any. Is it just me or do any of you feel like we are going through the Peyton era colts all over again?

 

Here is what I mean by that. Yes, some would argue including myself that we as a Colts team should have had more SuperBowl wins/appearances that we did, however my point goes towards the defensive side of the ball and why that didnt come to pass. It also may lend some credence to a "possible disconnect" we keep hearing about between griggs and pags.

 

for the past 17 years or so the Colts offense has been one of the leagues tops in production. Our skill players have been off the charts productive and exciting to watch however even with fan favorites and a few nfl stars our DEFENSE has been massively underachievers, no matter what scheme we ran, no matter who coached it.

 

dungy was a defensive coach and brought in to revamp our defense but never could to match our offense. Yes in the superbowl year the D played lights out but other than that they were never consistent enough to get us to be dominant.

 

through those years Polian drafted offense a lot and kept the points rolling with peyton, where defense should have been more focused. Flashforward to Pags era.

 

brought in to revamp our defense in style of ravens. Like dungy came from another team that had formidable stars defensively and defenses that were built tough and always hard to beat consistently.

 

but here we go again. Prolific offense and a defense that cant get the job done consistently. Remember when Pags first came on board? we were told we were going to be built on a smash mouth running game and more importantly a hard nosed MONSTER of a defense, however even though we yet again have a few players on D side of ball that would be viewed stars, we find ourselves once again with a high scoring offensive team and a mediocre inconsistent defense at best and griggs like polian focusing on offense more than defense.

 

as my title states, eerily familiar to me.. Not sure we should expect different outcome until the defense seriously is taken seriously. truth is with lucks contract coming and like peytons in the past, we are about to be strapped by one player so the effort to pay quality guys become moot and we are back to where we were years prior

 

Just my take

To anticipate mediocrity from this defense may be a bit unfair.  Clearly with the offseason linebacker additions and the presumed return of Robert Mathis, this D might be a nightmare to pass against.  The DBs have been enhanced.  I also believe the front seven has been improved, albeit with rookies.  The loss of Art Jones definitely hurt but like the man says, the next man is up.  I'm excited to see what this D can do.  Until I do, I don't want to write them off as mediocre.  

[C0LT5]

One player. Polian atleast had Bob Sanders (when healthy), Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Cato June, and Marcus Washington among others during his era.

 

So you're admitting a false narrative was used to prove your point.....got it.

[Restored]

I'll grant you his defensive drafting hasn't been great thus far, but it looks as though Geathers, Parry, Anderson and Newsome could all be good players at least... Given time, Smith might come under this one too.

 

FA wise - Walden looks as though he has been pretty solid and is getting better... Mike Adams was a pro bowler last season,... Greg Toler is great (when healthy).... We have been very very unlucky with Art Jones getting injured like he has.....

It's unfair to say Grigson hasnt tried or made any good trades.

 

I'm not saying Grigson hasn't tried. Every GM in the NFL tries to make the team they are managing better. Some succeed and some don't. Grigson has done well with getting offensive talent but his defensive picks have been lackluster. But don't get me wrong, he has tried but it just hasn't been really successful.

 

 

 

So you're admitting a false narrative was used to prove your point.....got it.

 

What false narrative would that be? Polian clearly got defensive players that were good during his era here. Meanwhile Grigson has swung and missed on more than a number of his defensive choices whether it's been through F/A or the draft.

[C0LT5]

Completely agree. For all the flack that Polian got for only building one side of the ball, he atleast was able to get some playmakers on the defensive side of the ball. Grigson has yet to do that.

 

 

I'm not saying Grigson hasn't tried. Every GM in the NFL tries to make the team they are managing better. Some succeed and some don't. Grigson has done well with getting offensive talent but his defensive picks have been lackluster. But don't get me wrong, he has tried but it just hasn't been really successful.

 

 

 

 

What false narrative would that be? Polian clearly got defensive players that were good during his era here. Meanwhile Grigson has swung and missed on more than a number of his defensive choices whether it's been through F/A or the draft.

 

You admitted that Davis is a playmaker.

[Restored]

You admitted that Davis is a playmaker.

 

Again, one player doesn't all of a sudden excuse Grigson. It's pretty obvious that he hasn't succeed in getting the Colts good defensive talent.

[Chucklez]

Again, one player doesn't all of a sudden excuse Grigson. It's pretty obvious that he hasn't succeed in getting the Colts good defensive talent.

Again though... Mike Adams, Art Jones (if healthy), Greg Toler (if Healthy), Jerrell Freeman in his first two years was sensational considering he came from a no name team in the CFL. Walden looks to be coming very good, plus Davis that's 5 at least good players through trades or FA....