shasta519

Gilmore ran a 4.38 40. Brents ran a 4.53. That's the difference between Hines and Pittman in speed. If Brents ran a 4.38...then yes he would an elite all-around athlete. If Gilmore ran a 4.53...he's probably not a 5x PBer and 2x AP. Speed absolutely matters, especially when there are questions about man coverage. But Gilmore was also a top 10 pick, who was an All-American in college. Brents was late-riser from Day 3 because he's long and had a nice RAS. It's always silly to make these type of player comps, especially based on RAS scores. If anything, the comp for Brents would be someone like Kelvin Hayden. Edit: BTW, I believe that post was like 3 weeks old. So I actually long moved on

That's exactly what it is. It's not just the takes, but I often catch them saying inaccurate things about players. I guess the casual fan might not notice it as much though.

On offense, it's still definitely QB. The current choices are Gardner Minshew and a 21 year-old rookie who has started 13 games. The OL gets an honorable mention though. They have an older LT entering year 2, an AP LG who has had multiple surgeries and has not played at that high level for a couple of years, a C who has been on the decline for a couple seasons, a 7th round RG entering his second year...and Braden Smith. On defense, it has to be CB. The depth chart currently consists of a veteran nickel CB nearing 30 who either isn't a good player anymore or doesn't fit the scheme (my money is on the former), a 4th year undersized, but exciting CB who has never played more than 48% of the snaps in a season...and 2-3 rookies.

I think I disagree with Bring the Juice more than any podcast, but they do put out content frequently. Locked On is solid though...and has new content frequently. Kevin's Corner is a good one, but you will be lucky to get one per week, unless something crazy happens. I find KB to be the most objective person that covers the Colts. Colts Cover 2 will have good recaps in season. I don't like listening to Chappy talk, so I don't listen to the Blue Zone podcast. But that's a personal preference. I had stopped listening as much during the HC search due to the incessant Saturday bashing that they were all doing. It rubbed me the wrong way.

I don’t know…if he was going to retire soon…I think he would prefer to grab the #2 non-QB in the draft (or maybe even #1 on their board was still there), as opposed to a QB. But if they have their eyes on next year, then they definitely weren’t taking AR.

What? I wasn’t calling Pete Carroll weak or feeble. You make me sound like an ageist I just mentioned it because there has been a lot of smoke around him retiring soon. He’s 71. I believe the oldest NFL HC was Halas, who retired after his age 72. If he wants to keep going, I’m all for it. I just don’t buy him drafting AR when Geno is going to be there for at least two years (given the contract structure).

Yeah...I think Levis falling out of R1 gives some insight into a lack of QB needy teams and how this QB class might have been viewed, especially Levis. It's also true that ARI shopped the #3 pick very hard. And ultimately, when they did trade back, it wasn't to a team who was moving up to get a QB that was left...it was a team who wanted an ER. IND was even willing to risk losing AR instead of trading up one spot, but it worked out for them...likely because of how those QBs were viewed. Because of the lack of interest for trading up for a QB or just the lack of a desperate QB-needy team to do it, Ballard was able to still get AR at #4. But the media loves to talk about QBs, so it seemed like QBs would go 1-4...or maybe even Hooker would be a R1 pick. If you think this draft season was hyped at QB...just wait until next draft season, especially when a couple teams who already have a QB somehow end up with the #1 and #2 picks. It's going to be bonkers.

But it could have been any one of a half dozen QBs. All Carroll said is that they gave AR consideration and then spoke about the pre-draft process. That seemed to get morphed into the idea that SEA was definitely going to take him. But I don't buy it. Not with how they are set up the next couple of seasons and with Carroll's age. I do think AR could have gone later in R1 though.

I mean...if you have a 2.8% INT rate in college, you are still throwing plenty of interceptable balls. If that transfers over to the NFL, that is 2022 Matt Ryan and Zach Wilson territory. I don't think a TO worthy play in college is equal to one in college. How many times do we see a college QB (even a guy like Stroud) make a throw and think..."that was awesome, but that's probably going the other way in the NFL." It's just such a different game at the NFL level from a passing standpoint. And that's what is going to make the next couple of seasons in the AFCS really interesting, with 3 young QBs. But I do agree that IND will simplify the offense to try to prevent those types of plays. I think people expecting this explosive deep-passing offense need to temper their expectations.

I mean...the Colts just drafted at #4, which means they finished as the #29 team in record. And it's not like they added a bunch of proven vet talent to bolster the roster. Their offseason was basically new HC, a K, a rotational DL player...and a draft class, including a rookie QB. It's the same reason HOU is at #30. And they actually beat the Colts last season. They have also added a lot more this season. Hired a new HC as well (to help fix their defense), signed 19 UFAs from other teams to bolster their roster, drafted a rookie QB and arguably the best player in the draft. If any team should be below the IND, it's TEN. But TEN is 5-0 against IND in their last 5 games.

That's how I see it. The offense should definitely be improved. But it might not make a huge difference when the defense is giving up 4 TDs per game (like they were in the 2H of last season). That 4Q TD to cut the score to 34-24 will certainly look better in the offensive rankings though.

Last year's defense (especially the secondary) was bolstered by Stephon Gilmore at CB1 and Rodney McLeod at S. Both of those are gone and will be replaced by young, unproven players. Also gone is Oke, who had a really solid season at WILL. Hopefully Leonard comes back, but he's still a question mark after missing nearly all of last season. And Speed and Franklin as the starting LB duo will get exploited in pass coverage. Basically, they have lost 3 of their top 5 highest-graded players from last year. And their replacements all have question marks. The defense was top 10 in the 1H of the season and fell to #21 in the 2H of the season with the pts allowed per game jumping way up. We can blame Saturday or the offense or whomever we want, but their play regressed, so it's not a given it won't again. And given how they played in the 2H of last season, plus the loss of dependable vet play, I can certainly see the defense no longer being a strength like it was. But I can't see that with the offense.

I really like joint practices. And with Moore, Claypool, Mooney and Scott, CHI now at least has some good WRs to help prepare these young CBs. But I can already see the "AR already outplaying third-year Fields" hype that will inevitably happen after the first practice. Also hoping for some Daurice Fountain hot takes after he catches a pass in practice.

The cracks began showing in 2021 and it collapsed last year. Not being terrible down their 1-7 stretch to end last season doesn't really inspire confidence for a bounceback. Here's the line right now: Braden Smith is probably the only non-question mark on this OL at this point. It's hard to imagine a R4 OT and an UDFA are supposed to fix what was arguably the worst OL in the NFL last year. I am a bit surprised that there wasn't a FA move or two to bolster competition and depth, especially with this draft clearly focused on the secondary and skill positions.

Fireworks and thirsty Thursday on the same night? Sounds too good to be true. Never been to Ft. Wayne. Just went to a South Bend Cubs game though…and it was awesome. I am a huge MiLB fan. I got to Bats games in Louisville a dozen or more times each year. For those who haven’t been, Louisville is a great place to see a game.

The roster did deteriorate with Grigson. And it was time for him a change. But going 8-8 in b2b seasons is not some epic failure. And 2015 was actually a fairly impressive achievement, given that Luck got hurt and missed 9 games (while also having by far his worst statistical season). Without Luck, they went 6-3. I think the rest of these are largely media-driven narratives: 1. I am pretty sure Irsay made the call on hiring Pagano, at least it was reported that way. But HCs and GMs not getting along is not unprecedented. Both have said what was reported was way overblown. The reason that Grigson is seen as the villain in that saga is because of intentional leaks, from Pagano. Of course they made Grigson look bad...they were designed to do that. Somebody was about to get fired...it was CYA time. And Pagano used willing media members (Kravitz and Doyel, naturally) to level all complaints about TRich and Werner (after Pagano was talking about the leaps that Werner was making)...or that he was forced to work with Luck's guy Pep (who he eventually pushed out for his buddy Chud). Pagano shares just as much blame as Grigson IMO. I don't know if they were true or made up, but regardless, a HC leaking to the press is a bush league move. He should have been fired right there, along with Grigson. And the toxicity between the two was clearly mutual. 2. Which assistants? I have not heard this before. One of them hired Grigson when that assistant became a GM. I have yet to hear one of his assistants bash Grigson in public. 3. Didn't Irsay have to tell Ballard to get it done with TY when they were at a stalemate? When Ballard does it, he's sticking to his guns...but when Grigson does it, it's some awful thing. It's probably fairly common for some players to not care for their GMs. There are employees and there are bosses. But it has only really been McAfee who even said he hated (or heavily implied that he hated) Grigson. Reggie didn't say he HATED Grigson...he just said it was awkward because they didn't have a conversation until later in the season. Not at all the same thing. This narrative is especially overblown, since the Colts had NO issues signing UFAs or (more importantly) retaining their own. IF players hated Grigson, how can that be? You would think they would be staying away from Indy or trying to get out of Indy first chance, but none of them did. So even if it were true that some players didn't care for Grigson, it didn't even impact the team. 4. He didn't really say that. Here is the quote: He's referencing using the draft and setting expectations around quick fixes (FA moves) on defense. In previous years, the Colts had been very active in FA on defense, which rebuilt the defense up, but had also set a precedent for how they operated. But at that point, the defense needed to be rebuilt, and with so much cap going to offense and just having much less of it (with Luck's record-setting contract), there would not be quick fixes on defense and it was going to take time. That's all he said. He's clearly not a wordsmith, but that was basically Grigson's version of delayed gratification. And the media jumped on that quote and turned it into Grigson blaming Luck (and his contract) for team woes. Prime example of everything I am talking about here with how the media has treated Grigson. They and (later on) Colts content creators have been the ones who have created and/or driven these extreme narratives. And it's worked. Because even a logical Colts fan like you is using the word "hate" in reference to Grigson. And Grigson has basically become this villain. Keefer made an entire podcast series about Luck without even mentioning Grigson, as just a recent example. And it makes it nearly impossible for some to be objective when looking back to that era, which was actually pretty damn successful by NFL standards. And most of this fanbase refuses to give Grigson any credit, but are more than willing to blame him for everything. That's illogical and objectively, he should get some credit and he should only be sharing the blame. That's all I am saying. And that doesn't happen, which is why I don't think Grigson gets a fair shake at all. I am not saying I like the guy or that he did a good job, I am just calling it how I see it. And I think what has happened since (with him working his way back up to being a #2) is evidence that others see the situation differently...perhaps without the Colts bias.

Yep. This is how Moore was able to sign his extension after only two years.

Thanks. I just think there is a lot of context and objectivity to that time in IND and it's worth being said. But I don't mean to preach...people can decide for themselves. Grigson is never coming back to IND, so it doesn't really matter.

It's a boy's club. But we are talking about 'big boys' like Howie Roseman, John Schneider, Andrew Berry and Adolfo-Mensah...all vouching for him. Berry worked with Grigson from 2012-15. He would have seen what was going on. Yet, when Berry got the GM gig in CLE, Grigson was one of Berry's post-draft FO moves (similar to when Ballard brought in Brown and Dodds). When Adolfo-Mensah got the MIN GM job, he brought Grigson with him as his SR VP of Player Personnel. Not entirely familiar with the MIN FO structure, but he's listed first so I am pretty sure Grigson is the equivalent of Dodds in IND. So it took Grigson only 5 years to shake off his Colts GM tenure stink and get back to ONE step away from another GM gig. Anybody else that is commendable and respectable, but with some (probably most) Colts fans, it seems to hold no weight and is proof of nothing. Grigson's player evaluation was bad more often than not. But I think it's more that Colts fans care far more about some bad draft picks that happened 8-10 years ago than other execs. And it's not like those other execs haven't made their share of crap picks (so they know it can and does happen). And I just think they view that era (and Grigson in general) much differently than this fanbase and media. It's true that he's one of them, but they don't owe him anything. I think it's pretty safe to assume he's a trusted voice. For what? Who knows. But I don't think he's just getting these jobs if he wasn't up to the task.

I agree regarding draft record. I don't think it's the best reflection of his ability to evaluate talent either. And it's certainly not enough to warrant the extreme narratives about those teams being "garbage rosters" and Grigson being referred to as the "worst GM ever." That's the stuff I really take issue with. I don't think anybody can say Grigson did a good job. But I don't think we can say he did a terrible one either. And if that comes off as defending Grigson, so be it. But mostly I am just defending objectivity. The drafting was bad. He had no feel for Day 3, especially from 2013-15. But those also were sandwiched between a great draft class in 2012 and and a decent one in 2016 (5/8 are still in the NFL). So it's possible that Grigson would have stacked better from 2017-on, especially with another HC (who he saw better with eye to eye). Obviously, he wasn't going to get the chance here, but someday he might. It's not surprising that the 2012 and 2016 drafts happened to be the only two drafts where the Colts actually had significant draft capital, given how much of a crapshoot it is. But I also think injuries make those classes worse as well: Jack Mewhort and Hugh Thornton were solid interior OL players, but couldn't stay healthy. Donte Moncrief seemed like a promising WR until he got hurt in year 3 and 4. Henry Anderson looked like a potential stud 3-4 DE as as rookie, but then got hurt and kept getting hurt. Dwayne Allen was an All-Rookie TE and looked like he could be a future PB TE, but then got hurt and was never the same. All of those were Day 2 picks...the type you build a core base of talent around. And it was 5 of the 9 Day 2 picks (more than half) they had from 2012-15. I think the perception is different if some or all of those guys don't get hurt. And it wasn't just draft picks getting hurt. FAs like Gosder Cherilus, Donald Thomas and Arthur Jones all kept getting hurt. Over the span of 2012-14, the Colts were most injured team in the NFL (per Adjusted Games Lost). And ten years ago, injuries were much more impactful than they are now. It wasn't so easy to come back and play, let alone at a high level. I think that played an underrated role in the performance of the OL as well. How different is the Colts OL if Smith and Glow kept getting hurt after 2018? But despite that, as well as any issues behind the scenes, Grigson's teams were also objectively successful. They went 49-31 and 3-3 in the playoffs from 2012-16. Even without Luck, those teams had a winning record (albeit a small sample size of games). They also beat very good teams, like SF, SEA and DEN in 2013. The 2014 team went to the AFCCG after holding CIN and DEN to 23 combined points. That team had 7 PBers, 5 of which were Grigson players. I just don't think you can take that away from the GM of the team. So it sort of boggles my mind how some people can call those teams garbage and just how that era is perceived overall. And I think other GMs in the league do recognize the successes and are able to separate his draft record from his overall value as an exec. And if anybody would know that it's possible to have a bad draft, it's other GMs (just look at some of the picks that Schneider has made over the years). I also think it's possible for people to learn and get better. We have this outlook on players, why not execs? Hell, most of this fanbase was stoked about Raheem Morris as HC, even though his HC record was awful. He was lauded for working his way back up through different, lower-level coaching jobs. I don't see a lot of difference between that and what Grigson has been doing, yet Grigson's jobs somehow hold much less weight and don't mean anything regarding his ability as a talent evaluator, while Morris' jobs show he is a good coach and ready to be a HC again? Like I have said many times before, I just don't think Grigson gets a fair shake from most of this fanbase or the local media. And I think the perception outside Indy is much more objective, which is why I put stock into him continuing to get those jobs.

Yep. That's a big piece of context that rarely gets mentioned. Irsay's fingerprints are all over many of those roster moves. It used to be that once a FA came to the Colts complex, they didn't leave without signing. Well, who would be the one signing those checks? And at the time, Irsay was on Twitter talking about jet-setting with briefcases of money to go sign FAs. Irsay's meddling/control, on top of the personal issues, certainly was not that the ideal environment for a first-time GM. And I think Irsay knows it because I don't think I have ever heard him mention a bad thing about Grigson. In fact, he defended Grigson up until he let him go. That doesn't excuse Grigson for making some bad draft picks or bad FA signings, but I believe the blame should be shared with Irsay and Pagano (who Irsay gave more personnel power in the last 2-3 years). But instead, Grigson is mostly the lone scapegoat for everything bad that happened, as well as the villain of the Andrew Luck story.

I think the fact that he continues to be employed and respected by other respected GMs is evidence that his input is valued. And that input would like be related to scouting and roster construction. I am not an appeal to authority kind of person but I also think judging a man's entire career on a few drafts (in his first go-around as a GM) is absurd. Especially against the backdrop of his team's record during that.

Well he just drafted a 20 year-old QB who has started 13-15 games with the #4 pick. And last season, he also drafted Pierce (low production) in R2 and Woods (only one season of some production) in R3. I am sure Ballard prefers that an early pick have the production, but it certainly hasn't been a dealbreaker.

Unless that conversation was recorded, it seems like it would be very hard to prove it was an attempt to get him to come to WAS to be their QB. There are all kinds of reasons they could call a former player (coaching, FO, etc.). And I am sure Luck would just say he has no comment on it other than he is not coming back. Seems like a huge nothing burger.

I wouldn't say garbage either, but this team won 4 games last year. They were bad...and will continue to be bad until proven otherwise. I don't think adding AR and a bunch of rookies (75% of which are Day 3 picks) is enough to change that on paper. The offense has to be better...nowhere to go but up. But the defense (which kept them from being a two-win team) is in a position for regression. It has turned over 4 starters from last year, including two vets who were the stalwarts of the secondary (Gilmore and McLeod), the starting WILL (Oke) and the starting LEO (Ngakoue). Those 4 players were the #2, #3, #4 and #8 players in snaps last year and represent 3 of the top 4 players on that side of the ball. And even that was a defense that still finished middle of the pack (after very different halves of the season). The replacement for those players are all questions marks, for one reason or another. I was way down on Ryan last year, but still thought that was a 9-10 win team. So that really opened my eyes. I think this team wins 3-4 again next season. Maybe even less if AR is the starter all season.