Interesting comments from Grigson...

[RollerColt]

2. The Offensive Line: Arguably the biggest issue. People want to sit here and nitpick at Andrew for holding the ball too long (with some justification) but it's clearly not all on Andrew. Look at the Falcons game as an example. Simply put, Grigson hasn't built the offensive line. While it's been serviceable at different times during the past 4 years, it's clearly been the main issue.

It has been an issue. And I think durability has been our Achilles's heel. We've had a lot of guys go down due to injuries, heck we just lost Castanzo for a time.... I don't know if that's something the scouts missed or if we just have rancid luck with keeping our linemen healthy. 

[Mameluc]

My post impressions after listening to Dan's interview: 

 

--Why keep bringing up Bruce Arians? He's not running the show for us 2015 man.

 

--He feels no blame for Luck getting hurt? Seriously? You are paid to keep Andrew upright for 16-20 weeks? Don't highlight how exceptional Matthew is. If your back QB is in, you screwed up Grigs. 

 

--Ryan is cool with drafting Dorsett? Best Player available nonsense yet again. When does BPA collide with WR roster surplus Grigson? 

 

--Do you want to continue the partnership with Chuck Pagano after this year? If Irsay asked your opinion on Pagano once his contract expires, what would you tell him? Status quo or a new direction? 

 

--The offensive line is a separate entity from the QB. They are Luck's 1st & last line of defense. Yes, Andrew is a vital cog in the mix, but the o-line is the airbag in the car not the driver okay...

 

--Where in this 35 minute interview did Grigson address directly his failures with regard to Trent Richardson? He didn't. Forget general draft/free agency strategy. Answer the question you were actually asked please.

 

--I love that our owner, our GM, & our owner are driven to win, but just answer what you are asked & drop the mountain top cliches please...

 

--Honest, non canned answers Dan? He didn't give any answers. "Grown caboose man act like Grigson does" No, they don't. They are blunt, truthful, & don't side step difficult questions...Sigh...

Luck got hurt on a scramble he had no business in. just slide and he isf ine. how is that Grigson fault?

 

OL is mediocre, is not the worst line of football despite narrative.

 

Why is dorsett pick line of think wrong? I mean i get we dont like a WR int he first thats fine we all wanted Defense or OL or whatever. But if he was clrealy above and beyond anybody else at that pick then go for it. Thats what good GM's do. Thats how Jordy Nelson ended up in GB when they already had Jennings and Driver and other dude which i forgot right now.

[dudeski]

he's a penalty machine and generates no pass rush. he is good no where near a great signing. Almost can guarantee one stupid late hit or punch or something from him a game

thats completely wrong

[Colts_Fan12]

thats completely wrong

guess you missed his late hits on QBs or punching players or headbutts or whatever stupid * he decides to do

[dudeski]

guess you missed his late hits on QBs or punching players or headbutts or whatever stupid * he decides to do

every game? You are wrong dude

[Colts_Fan12]

every game? You are wrong dude

big deal it's still too damn much shouldn't be stupid enough to head butt another player

[Superman]

At the end of the day, you are judged by how the team performs, regardless of injuries or purpose of that player.

 

That's really not true. Through three seasons, this team has overachieved, yet fingers still point at Grigson. The echo chamber narrative is that this team begins and ends with Luck, and Grigson gets no credit for the no-brainer decision to draft Luck. Grigson's failures are maximized, and the good decisions are undermined. 

 

And it's fine to be critical of Grigson's mistakes. But it's not accurate to say that the GM is just judged on the team's performance. Just based on performance, the Colts went from 2-14 to the AFCCG in less time than anyone expected them to.

[buccolts]

big deal it's still too damn much shouldn't be stupid enough to head butt another player

 

So, how many stupid such penalties DOES he have since he's gotten here?

How many is too much?

[buccolts]

You and I can sit and argue about each player but there's a consensus that Grigson has missed more than he has hit. This is especially true when you weigh how bad the misses were (T-Rich for a 1st rounder, Werner for a 1st rounder). Not all of these players were stop-gaps and some were expected to fill needs both in the short-term and long-term. At the end of the day, you are judged by how the team performs, regardless of injuries or purpose of that player.

 

I think the main problems are two things:

 

1. Lack of serious playmakers defensively: Outside of Vontae Davis, there is no single player that opposing teams single handily have to prepare for week to week. Now, we can all sit here and say that Grigson "tried" by bringing in Landry or other players but the results are what matter. Couple that in with the lack of a serious pass rush and you get the result. The defense has been more steady this year than in recent memory but the overall body of work is lacking.

 

2. The Offensive Line: Arguably the biggest issue. People want to sit here and nitpick at Andrew for holding the ball too long (with some justification) but it's clearly not all on Andrew. Look at the Falcons game as an example. Simply put, Grigson hasn't built the offensive line. While it's been serviceable at different times during the past 4 years, it's clearly been the main issue.

 

To the bold: Then I guess we need to discuss players that need to be yanked from the HOF. I'll start. Dan Marino.

Your turn.

 

1. Adams may garner some attention in prep meetings. I couldn't really say about Anderson, Langford, or Parry, as I'm not in the meetings. But, yes, that unit needs some play-makers.

 

2. Yep, the OL certainly isn't the picture of stability, but you can't really sit there, and believe that injuries and the QB holding onto the ball too long don't have an impact.

[Colts_Fan12]

So, how many stupid such penalties DOES he have since he's gotten here?

How many is too much?

who knows how many dumb roughing the passer hits he's had. cant forget him head butting walker with his helmet on like an *. Then he loses his cool and slaps the refs arm off of him and gets thrown out the game. This year he put the Titans in a position to score with a huge stupid roughing the passer call. How anyone can argue that he doesn't do stupid * is beyond me. Like I said he has been a decent player but that sure as hell don't mean he hasn't done stupid stuff. He was a good signing not great like was stated

[Jason_]

who knows how many dumb roughing the passer hits he's had. cant forget him head butting walker with his helmet on like an *. Then he loses his cool and slaps the refs arm off of him and gets thrown out the game. This year he put the Titans in a position to score with a huge stupid roughing the passer call. How anyone can argue that he doesn't do stupid * is beyond me. Like I said he has been a decent player but that sure as hell don't mean he hasn't done stupid stuff. He was a good signing not great like was stated

 

google does....he's had 2.  

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WaldEr99/penalties/

 

Last year, he was disqualified from the Bengals game...other than that he had 2 offsides penalties and a facemask.  In 2013, he had 1 unnecessary roughness penalty.  You're blowing this WAAAAY out of proportion.

[buccolts]

who knows how many dumb roughing the passer hits he's had. cant forget him head butting walker with his helmet on like an *. Then he loses his cool and slaps the refs arm off of him and gets thrown out the game. This year he put the Titans in a position to score with a huge stupid roughing the passer call. How anyone can argue that he doesn't do stupid * is beyond me. Like I said he has been a decent player but that sure as hell don't mean he hasn't done stupid stuff. He was a good signing not great like was stated

 

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said he doesn't do stupid stuff, but I never thought of him as a 'machine'.

So, 3 in 4 years (?) is too many. O.K.

And, yes, I think he's done a very good job for us, for most of his time here. Price & penalties considered.

[Restored]

That's really not true. Through three seasons, this team has overachieved, yet fingers still point at Grigson. The echo chamber narrative is that this team begins and ends with Luck, and Grigson gets no credit for the no-brainer decision to draft Luck. Grigson's failures are maximized, and the good decisions are undermined. 

 

And it's fine to be critical of Grigson's mistakes. But it's not accurate to say that the GM is just judged on the team's performance. Just based on performance, the Colts went from 2-14 to the AFCCG in less time than anyone expected them to.

 

I was talking about specific facets of the team, which is what the GM is specifically responsible for building. If this team has overachieved, what is the reason? Is it the play of Luck? Is it Pagano? Overachieving would imply that this team is doing better in spite of its clear blemishes. Blemishes that Grigson is directly responsible for fixing.

 

If the GM isn't judged on the team's performance, what else is he judged on? The NFL is a results-oriented business. Coaches and GM's get fired even when they win 10 or 11 games. Why? Because when the flaws of a team become the consistent reason why a team loses, patience wears thin.

 

It seems to me that a lot of the Grigson apologist rhetoric centers around the infatuation with mediocrity. Some fans clearly seem content with this team winning 10/11 games a year (5-6 coming from a weak division) and getting put down by team(s) that exploit the same weaknesses year in and year out. And when those blemishes finally come to a head like they have this season, it's easier to stick our heads in the sand instead of addressing issues that have been present since the start of the Ryan Grigson era.

[Restored]

To the bold: Then I guess we need to discuss players that need to be yanked from the HOF. I'll start. Dan Marino.

Your turn.

 

1. Adams may garner some attention in prep meetings. I couldn't really say about Anderson, Langford, or Parry, as I'm not in the meetings. But, yes, that unit needs some play-makers.

 

2. Yep, the OL certainly isn't the picture of stability, but you can't really sit there, and believe that injuries and the QB holding onto the ball too long don't have an impact.

 

My comment was in reference to Grigson and his selection of players and nothing to do with players themselves.

 

1. Agreed.

 

2. Injuries happen to each team. In fact, New England has had to reshuffle their offensive line along with a slew of other teams. The problem is, the starting 5 the Colts fielded this season to start the year (all healthy), underperformed drastically. I'm willing to lend some credit to the idea of Andrew Luck holding the ball too long but after watching the Falcons game this past weekend, my point about the offensive line's struggle continues to remain constant.

[Superman]

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said he doesn't do stupid stuff, but I never thought of him as a 'machine'.

So, 3 in 4 years (?) is too many. O.K.

And, yes, I think he's done a very good job for us, for most of his time here. Price & penalties considered.

 

I was going to say, I think he's probably had three dumb penalties. 

[Jason_]

I was going to say, I think he's probably had three dumb penalties. 

 

that's...per game, right?

 

lol

[Dustin]

google does....he's had 2.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WaldEr99/penalties/

Last year, he was disqualified from the Bengals game...other than that he had 2 offsides penalties and a facemask. In 2013, he had 1 unnecessary roughness penalty. You're blowing this WAAAAY out of proportion.

This can't be right. Didn't he have a rousghing the passer against the Titans earlier this year and a play where he headbutted a helmetlesss player a few seasons ago and got suspended.

[Colts_Fan12]

This can't be right. Didn't he have a rousghing the passer against the Titans earlier this year and a play where he headbutted a helmetlesss player a few seasons ago and got suspended.

yep headbutts a helmet less Walker TE for the Titans.

[Superman]

I was talking about specific facets of the team, which is what the GM is specifically responsible for building. If this team has overachieved, what is the reason? Is it the play of Luck? Is it Pagano? Overachieving would imply that this team is doing better in spite of its clear blemishes. Blemishes that Grigson is directly responsible for fixing.

 

Not at all. The team is overachieiving in relation to the expectations that everyone had going into 2012. We were expected to pick in the top ten for another year, maybe two, not even sniffing the playoffs until 2014. The roster was almost entirely turned over. New coaching staff, new defensive scheme, etc. Making the playoffs right away and then having success in the playoffs was an overachievement, in relation to what everyone expected when this new staff took over.

 

If the GM isn't judged on the team's performance, what else is he judged on? The NFL is a results-oriented business. Coaches and GM's get fired even when they win 10 or 11 games. Why? Because when the flaws of a team become the consistent reason why a team loses, patience wears thin.

 

It's very rare that coaches and GMs get fired after 10-11 win seasons. Even more rare that they get fired when their team has postseason success.

 

Nothing wrong with patience wearing thin, specifically when it's the same particular flaws holding a team back. My point was that Grigson isn't being judged on the end results. If he were, there would be no Grigson complaints, because the end result -- playoff appearances and wins -- hasn't been bad, all things considered.

 

It seems to me that a lot of the Grigson apologist rhetoric centers around the infatuation with mediocrity. Some fans clearly seem content with this team winning 10/11 games a year (5-6 coming from a weak division) and getting put down by team(s) that exploit the same weaknesses year in and year out. And when those blemishes finally come to a head like they have this season, it's easier to stick our heads in the sand instead of addressing issues that have been present since the start of the Ryan Grigson era.

 

This is unadulterated nonsense. As I said, it's fine to be critical of his mistakes. I only said that he is not being judged on the results, as the results have actually been pretty good. I also have not said that he SHOULD be judged on the results, as if the fact that the team has had the measure of success it's had means that Grigson is above reproach. He's not, nor should he be. Miss me with the 'Grigson apologist' and 'content with mediocrity' crap.

[Superman]

This can't be right. Didn't he have a rousghing the passer against the Titans earlier this year and a play where he headbutted a helmetlesss player a few seasons ago and got suspended.

 

It's on there. I don't know how they have all that stuff coded, but that 11/14/13 game was the game against the Titans. I don't know what "CLT" means...

[Jason_]

This can't be right. Didn't he have a rousghing the passer against the Titans earlier this year and a play where he headbutted a helmetlesss player a few seasons ago and got suspended.

 

the roughing the passer penalty is accounted for in that list.  

2015 2015-09-27 IND   IND 4   1 10 OTI 33 27 35 Roughing the Passer 15

 

 

which probably makes this:

 

2013 2013-11-14 IND   IND 2   1 10 CLT 29 14 3 Unnecessary Roughness 12

 

the date of the headbutt incident.  So, both incidents you asked about are accounted for.

[Jason_]

It's on there. I don't know how they have all that stuff coded, but that 11/14/13 game was the game against the Titans. I don't know what "CLT" means...

 

yeah, everything on there makes sense except for how they chose to abbreviate the Titans.  On the entry you specified, it was "CLT" and on the incident this year they used "OTI". 

[Superman]

that's...per game, right?

 

lol

 

JJ Watt has 8 roughing penalties in the last two seasons. Of course, he has 30 times the production of Erik Walden, so you overlook them. Just saying, roughing penalties aren't the end of the world.

 

Someone revved up the Hyperbole Machine.

[Superman]

yeah, everything on there makes sense except for how they chose to abbreviate the Titans.  On the entry you specified, it was "CLT" and on the incident this year they used "OTI". 

 

This year, "CLT" is the Panthers game. I don't know what's going on...

[Dustin]

the roughing the passer penalty is accounted for in that list. 2015 2015-09-27 IND IND 4 1 10 OTI 33 27 35 Roughing the Passer 15

which probably makes this:

2013 2013-11-14 IND IND 2 1 10 CLT 29 14 3 Unnecessary Roughness 12

the date of the headbutt incident. So, both incidents you asked about are accounted for.

My bad for some reason I thought you said he only had 1 Personal foul.

[Jason_]

My bad for some reason I thought you said he only had 1 Personal foul.

 

ah, yeah I just summarized a few things, didn't list out each penalty

[Restored]

Not at all. The team is overachieiving in relation to the expectations that everyone had going into 2012. We were expected to pick in the top ten for another year, maybe two, not even sniffing the playoffs until 2014. The roster was almost entirely turned over. New coaching staff, new defensive scheme, etc. Making the playoffs right away and then having success in the playoffs was an overachievement, in relation to what everyone expected when this new staff took over.

 

 

It's very rare that coaches and GMs get fired after 10-11 win seasons. Even more rare that they get fired when their team has postseason success.

 

Nothing wrong with patience wearing thin, specifically when it's the same particular flaws holding a team back. My point was that Grigson isn't being judged on the end results. If he were, there would be no Grigson complaints, because the end result -- playoff appearances and wins -- hasn't been bad, all things considered.

 

 

This is unadulterated nonsense. As I said, it's fine to be critical of his mistakes. I only said that he is not being judged on the results, as the results have actually been pretty good. I also have not said that he SHOULD be judged on the results, as if the fact that the team has had the measure of success it's had means that Grigson is above reproach. He's not, nor should he be. Miss me with the 'Grigson apologist' and 'content with mediocrity' crap.

 

Fan expectations vs. results is a moot argument. The team has consistently won 11 games 3 years in a row now. When that occurs, SOMETHING is going well with your team and the two constants have been Luck and the coaching staff despite the turnover at virtually every other position on the roster over the past 3 seasons.

 

See John Fox or Lovie Smith. It's not as rare as you think.

 

The problem is the end results are mainly because of what Grigson has or hasn't done with the roster. The offensive line has clearly lacked the necessary talent to be successful the past 3 seasons along with the defense lacking star-level players. Again, saying it isn't bad doesn't mean it is good. It makes it mediocre.

 

You can't straddle two sides of the road and not expect to get hit by both. The results being pretty good are merely subjective given the level of expectation level one may or may not have. The level of success the team has achieved is a blessing and a curse to Grigson.

[RockThatBlue]

Luck got hurt on a scramble he had no business in. just slide and he isf ine. how is that Grigson fault?

OL is mediocre, is not the worst line of football despite narrative.

Why is dorsett pick line of think wrong? I mean i get we dont like a WR int he first thats fine we all wanted Defense or OL or whatever. But if he was clrealy above and beyond anybody else at that pick then go for it. Thats what good GM's do. Thats how Jordy Nelson ended up in GB when they already had Jennings and Driver and other dude which i forgot right now.

People let their anti grigson agenda get in the way of rational thinking.

[Superman]

Fan expectations vs. results is a moot argument. The team has consistently won 11 games 3 years in a row now. When that occurs, SOMETHING is going well with your team and the two constants have been Luck and the coaching staff despite the turnover at virtually every other position on the roster over the past 3 seasons.

 

No it's not moot. If you were judging Grigson on results, we'd be talking about results, and that's it. We're talking about a lot more than just results. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't act like the GM is only judged on the results, and then when someone says 'but the team has had good results, especially considering expectations,' you decide that the results don't matter.

 

And saying that the team has overachieved doesn't mean you're content with what they've done so far.

 

See John Fox or Lovie Smith. It's not as rare as you think.

 

The exception proves the rule. Add Schottenheimer, and you have three in the last 8 years? Who else are we missing? And the list of GMs who are fired after 10+ win seasons is even smaller.

 

The problem is the end results are mainly because of what Grigson has or hasn't done with the roster. The offensive line has clearly lacked the necessary talent to be successful the past 3 seasons along with the defense lacking star-level players. Again, saying it isn't bad doesn't mean it is good. It makes it mediocre.

 

So say that Grigson should be fired because he hasn't built a quality offensive line, despite his efforts. Or because we have no young defensive playmakers. That's a different conversation.

 

You can't straddle two sides of the road and not expect to get hit by both.

 

I'm sorry, what?

 

The results being pretty good are merely subjective given the level of expectation level one may or may not have. The level of success the team has achieved is a blessing and a curse to Grigson.

 

We haven't won a SB. Of course the results are subjective. The circumstances are still relevant. Say you don't believe Grigson is the right guy to build a championship roster. That's really all it takes. Doesn't matter what the record is, doesn't matter what he's done or hasn't done, initial expectations don't matter, etc. You want your GM to be capable of building and maintaining a championship quality roster, period. If Grigson isn't that guy, then he should go.

 

I only took exception to the "GMs get judged on results" comment, because it's not true in this case. If it were, Grigson would be the toast of the town. Grigson should be judged on his roster and the way he's built it, not on the fact that we've overachieved for the last three seasons. 

[Jason_]

Luck is hurt because he has never had a line in front of him and he does what every winner does and makes things happen, whether he's throwing on the run (which happens way to much, throwing from his knees (just about on his knees) or running for his life. 

 

Luck's kidney was lacerated because he scrambled and didn't protect himself by sliding.  If he's not going to try protecting himself, then these are the types of injuries he's going to have to deal with, and that is not Grigson's fault.  

 

 

Why don't you address the fact that Pagano has not put a Defense together which is suppose to be his prowess?? 

 

 

When Grigson/Pagano took over, they essentially started wiping the entire slate (roster) clean.  They chose first to build the offense through the draft, thus forcing them to fill in the defensive gaps with stop-gap players through free agency.  So that's why it took longer to start building the defense...because they focused on Luck and the offense first.  Now, they're starting to get some younger building blocks in the draft that they can build around and I'm sure will continue to do so.  The defense has improved every year that Pagano has been here and they are playing pretty well now this year since the offense has started to come to life.  Bottom line, you can't rebuild an entire offense and an entire defense overnight...not enough draft picks to go around.

[crazycolt1]

Luck's kidney was lacerated because he scrambled and didn't protect himself by sliding.  If he's not going to try protecting himself, then these are the types of injuries he's going to have to deal with, and that is not Grigson's fault.  

 

 

 

 

When Grigson/Pagano took over, they essentially started wiping the entire slate (roster) clean.  They chose first to build the offense through the draft, thus forcing them to fill in the defensive gaps with stop-gap players through free agency.  So that's why it took longer to start building the defense...because they focused on Luck and the offense first.  Now, they're starting to get some younger building blocks in the draft that they can build around and I'm sure will continue to do so.  The defense has improved every year that Pagano has been here and they are playing pretty well now this year since the offense has started to come to life.  Bottom line, you can't rebuild an entire offense and an entire defense overnight...not enough draft picks to go around.

To some, common sense makes no sense.

[Restored]

No it's not moot. If you were judging Grigson on results, we'd be talking about results, and that's it. We're talking about a lot more than just results. And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't act like the GM is only judged on the results, and then when someone says 'but the team has had good results, especially considering expectations,' you decide that the results don't matter.

 

Results are all encompassing for me. If the team is not achieving success because of obvious flaws, the GM has to be held accountable. Football is one of those sports that having a really talented player at the game's most important position can mask a lot of a team's issues. Again, this goes back to what expectations really are. Some people are content with trips to the playoffs and AFC South titles while others expect more.

 

And saying that the team has overachieved doesn't mean you're content with what they've done so far.

 

Again, this points back to the double talk. There's not really a middle road here. If you believe this team overachieved, the results are considered satisfactory given that they exceeded the expectations.

 

 

The exception proves the rule. Add Schottenheimer, and you have three in the last 8 years? Who else are we missing? And the list of GMs who are fired after 10+ win seasons is even smaller.

 

Dungy was fired from Tampa. Detroit fired their GM after making the playoffs twice. Baltimore let go of Brian Billek. My point is that good coaches and GM's get fired despite the levels of success they've achieved. Heck, Tom Coughlin seems to end up on the verge of getting fired each year and he's won two Super Bowl's.

 

 

 

So say that Grigson should be fired because he hasn't built a quality offensive line, despite his efforts. Or because we have no young defensive playmakers. That's a different conversation.

 

I'm saying that Grigson should be fired for not building this team to win a championship while failing to add necessary play makers on defense and for failing to fix the offensive line that he's had 4 years to address. Add in his misses in the draft and the rumored overstepping of power with personnel and coaching staff and you get the result. The reason why I bring up results is because some believe that Grigson "attempting" to acquire talent is good enough. It doesn't work like that.

 

 

I'm sorry, what?

You've straddled both sides of the fence when it comes to Grigson in your posts. You're saying that he isn't being judged by the results but then say that if we did, it wouldn't make him untouchable but then you say the results have been good so we can't be critical based on expectations.

 

 

We haven't won a SB. Of course the results are subjective. The circumstances are still relevant. Say you don't believe Grigson is the right guy to build a championship roster. That's really all it takes. Doesn't matter what the record is, doesn't matter what he's done or hasn't done, initial expectations don't matter, etc. You want your GM to be capable of building and maintaining a championship quality roster, period. If Grigson isn't that guy, then he should go.

 

​I've been adamant in saying this for awhile now. Maybe my expectations are different than other fans. I merely am privy to the success this team had the past decade, understand what didn't work for those teams (as echoed by Irsay himself) and expect that this era should be different. But in reality, this era seems to eerily mirror the last in more than a few ways (QB carrying team, lack of defense, team built heavily at the skill positions, laying down to the same team).

 

I only took exception to the "GMs get judged on results" comment, because it's not true in this case. If it were, Grigson would be the toast of the town. Grigson should be judged on his roster and the way he's built it, not on the fact that we've overachieved for the last three seasons. 

 

This is more of a semantics argument for me in this case then. I made the comment on GM's being judged by the results to be all encompassing. It doesn't just mean the team's record and finish in the playoffs but why and how they finished that way.

[Superman]

TL;DR, I'm right, you're wrong. ;)

Results are all encompassing for me. If the team is not achieving success because of obvious flaws, the GM has to be held accountable. Football is one of those sports that having a really talented player at the game's most important position can mask a lot of a team's issues. Again, this goes back to what expectations really are. Some people are content with trips to the playoffs and AFC South titles while others expect more.

Probably a different discussion, but I don't think the issues with this team are because of the roster. I think our best player played bad football early on, the OC did a bad job with gameplans and play calling, and other players made critical mistakes. Gore's fumble, AV's missed kicks, Dorsett's muffed punt, the stupid special teams play, etc. Not that the roster is incredible or anything, so feel free to be critical of Grigson at OL and ILB and pass rusher, but I really think if you just take away half of those big mistakes and slap Pep upside the head, we're 8-2 right now. You may or may not agree, but this year, Luck has exacerbated our issues, not covered them.

And again with that "content" crap. Not throwing a tantrum because the team hasn't won three SBs in a row doesn't make one content with just winning the division. That's bull, and I won't stop calling it out as bull.

 

Again, this points back to the double talk. There's not really a middle road here. If you believe this team overachieved, the results are considered satisfactory given that they exceeded the expectations.

No, that's nonsense. It's takes time to build a contender. You can be happy that we've been ahead of the curve and at the same time be critical of some of the steps they've taken along the way. You can also feel that Grigson and Pagano did a good job with the turnaround -- they did -- but not be convinced that they are the right guys to build and maintain a true title contender. 

But what will not ever change is the FACT that three years ago, NO ONE expected the Colts to make the playoffs. People on this very forum were upset that "we traded a high second rounder which is basically a first rounder!" for Vontae Davis. The Grigson/Pagano Colts overachieved their first three seasons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to a high standard.

 

Dungy was fired from Tampa. Detroit fired their GM after making the playoffs twice. Baltimore let go of Brian Billek. My point is that good coaches and GM's get fired despite the levels of success they've achieved. Heck, Tom Coughlin seems to end up on the verge of getting fired each year and he's won two Super Bowl's.

 

I said last ten years. But Dungy's Bucs were 9-7 before he got fired, so they still don't qualify. They also lost in the first round of the playoffs three years in a row. Billick was also more than ten years ago, and the Ravens were 5-11 and hadn't won a playoff game in 6 years. I don't know what you're talking about with the Lions, as they haven't made the playoffs twice in a row in forever. They started out 0-5 this year, and look like an absolute dumpster fire after losing practically all of their best defensive players. Since they hired Mayhew, they've gone to the playoffs twice in 7 years (8 if you count this year), and that includes 0-16 his first year there. He hired three head coaches, none of them any good. But yes, let's use the Lions as an example of how to run a sports organization...

 

Coughlin contradicts your point. They've been sub .500 two years in a row, and haven't made the playoffs since their last SB in 2011, much less won a playoff game. Yet, he continues to survive Black Monday, and it's specifically because he has two SBs. Let them finish at 7-9 again this year and see what happens, but contrary to your point, the Giants haven't even had a 10 win season in five years, much less fired somebody after a 10 win season. 

 

I'm saying that Grigson should be fired for not building this team to win a championship while failing to add necessary play makers on defense and for failing to fix the offensive line that he's had 4 years to address. Add in his misses in the draft and the rumored overstepping of power with personnel and coaching staff and you get the result. The reason why I bring up results is because some believe that Grigson "attempting" to acquire talent is good enough. It doesn't work like that.

 

So say that Grigson should be fired because he hasn't built a quality offensive line, despite his efforts. Or because we have no young defensive playmakers. That's a different conversation.

 

I'm saying that Grigson should be fired for not building this team to win a championship while failing to add necessary play makers on defense and for failing to fix the offensive line that he's had 4 years to address. Add in his misses in the draft and the rumored overstepping of power with personnel and coaching staff and you get the result. The reason why I bring up results is because some believe that Grigson "attempting" to acquire talent is good enough. It doesn't work like that.

 

I don't think you fire a GM because of unsubstantiated rumors, but the rest is good enough for me. I already said I'm not convinced he's the right guy for the next chapter. And if I misunderstood you about "results," then my bad. But I think my point still stands. 

 

You've straddled both sides of the fence when it comes to Grigson in your posts. You're saying that he isn't being judged by the results but then say that if we did, it wouldn't make him untouchable but then you say the results have been good so we can't be critical based on expectations.

No I haven't. I've never said we can't be critical of Grigson. I said that if we were judging him only on the ultimate results, then we wouldn't be critical of him. Note, I also don't think that he should only be judged on ultimate results. He should be judged on the overall quality of the roster, and again, there's plenty of reason to be critical.

 

​I've been adamant in saying this for awhile now. Maybe my expectations are different than other fans. I merely am privy to the success this team had the past decade, understand what didn't work for those teams (as echoed by Irsay himself) and expect that this era should be different. But in reality, this era seems to eerily mirror the last in more than a few ways (QB carrying team, lack of defense, team built heavily at the skill positions, laying down to the same team).

 

Lots of people are spooked because we only won one SB with Manning, but the construction of the Polian/Manning Colts is far different than the Grigson/Luck Colts, in a different environment with different constraints. Just because Grigson used a first rounder on a WR doesn't mean he's building the team the same way Polian did. He's not.

 

It would also help to keep in mind that Irsay looked back at 14 years and was unsatisfied with the overall outcome. He didn't voice those complaints after three seasons in which the team was steadily advancing further in the playoffs. Things might also be different if we had gone 3-13 in 2012, like everyone thought we would.

 

This is more of a semantics argument for me in this case then. I made the comment on GM's being judged by the results to be all encompassing. It doesn't just mean the team's record and finish in the playoffs but why and how they finished that way.

 

"Why and how" is necessarily more than results.

[Restored]

TL;DR, I'm right, you're wrong. ;)

Probably a different discussion, but I don't think the issues with this team are because of the roster. I think our best player played bad football early on, the OC did a bad job with gameplans and play calling, and other players made critical mistakes. Gore's fumble, AV's missed kicks, Dorsett's muffed punt, the stupid special teams play, etc. Not that the roster is incredible or anything, so feel free to be critical of Grigson at OL and ILB and pass rusher, but I really think if you just take away half of those big mistakes and slap Pep upside the head, we're 8-2 right now. You may or may not agree, but this year, Luck has exacerbated our issues, not covered them.

 

There's probably a handful of teams saying that they could be a one or two loss team had a few plays gone their way. Yes, the Colts could be 8-2 but could just as easily be a 1 or 2 win team as well. I agree that Luck has done more detriment than good this season but the overall body of work points to him carrying a team lacking in talent in significant areas of the team.

And again with that "content" crap. Not throwing a tantrum because the team hasn't won three SBs in a row doesn't make one content with just winning the division. That's bull, and I won't stop calling it out as bull.

 

Nobody said anything about 3 SB wins in a row. Going to the extreme's to prove a point doesn't make it valid. Now, you may not be satisfied with division titles but justifying this team's record based on excuses or that they've "overachieved" doesn't change the fact that this team is not where it should be by year 4.

 

No, that's nonsense. It's takes time to build a contender. You can be happy that we've been ahead of the curve and at the same time be critical of some of the steps they've taken along the way. You can also feel that Grigson and Pagano did a good job with the turnaround -- they did -- but not be convinced that they are the right guys to build and maintain a true title contender. 

 

Weren't they brought in to make the team a true title contender? If not, why were they hired in the first place? I understand it takes time to build a championship roster but lets not temper expectations because they exceeded what many uninformed fans thought would happen to this team.

But what will not ever change is the FACT that three years ago, NO ONE expected the Colts to make the playoffs. People on this very forum were upset that "we traded a high second rounder which is basically a first rounder!" for Vontae Davis. The Grigson/Pagano Colts overachieved their first three seasons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to a high standard.

 

Actually, I did think the Colts were going to be a playoff team the first year. Playing in a weak division coupled with having one of the greatest QB prospects in recent memory played a part in that. Overachieving is relative to the expectations and clearly the Colts did better than those expectations.

 

 

I said last ten years. But Dungy's Bucs were 9-7 before he got fired, so they still don't qualify. They also lost in the first round of the playoffs three years in a row. Billick was also more than ten years ago, and the Ravens were 5-11 and hadn't won a playoff game in 6 years. I don't know what you're talking about with the Lions, as they haven't made the playoffs twice in a row in forever. They started out 0-5 this year, and look like an absolute dumpster fire after losing practically all of their best defensive players. Since they hired Mayhew, they've gone to the playoffs twice in 7 years (8 if you count this year), and that includes 0-16 his first year there. He hired three head coaches, none of them any good. But yes, let's use the Lions as an example of how to run a sports organization...

 

Adding conditions to make your narrative work doesn't make it valid. Jimmy Johnson was forced out after winning 2 Super Bowl's. Dungy's teams were playoff teams and him getting fired for losing in the 1st round consistently actually proves my point. Billick won a Super Bowl and had more winning seasons than losing ones. In fact, the year before he had the team at 13-3 and a top 2 seed in the AFC. And since we are talking about teams achieving success relative to fan forum expectations, I'm sure the Lions board was singing a different tune when they finally reach the post-season for the first time in years.

 

Coughlin contradicts your point. They've been sub .500 two years in a row, and haven't made the playoffs since their last SB in 2011, much less won a playoff game. Yet, he continues to survive Black Monday, and it's specifically because he has two SBs. Let them finish at 7-9 again this year and see what happens, but contrary to your point, the Giants haven't even had a 10 win season in five years, much less fired somebody after a 10 win season. 

 

If Coughlin gets fired after this year, my point will be proven.

 

 

 

So say that Grigson should be fired because he hasn't built a quality offensive line, despite his efforts. Or because we have no young defensive playmakers. That's a different conversation.

 

It's not a different conversation when those two faults have mainly been the reason why this team hasn't achieved more success consistently for a period of 4 seasons now.

 

 

I don't think you fire a GM because of unsubstantiated rumors, but the rest is good enough for me. I already said I'm not convinced he's the right guy for the next chapter. And if I misunderstood you about "results," then my bad. But I think my point still stands. 

 

You don't fire him solely for the rumors but it has to be taken into account. And by all reports so far, it's not been baseless. Whether or not we ever get the full details or not remains to be seen but there is clearly some disconnect between Pagano and Grigson and it appears to be more than just a contract dispute.

 

No I haven't. I've never said we can't be critical of Grigson. I said that if we were judging him only on the ultimate results, then we wouldn't be critical of him. Note, I also don't think that he should only be judged on ultimate results. He should be judged on the overall quality of the roster, and again, there's plenty of reason to be critical.

 

And what I've been saying is that you have to be critical of him based on the final results of each season which are tied directly to how this team is constructed. Losing to teams in both the regular season and playoffs because of virtually the same reasons are tied to Grigson.

 

 

Lots of people are spooked because we only won one SB with Manning, but the construction of the Polian/Manning Colts is far different than the Grigson/Luck Colts, in a different environment with different constraints. Just because Grigson used a first rounder on a WR doesn't mean he's building the team the same way Polian did. He's not.

 

Is it really that different? I see a lot more similarities than stark differences:

-Same once in a generation QB talent.

-Team offensive heavy with a reliance on skill position players

-A defense consistently ranked in the middle of the pack or worse in many categories.

-Losing to the same team consistently, in part for not being as physical on the offensive and defensive lines among other issues.

 

The main difference here is that Grigson has emphasized using free agency much more than Polian did. But ironically enough, the team appears to be very similarly built. 

 

It would also help to keep in mind that Irsay looked back at 14 years and was unsatisfied with the overall outcome. He didn't voice those complaints after three seasons in which the team was steadily advancing further in the playoffs. Things might also be different if we had gone 3-13 in 2012, like everyone thought we would.

 

That's not necessarily true. Irsay has made comments since the beginning that he wanted this era to be different and even pointed out why he believed those teams didn't produce more championships (see the Star Wars comment from 2013).

 

"Why and how" is necessarily more than results.

 

Why and how equal the results. They go hand in hand.

[Superman]

There's probably a handful of teams saying that they could be a one or two loss team

 

Nobody said anything about 3 SB wins in a row. Going to the extreme's to prove a point doesn't make it valid. Now, you may not be satisfied with division titles but justifying this team's record based on excuses or that they've "overachieved" doesn't change the fact that this team is not where it should be by year 4.

 

Weren't they brought in to make the team a true title contender? If not, why were they hired in the first place? I understand it takes time to build a championship roster but lets not temper expectations because they exceeded what many uninformed fans thought would happen to this team.

 

Actually, I did think the Colts were going to be a playoff team the first year. Playing in a weak division coupled with having one of the greatest QB prospects in recent memory played a part in that. Overachieving is relative to the expectations and clearly the Colts did better than those expectations.

 

Adding conditions to make your narrative work doesn't make it valid. Jimmy Johnson was forced out after winning 2 Super Bowl's. Dungy's teams were playoff teams and him getting fired for losing in the 1st round consistently actually proves my point. Billick won a Super Bowl and had more winning seasons than losing ones. In fact, the year before he had the team at 13-3 and a top 2 seed in the AFC. And since we are talking about teams achieving success relative to fan forum expectations, I'm sure the Lions board was singing a different tune when they finally reach the post-season for the first time in years.

 

...

 

That's not necessarily true. Irsay has made comments since the beginning that he wanted this era to be different and even pointed out why he believed those teams didn't produce more championships (see the Star Wars comment from 2013).

 

Why and how equal the results. They go hand in hand.

 

1) It's true of the Colts. 

 

2) The Colts have been ahead of schedule up until this season. I don't know where you get this 'the team is not where it should be' stuff from. This year they've faltered, and if changes happen after this season on that basis, I'm fine with that. But this season isn't over yet.

 

3) Yes, they were hired to build a contender. That doesn't mean they are the right guys to do so. Not sure what you're getting at here. If they aren't the right guys, you move on.

 

4) Hard to believe, but whatever. As you said, they've overachieved relative to expectations. 

 

5) I'm not adding conditions. Like I said, the exception proves the rule. And none of your newer examples -- Dungy, Billick, Coughlin, Mayhew -- were fired after 10 win seasons. Ten plus win coaches and especially GMs rarely get fired. Especially in recent years, given the changes in the NFL.

 

I say 10+ win coaches and GMs rarely get fired, and you give me guys who got fired after or during losing seasons, and Dungy, who hadn't won a playoff game in three years?

 

And contrary to what you say, Coughlin getting fired would NOT prove your point. It would support mine. His team hasn't had any success in recent years, they haven't even been above .500 since 2011. If he gets fired, it's because his team has been bad for several seasons in a row, and that's after he's received a stay of execution at least the last two seasons. I can't believe that you're even trying to use him as an example, as he's the exact opposite of what you're talking about.

 

It's incredible how you're defending guys like Billick who didn't win a playoff game for six seasons and Coughlin who hasn't had a .500 team in four seasons and Dungy who couldn't win a single playoff game three years in a row, but you're critical of Grigson and Pagano for not having a championship caliber team yet. It's LOL funny. Coughlin hasn't even made the playoffs since Grigson and Pagano got hired. The Lions??? Mayhew built a team that went to the playoffs twice in 7 seasons. In three plus seasons, the Grigson/Pagano Colts have one more total win than Mayhew's Lions did in his seven plus seasons. 

 

6) Irsay's comments were specific to building a balanced team that could win multiple championships. That didn't mean he doesn't want to have a good offense. It meant 'we better get this defense figured out, and we better play good special teams.' Irsay will judge Grigson on the quality of the roster, and Pagano on the performance of the team. He'll judge both on their ability -- in his eyes -- to build, maintain and coach a perennial contender that can beat good opponents in various conditions. I'm absolutely fine with that; I've been expecting 2015 to be a critical season for this staff for a couple years now. If he judges either or both of them to be deficient in any considerable respect and decides to move on, then I can only hope that whoever he hires next is an improvement. 

 

7) Why and how is necessarily different from results. Words have meaning.

[Restored]

 

1) It's true of the Colts. 

 

2) The Colts have been ahead of schedule up until this season. I don't know where you get this 'the team is not where it should be' stuff from. This year they've faltered, and if changes happen after this season on that basis, I'm fine with that. But this season isn't over yet.

 

3) Yes, they were hired to build a contender. That doesn't mean they are the right guys to do so. Not sure what you're getting at here. If they aren't the right guys, you move on.

 

4) Hard to believe, but whatever. As you said, they've overachieved relative to expectations. 

 

5) I'm not adding conditions. Like I said, the exception proves the rule. And none of your newer examples -- Dungy, Billick, Coughlin, Mayhew -- were fired after 10 win seasons. Ten plus win coaches and especially GMs rarely get fired. Especially in recent years, given the changes in the NFL.

 

I say 10+ win coaches and GMs rarely get fired, and you give me guys who got fired after or during losing seasons, and Dungy, who hadn't won a playoff game in three years?

 

And contrary to what you say, Coughlin getting fired would NOT prove your point. It would support mine. His team hasn't had any success in recent years, they haven't even been above .500 since 2011. If he gets fired, it's because his team has been bad for several seasons in a row, and that's after he's received a stay of execution at least the last two seasons. I can't believe that you're even trying to use him as an example, as he's the exact opposite of what you're talking about.

 

It's incredible how you're defending guys like Billick who didn't win a playoff game for six seasons and Coughlin who hasn't had a .500 team in four seasons and Dungy who couldn't win a single playoff game three years in a row, but you're critical of Grigson and Pagano for not having a championship caliber team yet. It's LOL funny. Coughlin hasn't even made the playoffs since Grigson and Pagano got hired. The Lions??? Mayhew built a team that went to the playoffs twice in 7 seasons. In three plus seasons, the Grigson/Pagano Colts have one more total win than Mayhew's Lions did in his seven plus seasons. 

 

6) Irsay's comments were specific to building a balanced team that could win multiple championships. That didn't mean he doesn't want to have a good offense. It meant 'we better get this defense figured out, and we better play good special teams.' Irsay will judge Grigson on the quality of the roster, and Pagano on the performance of the team. He'll judge both on their ability -- in his eyes -- to build, maintain and coach a perennial contender that can beat good opponents in various conditions. I'm absolutely fine with that; I've been expecting 2015 to be a critical season for this staff for a couple years now. If he judges either or both of them to be deficient in any considerable respect and decides to move on, then I can only hope that whoever he hires next is an improvement. 

 

7) Why and how is necessarily different from results. Words have meaning.

 

1. It's true of the Colts and practically every team in the NFL. To use it as an excuse for this year's lack of success is a mild copout to say the least.

 

2. The season isn't over but the reason why I said this team isn't where it needs to be is because given "expectations", they were suppose to be an elite team that should likely have 1 or 2 losses tops and not nearly the amount of close games they've had.

 

3. You inferred that they did a good job of turning the team around as if it was their only purpose in being hired to begin with. Getting the team back into the postseason should only be part of the plan.

 

4. The first year, yes they overachieved. However, beyond that, the deep flaws of the team didn't really get corrected and hence you get the blowouts and inability to get past a particular team.

 

5. They have more recently than in the past. Trends change and with the NFL becoming an even bigger machine, the demands for results have only increased. My point has been that coaches and GM's get fired despite the levels of success they've had.

 

No it's not. Coughlin getting fired would be in spite of his previous success. Much like how Pagano would likely get fired/not re-signed in spite of his previous success. Crutches that ultimately do in a coach are relative to their situation. For Dungy, it was the lack of playoff wins. For Pagano, it'll likely be not beating the Patriots a single time during his tenure coupled with underachieving amidst high expectations. I'm merely pointing out examples of GM's and coaches that have gotten the boot with regards to their previous success. Different organizations have different expectations and that has to be taken into account. I hate to break it to you, but not every team uses the same measuring stick for success. This is why I bring up the mediocrity point so often. Fans of this team seem to be content with 11 wins and a playoff berth, much like how it was in the previous era. However, the owner of this team wants more and so should this fan base. It's a near perfect do-over scenario for Irsay and he's expecting a lot more this time around and justifiably so.

 

6. Precisely my point. And the problem is, it's becoming apparent that these Colts teams are really not that different from those Polian teams in their overall makeup to this point. I don't want to sound like a broken record but the similarities are almost uncanny. The main difference has been Grigson's willingness to use free agency way more than Polian did.

 

7. Why and how equal the results. No other way to put it.