Grigson has a new job...

[Finball]

Wow, that franchise just can't catch a break.

[Nadine]

[jet1968]

6 hours ago, LucasOilStadium said:

Shazam!  I marked my calendar!   Cleveland Browns as a team are indeed going to visit Indianapolis to play our Colts during Week 3 of the upcoming 2017 NFL season at Lucas Oil Stadium (the building) on September 24!    I wonder if there will be reacquintences between Grigson, Jim Irsay, Chuck Pagano and the players and personnel?  Probably look awkward  if that happens in Pre Game.

 

 

Maybe show a highlight reel. It could include the browns in it. Grigson giving up a first round pick to the browns for a running back that can't run.

[MacDee1975]

Looks like the Colts ultimately ended up getting the better end of that Richardson trade:

 

Richardson / Ballard vs Manziel / Grigson

[HarryTheCat]

8 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

The empty helmet and field implies the Browns are vacating Cleveland in wake of Grigson's hiring.

Ironically, the IQ of that empty helmet is 26 points higher than Grigson's. 

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, rock8591 said:

We should trade Phillip Dorsett to them for Danny Shelton.

Yes we should!  Maybe it has a better chance of happening now.

[richard pallo]

I don't know anything about NFL contracts, but I wonder if Jim is still obligated to pay out his full contract with the Colts now that he has found another job in the league.  Anyone know?

[rockywoj]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don't know anything about NFL contracts, but I wonder if Jim is still obligated to pay out his full contract with the Colts now that he has found another job in the league.  Anyone know?

I would guess there is an offset clause.

[myic90]

Glad he landed on his feet (not $$-wise, I know we're still paying him). Scouting's his strong suit, let him remain in the shadows where he doesn't have to interact with players.

[Lawrence Owen]

Honestly, Grigson is doing something he is actually GOOD at.  Scouting was never his problem...it was decision making and player interactions that got him terminated.  Let him tell someone else who's worth what, and let them have the decision to make.

 

 

(watch,...Browns win the SB now)....................................................................................................................

[bababooey]

If Trent Richardson showed up wearing glasses and said his name was Brent they would probably give him a tryout.

[bababooey]

47 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

Honestly, Grigson is doing something he is actually GOOD at.  Scouting was never his problem...it was decision making and player interactions that got him terminated.  Let him tell someone else who's worth what, and let them have the decision to make.

 

 

(watch,...Browns win the SB now)....................................................................................................................

Eh, if his scouting was good he'd still be GM

[jameszeigler834]

12 hours ago, southwest1 said:

That sounds like something a person who goes to the distant corners of Tibet for & that pearl of wisdom is what the Dalai Lama tells you in response doesn't it? Ah huh. It sure does. 

Grigson is an * though.

[BR-549]

This was the best present I could have ever given to my wife (a diehard Browns fan)... it sure was fun telling her when she got home from work.  "Are you F and kidding me?" (her to me, lol).

 

I wasn't on here much yesterday so I didn't see this thread.  I too was wondering if he had been fired, I mean hired somewhere yet.  I read this entire thread and my eyes have just now stopped watering from laughing (I read slow).  I also burned up a bunch of my likes as someone else said.

 

Well, good luck Browns and wish you the best Grigs.. "match made in heaven"  

[Superman]

I don't get it.

 

Why is it so shocking that a guy who has been working in the NFL for 20 years, who worked his way up to GM and actually had some success, would get another front office job? There are countless examples of exactly this happening with previous GMs who got fired.

 

Should he have been blacklisted, never hired again?

[richard pallo]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't get it.

 

Why is it so shocking that a guy who has been working in the NFL for 20 years, who worked his way up to GM and actually had some success, would get another front office job? There are countless examples of exactly this happening with previous GMs who got fired.

 

Should he have been blacklisted, never hired again?

No.  And you're right.  It happens all the time.  He wasn't going to be unemployed for long.  And if Chuck is ever released he will find another employer pretty quick too.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No.  And you're right.  It happens all the time.  He wasn't going to be unemployed for long.  And if Chuck is ever released he will find another employer pretty quick too.  

As much as Chuck haters don't want to admit, if we fire him, there would be at least 5 -10 teams hire him as HeadCoach. It's not like Grigs got hired as a GM again, so this hire doesn't shock me for the position he will hold. I still love the comments on this Thread though.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No.  And you're right.  It happens all the time.  He wasn't going to be unemployed for long.  And if Chuck is ever released he will find another employer pretty quick too.  

 

Chuck is a different story, only because he's made comments that make me think he would retire from coaching if he got fired. 

[Finball]

10 hours ago, bababooey said:

Eh, if his scouting was good he'd still be GM

 

I actually think his amateur scouting was pretty good. Teams average what, less than 2 starters oer draft? In 5 drafts, even ignoring the Luck pick we got

 

Hilton

Allen

Fleener

Mewhort

Moncrief

Anderson

Geathers

Kelly

 

8 starting caliber talents or better and we could add couple more to the list from the 2016 draft soon, And this is ignoring two 1sts and a 2nd that we used on Luck, stole Davis and blew on T-Rich.

 

Team building, overall philosophy and pro scouting were the issues (along with people skills). The hits at the draft were all on the offensive side until 2015 and those two guys have struggled with injuries. Combined with poorly balanced drafts/success rate on picks (O vs D) and all the FA busts, the talent on D was pretty damn porous.

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Finball said:

 

I actually think his amateur scouting was pretty good. Teams average what, less than 2 starters oer draft? In 5 drafts, even ignoring the Luck pick we got

 

Hilton

Allen

Fleener

Mewhort

Moncrief

Anderson

Geathers

Kelly

 

8 starting caliber talents or better and we could add couple more to the list from the 2016 draft soon, And this is ignoring two 1sts and a 2nd that we used on Luck, stole Davis and blew on T-Rich.

 

Team building, overall philosophy and pro scouting were the issues (along with people skills). The hits at the draft were all on the offensive side until 2015 and those two guys have struggled with injuries. Combined with poorly balanced drafts/success rate on picks (O vs D) and all the FA busts, the talent on D was pretty damn porous.

Yeah it's pretty easy to make fun of Grigson at this point. It's also easy to forget the positive things he did do for the Colts. Things went south for Grigson in two seasons and it cost him his job.

How much of that was due to the rumored riff between Grigson and Pagano we will more than likely never know.

Reading all the negative things said about Grigson just seems more like a piling on rather than the total truth.

The old saying about things are never as good as they seem and never as bad as they seem IMO holds true as far a Grigson is concerned.

[King Colt]

"There's no such thing as a bad boy."

-Spencer Tracy -  "Boys Town"

[BR-549]

Sorry if I don't feel all fuzzy and warm because the Browns hired him, or that he got another job anywhere.    

 

Sure he made some decent decisions, but Im not sure they were any better than what some of the guys on here could have done..... nothing special at all IMO.   He may have ended up doing a good job had his ego not gotten the best of him.  So maybe now he is a little humbled and will work better with others and end up doing very well - good for him if that happens.

 

He forced players or player schemes on Chuck (allegedly) and it was no secret that Colts players for the most part did not like him.  

 

Even though I did my best to like the guy I couldn't do it in the end.  So I for one am glad he is gone. Could care less where he is and what he is doing.  

 

Just thought it was funny, or ironic,  that the dysfunctional Browns was the team to give him a position.

 

Those who don't learn from the past are destined to repeat it... isn't that how it goes.

 

Roll on CB 

[Valpo2004]

On 5/24/2017 at 7:35 PM, csmopar said:

As soon as I read about grigson I immediately thought "wonder what Pat say about this"

 

Pat really does not like Grigson.  

[crazycolt1]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Chuck is a different story, only because he's made comments that make me think he would retire from coaching if he got fired. 

You may be right. It seems all he wants to do is coach the Colts.

What is said behind closed doors could be a whole different story but personally I get the same vibe you do with him.

[Coffeedrinker]

Personally I think Grigs biggest downfall was his mentality on offensive lineman.  Playing Dr. Phil here, but I think Grigs felt like he could have made it in the NFL as a player if he had only been given a long enough chance.  And I think he pushed that into the players he was drafting/signing as a FA.  He saw those guys that didn't have all the tools but worked their butts off and he thought he could make them into starting caliber olineman.

 

Then his 2nd biggest mistake, especially with FA, was going to much by the name and not enough film study.

[AZColt11]

He'll be fine so long as they don't let him near FA.

[21isSuperman]

On 2017-05-25 at 5:17 PM, Superman said:

I don't get it.

 

Why is it so shocking that a guy who has been working in the NFL for 20 years, who worked his way up to GM and actually had some success, would get another front office job? There are countless examples of exactly this happening with previous GMs who got fired.

 

Should he have been blacklisted, never hired again?

He may have some merit in scouting and evaluating talent, but the thing that really sticks out to me is the character issues.  He didn't get along with the head coach, he didn't get along with the players, and his exit from Indy was pretty ugly.  If I'm a GM looking to add to my scouting personnel, I'd be a little cautious of adding Grigson.  He also apparently had quite the ego, so it would be interesting to see how he handles the demotion from GM.  Not saying he should have been blacklisted, but I can see why people don't think this was a good move on Cleveland's part.

[BR-549]

5 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

He may have some merit in scouting and evaluating talent, but the thing that really sticks out to me is the character issues.  He didn't get along with the head coach, he didn't get along with the players, and his exit from Indy was pretty ugly.  If I'm a GM looking to add to my scouting personnel, I'd be a little cautious of adding Grigson.  He also apparently had quite the ego, so it would be interesting to see how he handles the demotion from GM.  Not saying he should have been blacklisted, but I can see why people don't think this was a good move on Cleveland's part.

Yeah, I agree with you for the most part.

 

Kind of what I was trying to say only I think he also has some clouded vision when it comes to making a sound judgement call on when to take the talent and how much it should cost.

 

Then there is the attitude.  Again, maybe losing his job humbled him a little and he will develop better people skills as a result. My gut says no however and that is why I thought it was a bad move by Cleveland.  To each their own.  

 

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 5/25/2017 at 0:22 AM, Synthetic said:

 

Loved what the Browns have been doing in recent months. They had a fine draft with some studs, but this is a horrible move on their part....

 

Haha, take one step forward and two steps back...

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 5/25/2017 at 7:38 PM, richard pallo said:

No.  And you're right.  It happens all the time.  He wasn't going to be unemployed for long.  And if Chuck is ever released he will find another employer pretty quick too.  

 

On 5/25/2017 at 7:45 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

As much as Chuck haters don't want to admit, if we fire him, there would be at least 5 -10 teams hire him as HeadCoach. It's not like Grigs got hired as a GM again, so this hire doesn't shock me for the position he will hold. I still love the comments on this Thread though.

 

I don't know, maybe Chuck would walk away, but if he didn't, I view him a lot like Grigson.

 

What I mean is that he is probably better at his previous position.  Grigson probably should have stayed a scout and Chuck probably should have stayed a DB coach.  Not to say you shouldn't shoot for the stars, but when your wings burn off, find your previous lane, and stay in it...

 

I think Grigson may have found his role (even if it's with the Browns), and I hope Chuck finds his role, whether it's in football or not.  I appreciate everything they've done for the Colts since 2011, but I believe in the "stay in your lane" philosophy.  

 

[Superman]

11 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

He may have some merit in scouting and evaluating talent, but the thing that really sticks out to me is the character issues.  He didn't get along with the head coach, he didn't get along with the players, and his exit from Indy was pretty ugly.  If I'm a GM looking to add to my scouting personnel, I'd be a little cautious of adding Grigson.  He also apparently had quite the ego, so it would be interesting to see how he handles the demotion from GM.  Not saying he should have been blacklisted, but I can see why people don't think this was a good move on Cleveland's part.

 

He'll be working under Andrew Berry, who used to work under him. If his personality were that big of an issue, Berry would know.

 

And really, he's been in and around the league for a long time, he knows and has worked for/with a lot of people. Just because he may have been rough with a few people, and may have had a rift with Pagano, doesn't mean he's impossible to get along with. Everything isn't so black and white.

[2006Coltsbestever]

43 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

I don't know, maybe Chuck would walk away, but if he didn't, I view him a lot like Grigson.

 

What I mean is that he is probably better at his previous position.  Grigson probably should have stayed a scout and Chuck probably should have stayed a DB coach.  Not to say you shouldn't shoot for the stars, but when your wings burn off, find your previous lane, and stay in it...

 

I think Grigson may have found his role (even if it's with the Browns), and I hope Chuck finds his role, whether it's in football or not.  I appreciate everything they've done for the Colts since 2011, but I believe in the "stay in your lane" philosophy.  

 

Yeah then again if we fire Chuck, he may just call it quits and think he gave it his best shot and it just didn't work. I do think we have a decent shot at winning the Division mainly because of our schedule, the new additions that Ballard made, Luck should be 100%, and the Texans still don't have a QB that is better than average.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah then again if we fire Chuck, he may just call it quits and think he gave it his best shot and just didn't work. I do think we have a decent shot at winning the Division mainly because of our schedule, the new additions that Ballard made, Luck should be 100%, and the Texans still don't have a QB that is better than average.

 

I wouldn't blame Chuck.  I mean, it's harder than hard to win a SB as a head coach in the NFL, and if he never wins one, we shouldn't think less of him.  I hate to keep harping on the gold standard of our era, but I don't know if BB could have won any of those SBs without Brady, and vice versa.  But Chuck and Luck both deserve at least one, IMO.

If we're Lucky enough to win a SB with Chuck and Luck/Luck and Chuck, I'll be happy.  Say that out loud.  Chuck-n-Luck, sounds like a bait-shop on some un-named river in the middle of nowhere...

 

I am happy with only one SB from the Manning Era, and I would be happy with only one from the Luck era.  I would love the parallels of Manning/Luck, Dungy/Pagano, and Polian/Ballard.  The symmetry, the balance, the... cosmic harmony of an untainted, un-asterisked SB.  Karma.  Luck.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I wouldn't blame Chuck.  I mean, it's harder than hard to win a SB as a head coach in the NFL, and if he never wins one, we shouldn't think less of him.  I hate to keep harping on the gold standard of our era, but I don't know if BB could have won any of those SBs without Brady, and vice versa.  But Chuck and Luck both deserve at least one, IMO.

If we're Lucky enough to win a SB with Chuck and Luck/Luck and Chuck, I'll be happy.  Say that out loud.  Chuck-n-Luck, sounds like a bait-shop on some un-named river in the middle of nowhere...

 

I am happy with only one SB from the Manning Era, and I would be happy with only one from the Luck era.  I would love the parallels of Manning/Luck, Dungy/Pagano, and Polian/Ballard.  The symmetry, the balance, the... cosmic harmony of an untainted, un-asterisked SB.  Karma.  Luck.

 

I was extremely happy with the Peyton era, wish we could've put a stamp on the decade and got another SB win which would've gave us 2 in 2009 but we lost that SB. Still won 1 in 2006 and had an unbelievable run from 2006-2009 going 51-13 in the Regular Season and 6-3 in Playoff play in those 4 seasons.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I was extremely happy with the Peyton era, wish we could've put a stamp on the decade and got another SB win which would've gave us 2 in 2009 but we lost that SB. Still won 1 in 2006 and had an unbelievable run from 2006-2009 going 51-13 in the Regular Season and 6-3 in Playoff play in those 4 seasons.

 

Agreed.  When Irsay was saying "we should have won more SBs with Manning", I was kinda taken aback.

 

I agreed with him on a selfish level (which is where he was coming from when he said that, especially since he spent all of the money to create those amazing teams).  But from a fans' point of view, we got our moneys' worth.  We reached the mountaintop, in the most unlikely of ways (has any team reached that pinnacle with that bad of a regular season run-D?)

 

Personal perspective, I guess.  Irsay grew up with Johnny U and a rich Colts tradition.  We Indy fans grew up with disappointment and ridicule.  Until Manning came along and granted our wishes.

 

[crazycolt1]

5 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Agreed.  When Irsay was saying "we should have won more SBs with Manning", I was kinda taken aback.

 

I agreed with him on a selfish level (which is where he was coming from when he said that, especially since he spent all of the money to create those amazing teams).  But from a fans' point of view, we got our moneys' worth.  We reached the mountaintop, in the most unlikely of ways (has any team reached that pinnacle with that bad of a regular season run-D?)

 

Personal perspective, I guess.  Irsay grew up with Johnny U and a rich Colts tradition.  We Indy fans grew up with disappointment and ridicule.  Until Manning came along and granted our wishes.

 

Not to mean this in an argumentative way but the changes in the Colts winning ways was started by Harbaugh. We were one play from reaching the super bowl against the Steelers. Take away the illegal TD that Stewart caught and that game may have had a different turn out.

[CoachLite]

On 5/25/2017 at 6:00 PM, Superman said:

 

Chuck is a different story, only because he's made comments that make me think he would retire from coaching if he got fired. 

In any career, it helps to know your limitations, as well as your strengths. Once most of these limitations are known, you have to make some decisions about whether you can overcome those limitations, nor not. The problems happen when you fail to realize what your limitations are, and for Chuck Pagano, who is pretty good as far as football tactics go, it seems he's not fully aware of his lack of strategic development. Retirement may be the best option, because these skills take great mentors (strategic thinkers) and a very long time to learn.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, CoachLite said:

In any career, it helps to know your limitations, as well as your strengths. Once most of these limitations are known, you have to make some decisions about whether you can overcome those limitations, nor not. The problems happen when you fail to realize what your limitations are, and for Chuck Pagano, who is pretty good as far as football tactics go, it seems he's not fully aware of his lack of strategic development. Retirement may be the best option, because these skills take great mentors (strategic thinkers) and a very long time to learn.

Pagano has only been a head coach for 5 years.

No matter what anyone's opinion of him is he has been a success. Some come up with all kind of reasons why he has never had a losing season but the fact is he hasn't. Line up any head coach in the league and what he has done is unmatched.

I have no clue as how his career is going to work out but to treat and act like he hasn't been a good coach is not correct. You can hand pick every negative call or things he has done over the past and then hold that over his head and point a finger to say he is a bad coach but that is too pre mature to call at this point.

It's easy to come into this forum and make old and stale jokes that we have all heard so many times that it's not funny anymore.

Chuck's attitude with his players is always upbeat and positive. That is what we see. What he does and says in house we really don't know. All I do know is his players and anyone who deals with him don't have negative things to say about him. That only happens in this forum

No matter what anyone's opinion of him is the fact is he is the head coach of the Colts. Will that change? Who really knows at this point.

[CoachLite]

17 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Pagano has only been a head coach for 5 years.

No matter what anyone's opinion of him is he has been a success. Some come up with all kind of reasons why he has never had a losing season but the fact is he hasn't. Line up any head coach in the league and what he has done is unmatched.

I have no clue as how his career is going to work out but to treat and act like he hasn't been a good coach is not correct. You can hand pick every negative call or things he has done over the past and then hold that over his head and point a finger to say he is a bad coach but that is too pre mature to call at this point.

It's easy to come into this forum and make old and stale jokes that we have all heard so many times that it's not funny anymore.

Chuck's attitude with his players is always upbeat and positive. That is what we see. What he does and says in house we really don't know. All I do know is his players and anyone who deals with him don't have negative things to say about him. That only happens in this forum

No matter what anyone's opinion of him is the fact is he is the head coach of the Colts. Will that change? Who really knows at this point.

Negative, no. Critical, yes. I never said Pagano was a bad coach. But, Pagano has had 5 years to develop better strategies (granted in concert with the other coaches and players Grigson and the FO provided). I suppose some would try to put all the failures on Grigson, but in my experience with teambuilding, that (the failure of one person) is almost never the case. In fact, I would speculate that, for whatever reason, the lack of a coherent strategic vision for the team resulted in players "trying too hard", getting hurt, and ultimately coming up short of their potential. Part of that under-performance is the lack of development of the mental aspects of the game. Slow starts, mis-matched playcalling, poor clock management are indicators of strategic mental lapses.

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, CoachLite said:

Negative, no. Critical, yes. I never said Pagano was a bad coach. But, Pagano has had 5 years to develop better strategies (granted in concert with the other coaches and players Grigson and the FO provided). I suppose some would try to put all the failures on Grigson, but in my experience with teambuilding, that (the failure of one person) is almost never the case. In fact, I would speculate that, for whatever reason, the lack of a coherent strategic vision for the team resulted in players "trying too hard", getting hurt, and ultimately coming up short of their potential. Part of that under-performance is the lack of development of the mental aspects of the game. Slow starts, mis-matched playcalling, poor clock management are indicators of strategic mental lapses.

Not trying to be argumentative but like I said, hand picking each and every negative play he has made in his past and then completely over looking the positive stuff IMO is being narrow minded.

I do not mean that as an insult, just an observation.

Regardless of anyone's opinion Pagano has done a fine job under the circumstances. It is hard for any coach to install a strategy when he has a defense and running game at the bottom of the league. He has had to work with an offensive line that cant keep his QB clean.

It seems Luck has been injured more than we initially thought so add that to the problem IMO we were lucky to have two 8-8 seasons. This Colts team is so used to have 10-6 and better seasons for so long 8-8 is treated like the team is the bottom of the league. IMO Pagano getting two 8-8 seasons was a testament of his coaching ability under the circumstances.