The "Real" Behind the Scenes Story of Irsay/Manning/Gruden

[LockeDown]

You see, Peyton would be the oldest son Jim never had and Grigson would be the youngest son Jim never had and his son-in-law who is A.J. Foyt's grandson would be the guy who should have his feelings hurt for Jim not considering him son Jim never had.  If Peyton came on board, then Grigson would be the son he doesn't have anymore.....and....grandsons......never had......blah blah  

[indy1888]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

What's "real news" then? NFL Network, Adam Schefter, ESPN, and everyone else was reporting just over a week ago that Irsay assured Pagano that his job was safe. Then a few short days later Irsay was in Houston interviewing Gruden/Manning, so clearly, Pagano wasn't "safe." Those guys are supposed to be the creme de la creme when it comes to journalistic reliability, and they got totally scooped by an Indy radio host and a couple Twitter users.

 

And it's not the first time either.

[CF4L]

7 hours ago, grmasterb said:

In journalism, brevity is next to godliness -- something bloggers like this guy need to learn.

 

Folks are over-selling the Grigson angle.  If the Irsays and Manning can come to a money agreement, Grigson is gone.

 

 

So why bother keeping Grigson around if you don't have any faith in him?(if this is true) its okay for Manning to fire him but you are too gutless to do so yourself? This is the same guy that got rid of many fan favorites over the years and Bill Polian. 

 

At this point I could believe the conspiracy theory of Grigson being Irsay's long lost son as a reason to keep him around than any football related reason because at least that makes more sense.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

What's "real news" then? NFL Network, Adam Schefter, ESPN, and everyone else was reporting just over a week ago that Irsay assured Pagano that his job was safe. Then a few short days later Irsay was in Houston interviewing Gruden/Manning, so clearly, Pagano wasn't "safe." Those guys are supposed to be the creme de la creme when it comes to journalistic reliability, and they got totally scooped by an Indy radio host and a couple Twitter users.

 

Ehh, I think the details are off on this "story," and I think this "article" is a little opinionated, especially some of the conclusions about Irsay's relationship with Grigson.

 

We can start with the assertion that Grigson is here to stay because Irsay views him as the son he never had, which conflicts with the assertion that Irsay planned to give both Manning and Gruden a degree of authority that would have resulted in Grigson's dismissal.

 

We can end with the opinionated conclusion that Irsay's equity offer to Manning was somehow unfair, based on other executives who are offered equity in NFL franchises. Who are these executives? I've spent a few minutes today researching -- not an exhaustive research, but more time than I should have spent -- looking for NFL executives who have equity share in the teams they work for. I can't find any, outside of those owners who also operate as the GM/decision maker for their teams -- Jerry Jones, Mike Brown, etc. I'm not prepared to call this an unprecedented offer, but I don't see any historical evidence of GMs/VPs owning a share of the team they're being hired to run. I posted above that the Broncos offer to Elway in 2010 was either minority owner or Executive, not both. The only executive/minority owner situation that I remember is Michael Jordan with the Wizards (which ended poorly, something Manning isn't interested in), and Michael Jordan with the Bobcats (which saw him become majority owner, something Irsay isn't interested in). All that said, I find this conclusion that Irsay was being unreasonable or unfair in his purported offer to Manning to be baseless and slanted against Irsay.

 

There are other little things that I take issue with. But those are the big things, and those are the major points that I think are intended to make this an Irsay/Grigson vs Manning situation, and I don't find either of them to be legitimate. With more information, my opinion could change, but as of right now, this entire angle seems to be agenda-driven. Like a lot of the stories regarding Colts management over the last year and a half, this doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

 

One last thing, it seems obvious that there are things brewing under the surface. I just don't think anyone really knows what's going on, besides the principal players, and none of them are quoted or referenced as providing information in this "article."

[NewColtsFan]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ehh, I think the details are off on this "story," and I think this "article" is a little opinionated, especially some of the conclusions about Irsay's relationship with Grigson.

 

We can start with the assertion that Grigson is here to stay because Irsay views him as the son he never had, which conflicts with the assertion that Irsay planned to give both Manning and Gruden a degree of authority that would have resulted in Grigson's dismissal.

 

We can end with the opinionated conclusion that Irsay's equity offer to Manning was somehow unfair, based on other executives who are offered equity in NFL franchises. Who are these executives? I've spent a few minutes today researching -- not an exhaustive research, but more time than I should have spent -- looking for NFL executives who have equity share in the teams they work for. I can't find any, outside of those owners who also operate as the GM/decision maker for their teams -- Jerry Jones, Mike Brown, etc. I'm not prepared to call this an unprecedented offer, but I don't see any historical evidence of GMs/VPs owning a share of the team they're being hired to run. I posted above that the Broncos offer to Elway in 2010 was either minority owner or Executive, not both. The only executive/minority owner situation that I remember is Michael Jordan with the Wizards (which ended poorly, something Manning isn't interested in), and Michael Jordan with the Bobcats (which saw him become majority owner, something Irsay isn't interested in). All that said, I find this conclusion that Irsay was being unreasonable or unfair in his purported offer to Manning to be baseless and slanted against Irsay.

 

There are other little things that I take issue with. But those are the big things, and those are the major points that I think are intended to make this an Irsay/Grigson vs Manning situation, and I don't find either of them to be legitimate. With more information, my opinion could change, but as of right now, this entire angle seems to be agenda-driven. Like a lot of the stories regarding Colts management over the last year and a half, this doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

 

One last thing, it seems obvious that there are things brewing under the surface. I just don't think anyone really knows what's going on, besides the principal players, and none of them are quoted or referenced as providing information in this "article."

 

 

Thank you.

 

I've been away on family business for most of the day here n So. Cal and was unable to elaborate on my post about this......

 

but you did a great job of focusing on the flaws in this story....     and, as you noted,  it's just some of the flaws, and not all of them.

 

Then again,  I did some research last night.....   I believe Grigson was hired around Jan 11 of 2012, so less than a week ago by calendar year.     And Pagano was hired around the 25th or so...    and we're no where close to that yet.     Grigson took roughly two weeks to conduct his search and interviews before deciding.

 

So, there is time.

 

That said,  today's development is that the 49ers are about to offer Kyle Shannahan their job once the Falcons are eliminated.     And who knows if Josh McDaniels would be interested.       So,  this goes back to Irsay not controlling his own story.      The combination of unusually long period of silence plus the series of rumors and leaks make the Colts look back from the outside looking in.     

 

Control your own message.     Irsay hasn't done that....    and so we're left in the middle of all this daily drama...

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Then again,  I did some research last night.....   I believe Grigson was hired around Jan 11 of 2012, so less than a week ago by calendar year.     And Pagano was hired around the 25th or so...    and we're no where close to that yet.     Grigson took roughly two weeks to conduct his search and interviews before deciding.

 

One milestone in the middle of that -- Caldwell was fired January 17, so Irsay and Grigson took almost a week to decide on Caldwell (there was some back and forth, even a failed attempt to pair him with Steve Spagnuolo along the way), then took about a week to hire Pagano.

 

Your point, though, is one I agree with. If Irsay is looking to shake things up, he's not out of time by any means. A little delayed, for sure, but who knows what winds up happening. If he wanted Shanahan, or anyone else that's been hired, I bet he would have taken a different approach. We all knew who the hot candidates would be this offseason. (And I get the feeling that, if he moves on from Pagano, he won't be looking for a first timer at this point.)

 

This could have been handled better. I'll just say that if Irsay is truly undecided, then remaining silent is probably the best thing. 

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

That said,  today's development is that the 49ers are about to offer Kyle Shannahan their job once the Falcons are eliminated.     And who knows if Josh McDaniels would be interested.       So,  this goes back to Irsay not controlling his own story.      The combination of unusually long period of silence plus the series of rumors and leaks make the Colts look back from the outside looking in.     

 

Control your own message.     Irsay hasn't done that....    and so we're left in the middle of all this daily drama...

 

The alternative is to announce something prematurely and if it doesn't work out on the business end of it, you end up with a bigger snafu than if you had just said nothing.  Imagine the reaction from this board if Irsay said he was negotiating something with Irsay or Gruden - something he wouldn't and shouldn't do utnil it is a signature away from official.  This board would go berserk if they coudln't meet on financial terms.  It's going berserk now without Irsay saying anything.

 

Then there's Grigson and Pagano to consider.  If they're gone, sure, no harm no foul sa far as a PR standpoint is concerned.  But if a deal to replace either or both of them cna't be reached, you have two guys who have a job knowing they're actively being looked over for replacements.  I'm not saying they'd do a bad job because of it, but at the same token, anyone who knows they're under the gun like that doesn't perform optimally.  More importantly, what does it say to any potential candidate if the owner is willing to shrug off their guys publicly?  It's no secret that anyone can be replaced at anytime, but doing it privately is one thing, it at least allows everyone to save face.  Anyone interviewing for a job under the microscope of anyone outside the organization knows that one day, that too could be their fate and might seek to avoid the hassel because of how it would be handled.  It makes everyone, Irsay and the GM and/or HC  look worse than if they had just said nothing.

[ztboiler]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Thank you.

 

I've been away on family business for most of the day here n So. Cal and was unable to elaborate on my post about this......

 

but you did a great job of focusing on the flaws in this story....     and, as you noted,  it's just some of the flaws, and not all of them.

 

Then again,  I did some research last night.....   I believe Grigson was hired around Jan 11 of 2012, so less than a week ago by calendar year.     And Pagano was hired around the 25th or so...    and we're no where close to that yet.     Grigson took roughly two weeks to conduct his search and interviews before deciding.

 

So, there is time.

 

That said,  today's development is that the 49ers are about to offer Kyle Shannahan their job once the Falcons are eliminated.     And who knows if Josh McDaniels would be interested.       So,  this goes back to Irsay not controlling his own story.      The combination of unusually long period of silence plus the series of rumors and leaks make the Colts look back from the outside looking in.     

 

Control your own message.     Irsay hasn't done that....    and so we're left in the middle of all this daily drama...

 

This business about the need to control your own message is a good principle, but its hard to see what Irsay could do much differently given his chosen course of action.

 

Yes, he could have done the end of year press conference himself instead of Pagano, and said it will be business as usual....then proceeded to have his covert meetings.  Transitions are built around "The truth in this moment, subject to change", so maybe he could have played that part differently.  

 

At the end of the day, however, there really is no message to control if you intend to keep the guys you have unless you can get the guys you want.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

The alternative is to announce something prematurely and if it doesn't work out on the business end of it, you end up with a bigger snafu than if you had just said nothing.  Imagine the reaction from this board if Irsay said he was negotiating something with Irsay or Gruden - something he wouldn't and shouldn't do utnil it is a signature away from official.  This board would go berserk if they coudln't meet on financial terms.  It's going berserk now without Irsay saying anything.

 

Then there's Grigson and Pagano to consider.  If they're gone, sure, no harm no foul sa far as a PR standpoint is concerned.  But if a deal to replace either or both of them cna't be reached, you have two guys who have a job knowing they're actively being looked over for replacements.  I'm not saying they'd do a bad job because of it, but at the same token, anyone who knows they're under the gun like that doesn't perform optimally.  More importantly, what does it say to any potential candidate if the owner is willing to shrug off their guys publicly?  It's no secret that anyone can be replaced at anytime, but doing it privately is one thing, it at least allows everyone to save face.  Anyone interviewing for a job under the microscope of anyone outside the organization knows that one day, that too could be their fate and might seek to avoid the hassel because of how it would be handled.  It makes everyone, Irsay and the GM and/or HC  look worse than if they had just said nothing.

 

My point, which may not have been artfully stated....   is that Irsay appears to be trying to split the baby.

 

He's hanging Pagano out to dry,  but appears willing to keep him if he doesn't get his dream ticket.

 

But,  what is conventionally done is that you (A) fire the coach,  and (B) start interviewing your candidates.  and then (C)  hire the candidate of your choice.     It's just cleaner.     

 

The way we're currently doing it is unseemly...    and messy and not necessary.

 

I'm the one who has been arguing about being careful of what you wish for.    That if you fire Pagano you might just end up with someone worse.    History shows that's very possible.

 

But if Irsay has lost faith in him,  then he should have fired Chuck -- cut the chord -- and moved on.

 

It makes the process easier for everyone.

 

Just a different perspective to consider....

 

[Creekside]

1 hour ago, LockeDown said:

You see, Peyton would be the oldest son Jim never had and Grigson would be the youngest son Jim never had and his son-in-law who is A.J. Foyt's grandson would be the guy who should have his feelings hurt for Jim not considering him son Jim never had.  If Peyton came on board, then Grigson would be the son he doesn't have anymore.....and....grandsons......never had......blah blah  

 

Now it's all starting to make sense!

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

This business about the need to control your own message is a good principle, but its hard to see what Irsay could do much differently given his chosen course of action.

 

Yes, he could have done the end of year press conference himself instead of Pagano, and said it will be business as usual....then proceeded to have his covert meetings.  Transitions are built around "The truth in this moment, subject to change", so maybe he could have played that part differently.  

 

At the end of the day, however, there really is no message to control if you intend to keep the guys you have unless you can get the guys you want.

 

What most owners typically do is decide to either keep the coach or fire him.     None of this,  I'm keeping him if I can't get a great home run hire,  or I'm firing him only if I get my dream catch.

 

You're either in our out.    Don't be a little bit pregnant.    Commit.    Be decisive.

 

It's as if Irsay has painted himself into a corner.     It's a problem of his own making because he couldn't bring himself to end it with Chuck.     It's a much harder way to do business.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

One milestone in the middle of that -- Caldwell was fired January 17, so Irsay and Grigson took almost a week to decide on Caldwell (there was some back and forth, even a failed attempt to pair him with Steve Spagnuolo along the way), then took about a week to hire Pagano.

 

Your point, though, is one I agree with. If Irsay is looking to shake things up, he's not out of time by any means. A little delayed, for sure, but who knows what winds up happening. If he wanted Shanahan, or anyone else that's been hired, I bet he would have taken a different approach. We all knew who the hot candidates would be this offseason. (And I get the feeling that, if he moves on from Pagano, he won't be looking for a first timer at this point.)

 

This could have been handled better. I'll just say that if Irsay is truly undecided, then remaining silent is probably the best thing. 

 

One last thought.....

 

A year from now,  if we're back to whether we're finally firing Pagano for the 3rd straight year....   and Shannahan and/or McDaniels go elsewhere and don't replace Chuck and they turn out to be good hires,  Irsay will look especially bad.       Especially since we passed on Adam Gase who went to a Miami and did a very, very nice job stabilizing a poorly run franchise.    He did wonders with Tannehill and seemed to steady the Dolphins who finally made the post-season.     A nice first season for him.

 

It would look bad for Irsay to pass on all of those new HC's,  all with an background in offense and have them doing well for other teams.       Then we're all gonna smack our foreheads and cry out............   

 

"We could've had a V-8!!"

 

 

[OffensivelyPC]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

My point, which may not have been artfully stated....   is that Irsay appears to be trying to split the baby.

 

He's hanging Pagano out to dry,  but appears willing to keep him if he doesn't get his dream ticket.

 

But,  what is conventionally done is that you (A) fire the coach,  and (B) start interviewing your candidates.  and then (C)  hire the candidate of your choice.     It's just cleaner.     

 

The way we're currently doing it is unseemly...    and messy and not necessary.

 

I'm the one who has been arguing about being careful of what you wish for.    That if you fire Pagano you might just end up with someone worse.    History shows that's very possible.

 

But if Irsay has lost faith in him,  then he should have fired Chuck -- cut the chord -- and moved on.

 

It makes the process easier for everyone.

 

Just a different perspective to consider....

 

Right, and I understand that. We don't know what was said between Irsay and Pagano after the season was over.  That is, perhaps Pagano completely new letter say was going to test the waters. The point I was trying to make has more to do about public perception. It could have been handled better as Outsiders looking in, put Pagano knew he was on the hot seat going into the season and the team finishing a date is not exactly an improvement. 

 

Of course there are cleaner ways of handling it but I think even Pagano would rather continue to be head coach and potentially save the possibility of interviewing for another head coaching job should he even slightly improved this next year than be fired now while he is widely considered to be on the hot seat. I don't know how it feels obviously but I think that if it were me I'd rather retain my position with the chance of changing his mind tomorrow then fired all together and wonder if I'll have another head coaching job in the future. Who knows?

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

One last thought.....

 

A year from now,  if we're back to whether we're finally firing Pagano for the 3rd straight year....   and Shannahan and/or McDaniels go elsewhere and don't replace Chuck and they turn out to be good hires,  Irsay will look especially bad.       Especially since we passed on Adam Gase who went to a Miami and did a very, very nice job stabilizing a poorly run franchise.    He did wonders with Tannehill and seemed to steady the Dolphins who finally made the post-season.     A nice first season for him.

 

It would look bad for Irsay to pass on all of those new HC's,  all with an background in offense and have them doing well for other teams.       Then we're all gonna smack our foreheads and cry out............   

 

"We could've had a V-8!!"

 

I agree. Typically, you decide 'I don't want this guy / these guys anymore,' and you send them off. Separately, you make your new hire(s). That's cleaner, it's more decisive, it's better all the way around, and there's little room for this kind of noise and scrutiny, these rumors and accusations. Clean break, make your decision and move on. We all would have preferred that, and I'm pretty sure everyone working for the Colts would have liked that kind of certainty.

 

However, what makes this situation unique -- not excusing the less than ideal manner in which this has been handled -- is that just one year ago, Irsay extended Grigson and Pagano through 2019. That says two things: 1) He owes them a lot of money; and more relevant/important, IMO, 2) He still has/had a measure of confidence in them and wanted to give them time to succeed. That being the case, his only interest in making a change at this point -- and this is entirely conjecture on my part -- seems to be if he is convinced he's getting an upgrade. 

 

If my conjecture is accurate, and reports are true, then Irsay considered Manning/Gruden to be an upgrade, and was willing to move on if he could land them. Other than that, he wants to keep Grigson/Pagano. He doesn't seem to be considering any of this year's hot candidates, same as he didn't intend to consider last year's hot candidates. Some of us fans and even some in the "media" might think he's missing out on Gase, Shanahan or McDaniels, but he doesn't view it that way (more conjecture). There are hot candidates every year. Some of them stay on the list. 

 

I think Irsay thought he had a chance to make a big splash, and took a stab at it, knowing it was going to be difficult to accomplish. If these reports are half-true, Grigson and Pagano are his safety net, which is too bad for them (maybe for the team, by the way). I don't think it bodes well for either of them, but I have little confidence in them anyway. 

 

We'll see what the next week or so brings. I get the feeling all the noise is going to quiet down. If we don't hear something directly from Irsay around the time of the SB, then the next thing we'll hear will be at the Combine, and all those questions are going to be summarily dismissed. I'm sure the Indy media is going to enjoy the answers they get at that point.

 

And I could be totally wrong. Irsay could clean house tomorrow. I don't know anything, and I'm not about to bet my Twitter account on it.

[dgambill]

8 hours ago, buccolts said:

Are any of the Irsay ladies single?

I propose that all the guys on the forum post mugshots and we let Gram or NFLFAN or one of our posters of the fairer sex pick the most handsome and that guy just take one for the rest of us and go in deep undercover to marry one of the girls...get in Jims good graces and then once they have the power report back to us so we can let them know who we want as our GM and Coach. Sound good? Good! Oh...and this needs to happen in like two weeks before the end of this offseason lol!!!

[NewColtsFan]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree. Typically, you decide 'I don't want this guy / these guys anymore,' and you send them off. Separately, you make your new hire(s). That's cleaner, it's more decisive, it's better all the way around, and there's little room for this kind of noise and scrutiny, these rumors and accusations. Clean break, make your decision and move on. We all would have preferred that, and I'm pretty sure everyone working for the Colts would have liked that kind of certainty.

 

However, what makes this situation unique -- not excusing the less than ideal manner in which this has been handled -- is that just one year ago, Irsay extended Grigson and Pagano through 2019. That says two things: 1) He owes them a lot of money; and more relevant/important, IMO, 2) He still has/had a measure of confidence in them and wanted to give them time to succeed. That being the case, his only interest in making a change at this point -- and this is entirely conjecture on my part -- seems to be if he is convinced he's getting an upgrade. 

 

If my conjecture is accurate, and reports are true, then Irsay considered Manning/Gruden to be an upgrade, and was willing to move on if he could land them. Other than that, he wants to keep Grigson/Pagano. He doesn't seem to be considering any of this year's hot candidates, same as he didn't intend to consider last year's hot candidates. Some of us fans and even some in the "media" might think he's missing out on Gase, Shanahan or McDaniels, but he doesn't view it that way (more conjecture). There are hot candidates every year. Some of them stay on the list. 

 

I think Irsay thought he had a chance to make a big splash, and took a stab at it, knowing it was going to be difficult to accomplish. If these reports are half-true, Grigson and Pagano are his safety net, which is too bad for them (maybe for the team, by the way). I don't think it bodes well for either of them, but I have little confidence in them anyway. 

 

We'll see what the next week or so brings. I get the feeling all the noise is going to quiet down. If we don't hear something directly from Irsay around the time of the SB, then the next thing we'll hear will be at the Combine, and all those questions are going to be summarily dismissed. I'm sure the Indy media is going to enjoy the answers they get at that point.

 

And I could be totally wrong. Irsay could clean house tomorrow. I don't know anything, and I'm not about to bet my Twitter account on it.

 

You have a twitter account?

 

I might just have to sign-up!        

[Superman]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You have a twitter account?

 

I might just have to sign-up!        

 

I do, but I don't tweet very often.

[dgambill]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree. Typically, you decide 'I don't want this guy / these guys anymore,' and you send them off. Separately, you make your new hire(s). That's cleaner, it's more decisive, it's better all the way around, and there's little room for this kind of noise and scrutiny, these rumors and accusations. Clean break, make your decision and move on. We all would have preferred that, and I'm pretty sure everyone working for the Colts would have liked that kind of certainty.

 

However, what makes this situation unique -- not excusing the less than ideal manner in which this has been handled -- is that just one year ago, Irsay extended Grigson and Pagano through 2019. That says two things: 1) He owes them a lot of money; and more relevant/important, IMO, 2) He still has/had a measure of confidence in them and wanted to give them time to succeed. That being the case, his only interest in making a change at this point -- and this is entirely conjecture on my part -- seems to be if he is convinced he's getting an upgrade. 

 

If my conjecture is accurate, and reports are true, then Irsay considered Manning/Gruden to be an upgrade, and was willing to move on if he could land them. Other than that, he wants to keep Grigson/Pagano. He doesn't seem to be considering any of this year's hot candidates, same as he didn't intend to consider last year's hot candidates. Some of us fans and even some in the "media" might think he's missing out on Gase, Shanahan or McDaniels, but he doesn't view it that way (more conjecture). There are hot candidates every year. Some of them stay on the list. 

 

I think Irsay thought he had a chance to make a big splash, and took a stab at it, knowing it was going to be difficult to accomplish. If these reports are half-true, Grigson and Pagano are his safety net, which is too bad for them (maybe for the team, by the way). I don't think it bodes well for either of them, but I have little confidence in them anyway. 

 

We'll see what the next week or so brings. I get the feeling all the noise is going to quiet down. If we don't hear something directly from Irsay around the time of the SB, then the next thing we'll hear will be at the Combine, and all those questions are going to be summarily dismissed. I'm sure the Indy media is going to enjoy the answers they get at that point.

 

And I could be totally wrong. Irsay could clean house tomorrow. I don't know anything, and I'm not about to bet my Twitter account on it.

Couldn't say it better myself. I think Irsay went big and struck out....the reasons could be many...loyalty to Grigson or not wanting to give up ownership or maybe Peyton wasn't ready or sold on it...could be anything. I think the same thing happened last offseason...couldn't land Sean Payton or whomever he was going after (Saban/Harbaugh whoever) and stayed with the status quo. He had put a lot of feelers out....flirted but in the end hasn't sealed the deal. It hurts his current staff but in the end when the tire hits the road it shouldn't cause the team to lose games etc...if anything it should put pressure on Ryan and Chuck to win now and make this team better to keep their job. The old adage "sales cures all ills"....well wins will cure this too in football. Let's hope this incentives Ryan and Chuck to hit a home run this offseason and turn this team around next year.

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, Nadine said:

People know that colts fans are desperate for an answer and they know that making people super angry is the best way to get attention

 

This looks like nothing to me other than some small minded, mean spirited person who craves attention.

 

That Dopamine 'kick' , like internet trolls get, and Facebook "Like" checkers..

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, egg said:

 

Ironically, I was a mailman for 26 years (not kidding)..........

And you know as many facts about Irsay's decisions than the author.

[DougDew]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree. Typically, you decide 'I don't want this guy / these guys anymore,' and you send them off. Separately, you make your new hire(s). That's cleaner, it's more decisive, it's better all the way around, and there's little room for this kind of noise and scrutiny, these rumors and accusations. Clean break, make your decision and move on. We all would have preferred that, and I'm pretty sure everyone working for the Colts would have liked that kind of certainty.

 

However, what makes this situation unique -- not excusing the less than ideal manner in which this has been handled -- is that just one year ago, Irsay extended Grigson and Pagano through 2019. That says two things: 1) He owes them a lot of money; and more relevant/important, IMO, 2) He still has/had a measure of confidence in them and wanted to give them time to succeed. That being the case, his only interest in making a change at this point -- and this is entirely conjecture on my part -- seems to be if he is convinced he's getting an upgrade. 

 

If my conjecture is accurate, and reports are true, then Irsay considered Manning/Gruden to be an upgrade, and was willing to move on if he could land them. Other than that, he wants to keep Grigson/Pagano. He doesn't seem to be considering any of this year's hot candidates, same as he didn't intend to consider last year's hot candidates. Some of us fans and even some in the "media" might think he's missing out on Gase, Shanahan or McDaniels, but he doesn't view it that way (more conjecture). There are hot candidates every year. Some of them stay on the list. 

 

I think Irsay thought he had a chance to make a big splash, and took a stab at it, knowing it was going to be difficult to accomplish. If these reports are half-true, Grigson and Pagano are his safety net, which is too bad for them (maybe for the team, by the way). I don't think it bodes well for either of them, but I have little confidence in them anyway. 

 

We'll see what the next week or so brings. I get the feeling all the noise is going to quiet down. If we don't hear something directly from Irsay around the time of the SB, then the next thing we'll hear will be at the Combine, and all those questions are going to be summarily dismissed. I'm sure the Indy media is going to enjoy the answers they get at that point.

 

And I could be totally wrong. Irsay could clean house tomorrow. I don't know anything, and I'm not about to bet my Twitter account on it.

Manning and Gruden will be available next year, and the year after that.  It doesn't seem like teams are busting down the door to offer Gruden total control.

 

My personal opinion is, I don't think Manning deserves an ownership position with the Colts or any other team.  He needs to earn his stripes as an Executive before he should expect to own a portion of a family business.

 

The market is what it is.  If Manning's brand and marketability allow him to earn an equity position BEFORE he even makes his first decision, then so be it.  I doubt that's the case, however.

[Creekside]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

I think Irsay thought he had a chance to make a big splash, and took a stab at it, knowing it was going to be difficult to accomplish. If these reports are half-true, Grigson and Pagano are his safety net

 

This seems to be it in a nutshell.

[oldunclemark]

8 hours ago, John Waylon said:

"Real".

Oh yeah, I bet.

A random dude with a blog is telling you the "real" story that happened behind closed doors. A meeting he couldn't have gotten into as a janitor.

Let that sink in.

Chances are it didn't, which is curious because to believe such sources indicates that your brain is in fact probably a sponge, but this is where we're at.

A lot of you lost your last couple marbles of reason under the couch of life the day after the season when pagano wasn't fired.

*

agreed......there's just no way he can know this..

..and no penalty if he makes it up

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What most owners typically do is decide to either keep the coach or fire him.     None of this,  I'm keeping him if I can't get a great home run hire,  or I'm firing him only if I get my dream catch.

 

You're either in our out.    Don't be a little bit pregnant.    Commit.    Be decisive.

 

It's as if Irsay has painted himself into a corner.     It's a problem of his own making because he couldn't bring himself to end it with Chuck.     It's a much harder way to do business.

 

 

It's seems as though your real quibble with Irsay is that you disagree with his chosen course of action, not his failure to control his message and the ensuing media circus.  

 

It's fair to disagree with the course, especially if he doesn't reshape this into a formidable playoff team in 2017.  That's really all he is accountable for, and those results will obviously lag as indicator.

 

The approach does defy convention...but that's never bothered me personally.  In fact, the situation probably merits the approach.

 

At this stage, things are beginning to turn to the point where he will likely needs to change coaches at a minimum and probably intends to, so he's not all that worried about the current narrative.

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

It's seems as though your real quibble with Irsay is that you disagree with his chosen course of action, not his failure to control his message and the ensuing media circus.  

 

It's fair to disagree with the course, especially if he doesn't reshape this into a formidable playoff team in 2017.  That's really all he is accountable for, and those results will obviously lag as indicator.

 

The approach does defy convention...but that's never bothered me personally.  In fact, the situation probably merits the approach.

 

At this stage, things are beginning to turn to the point where he will likely needs to change coaches at a minimum and probably intends to, so he's not all that worried about the current narrative.

 

On the contrary...   to the bold.....

 

In the past few weeks,  I've probably made a half-dozen different posts (more?) in various threads all saying the same thing......

 

Control your message,  because if you don't, then someone else will and you won't like the results.    And now that has come to pass.

 

By choosing the path that he's taken...   Irsay quickly lost control of the message and is seen as running his business poorly.     One decision led to his current poor perception.

 

Because he's not talking and his HC and GM are seemingly left in the dark while Grigson tries to fly below the radar,  Irsay has lost control of his message.      HIs method led to this current madness.

 

He may not be worried about perception,  but let's see what happens.    At this point,  I wonder if he'll be left without a quality candidate when the music stops.     If McDaniels decides to stay at NE for another year and Shannahan goes to SF,  who is left?          Chuck Pagano.     And there will likely be a fair amount of sympathy/empathy for him as he was left to twist in the wind....

 

[ztboiler]

24 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

On the contrary...   to the bold.....

 

In the past few weeks,  I've probably made a half-dozen different posts (more?) in various threads all saying the same thing......

 

Control your message,  because if you don't, then someone else will and you won't like the results.    And now that has come to pass.

 

By choosing the path that he's taken...   Irsay quickly lost control of the message and is seen as running his business poorly.     One decision led to his current poor perception.

 

Because he's not talking and his HC and GM are seemingly left in the dark while Grigson tries to fly below the radar,  Irsay has lost control of his message.      HIs method led to this current madness.

 

He may not be worried about perception,  but let's see what happens.    At this point,  I wonder if he'll be left without a quality candidate when the music stops.     If McDaniels decides to stay at NE for another year and Shannahan goes to SF,  who is left?          Chuck Pagano.     And there will likely be a fair amount of sympathy/empathy for him as he was left to twist in the wind....

 

And now we come full circle.  His chosen path means he must forego controlling the message.  If he believes it's the best path, then that's exactly what he should do...by conviction not media perception.

 

Disagree with the path, it might not work... and you can lament the perception - it's a bad look, but you can't separate it from the path.  It's a conscious choice, and sometimes you have to endure criticism to get what you believe in.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Manning and Gruden will be available next year, and the year after that.  It doesn't seem like teams are busting down the door to offer Gruden total control.

 

My personal opinion is, I don't think Manning deserves an ownership position with the Colts or any other team.  He needs to earn his stripes as an Executive before he should expect to own a portion of a family business.

 

The market is what it is.  If Manning's brand and marketability allow him to earn an equity position BEFORE he even makes his first decision, then so be it.  I doubt that's the case, however.

 

I don't think anyone said Manning deserves anything. The offer was reportedly made by Irsay. That's between them.

[NewColtsFan]

8 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

And now we come full circle.  His chosen path means he must forego controlling the message.  If he believes it's the best path, then that's exactly what he should do...by conviction not media perception.

 

Disagree with the path, it might not work... and you can lament the perception - it's a bad look, but you can't separate it from the path.  It's a conscious choice, and sometimes you have to endure criticism to get what you believe in.

 

Forgive me....    I'm a bit confused....

 

You're defending something,   but I'm not sure what that is?

 

What do you think Irsay has gained by doing this that is worth defending?       He's gained having Pagano should he not be able to secure a better coach?     Is that what is being defended?     

 

OK.....   he'll have Pagano as his fallback.     But the cost is Chuck's relationship with Grigson will likely be strained again,  because Chuck is going to believe even more than ever that he's in the position he's in because Ryan has done his job poorly.     And yet, Ryan's job feels safer than Chucks.     I don't think Chuck will like that.    It won't help.      And it will be awkward whenever Chuck walks by Irsay during the year and especially after any loss the Colts suffer in 2017.      And it may be even harder for Chuck to keep his players in line.    This one is hard to know....   maybe this will help the players rally around Chuck....    but that's a high price to guess on.....

 

Did I come close to guessing right?     Is this what you're defending?     I hope you'll share with me, because I'm honestly curious.....

 

[NewColtsFan]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I don't think anyone said Manning deserves anything. The offer was reportedly made by Irsay. That's between them.

 

Well.....   there appears to be a large number of posters who think Manning should get almost anything he asks for.     That his performance as a legendary QB has earned him whatever he wants from Irsay.     I think that's what Doug's reacting to....

 

If I'm wrong,  then I'm sure he'll chime in.....

 

[OffensivelyPC]

19 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

And now we come full circle.  His chosen path means he must forego controlling the message.  If he believes it's the best path, then that's exactly what he should do...by conviction not media perception.

 

Disagree with the path, it might not work... and you can lament the perception - it's a bad look, but you can't separate it from the path.  It's a conscious choice, and sometimes you have to endure criticism to get what you believe in.

IRsay's built up enough goodwill with the fans and the NFL in general over the years.  Even with his arrest, his perception, to any reasonable person is he's a goofy owner who's devoted to winning football games - if you had to say it in 10 words or less.  His team isn't blighted like some other franches - they aren't a perennial dumpster like some teams, they aren't constantly under scrutiny for cheating, their locker room isn't in the news very often (the occasional PED violation, but what team isn't?).  

 

The media and consumer perception of your product is dependent on several factors, but outside of illegality, any publicity isn't going to hurt you to the point it causes significant impact because, if we've learned anything about the NFL over hte past several years, its that it doesn't matter what the NFL does to a large extent.  I mean, close your eyes, open any daily planner in existence since the turn of the new century to a random page and search the NFL news on that date...you'll find least one, probably many, negative article on the NFL that would have a larger impact on any publicly traded company dealing with the same issue (just take a lot of CEOs who took a lot of heat for its stance on the 2016 election).

 

Let the media do what it will, Irsay knows they can fabricate and report all the rumors they want, his silence isn't going to be enough to drive away fans - mainstream or hardcore.  More importantly, the "negative" publicity isn't going to change the value of his franchise when its the offseason and all of the income is in a lull until things kick back up this summer.  And, as an added bonus, he doesn't have major shareholders breathing down his neck.  The only way that devaluation occurs is if you're a perennial loser and we're not despite the sensationalizing of these forums.  Knowing that, Irsay I think is in the right to remain silent.  Why promise or insinuate something is going to be done if you aren't sure it's going to get done?  Any shrewd businessman or lawyer would tell you, when in doubt, disclose less.

[IinD]

The "Real" Behind the Scenes Story of Irsay/Manning/Gruden.

 

Pretty sure that was on the E! channel a couple weeks back..

[buccolts]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

I propose that all the guys on the forum post mugshots and we let Gram or NFLFAN or one of our posters of the fairer sex pick the most handsome and that guy just take one for the rest of us and go in deep undercover to marry one of the girls...get in Jims good graces and then once they have the power report back to us so we can let them know who we want as our GM and Coach. Sound good? Good! Oh...and this needs to happen in like two weeks before the end of this offseason lol!!!

 

Well, you got my photo submission.                    

[buccolts]

8 hours ago, Nadine said:

I don't think there's one chance in a million that any one that close to Jim Irsay would share any confidential information. So, I think the source is NOT REAL

 

I don't believe that Jim see's Grigson as the son he never had. However, this gives me some insight into the motives of whoever wrote this.  They intend to dismiss and demean..........while they hide in the safety of anonymity

 

I have no idea what 'PR' spin they are talking about the colts trying to spin.  There hasn't been anything out of them on this at all.......ever

 

so, is it an uber double secret PR plan that only pixies know how to implement?

 

People know that colts fans are desperate for an answer and they know that making people super angry is the best way to get attention

 

This looks like nothing to me other than some small minded, mean spirited person who craves attention.

 

Are we still paying for blowing the whistle on deflategate?

 

[buccolts]

15 minutes ago, IinD said:

The "Real" Behind the Scenes Story of Irsay/Manning/Gruden.

 

Pretty sure that was on the E! channel a couple weeks back..

 

Yeah, I think it was right after a handful of O.J. Revisited shows.

[RockThatBlue]

Breaking news: Chuck Pagano spotted in a white Bronco heading southbound on I-74. Jim Irsay is in pursuit.

[buccolts]

5 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Breaking news: Chuck Pagano spotted in a white Bronco heading southbound on I-74. Jim Irsay is in pursuit.

 

I call bunk.

I-74 runs East / West.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Breaking news: Chuck Pagano spotted in a white Bronco heading southbound on I-74. Jim Irsay is in pursuit.

I thought it was 65 heading North, are you sure your sources are correct?

[RockThatBlue]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You have a twitter account?

 

I might just have to sign-up!        

If you're a news junkie, Twitter is great for that. Pretty much everything goes to twitter first.

[RockThatBlue]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I thought it was 65 heading North, are you sure your sources are correct?

Brad Wells told me so. It has to be true.

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

If you're a news junkie, Twitter is great for that. Pretty much everything goes to twitter first.

 

 

Turns out I ***AM*** a news junkie!

 

Also turns out,  that I'm not very tech savvy.     So,  my move to Twitter is happening......    

 

S-l-o-w-l-y....