shasta519

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.

If Tannehill stays healthy, I am guessing last in the AFCS. And if that's the case, I am not sure who the Colts would be above throughout the entire AFC.

That would have to some major regression or big-time injury to the throwing arm. I think they had enough tape to go 1-2 in this class if they were eligible. Even if they regress, the tape is already there. So I don't see why teams wouldn't think "we can fix that...we know it's there."

I think MHJ is a lock for a top 3 pick. A lot can happen, but barring injuries, I think it's Williams/Maye/MHJ as top 3 picks, unless Ewers has a huge season. I don't think AR will have a season like Rosen. But I am not sure it would matter. But that's way down the line.

If the Colts go 3-14 next season...I am not sure AR is the priority at that point. That's likely a top 1-3 pick. It's a year away, so injuries could happen. But I think Williams and Maye are going to be as coveted of a duo of QBs as any we have seen in recent years.

It's not unlike the jump that Hurts made when AJ Brown was acquired. When the Colts trade for Chase in 2026, it's on.

Not to jump in, but I think they eventually might. At least those that have a good QB, but not a bonafide top 5 guy. The cost of QBs is getting higher and higher. And planning around that cost for 6-8 years is different than 10-15 years. Not to mention does a team really want to hitch a decade+ to just a good QB? Then you add in the running aspect as well. And I can start to see a path where teams look to maximize that type of QB while they can, instead of paying for the back end of his career (regardless of health). But it's not just the teams, it's also the players driving that shift in mentality. Look at how many have switched teams in recent years. That was once unheard of...now it's normal for there to be offseason talk about some QB (sometimes multiple QBs) being traded. That doesn't mean the teams wants to move on, but with QBs switching teams, it certainly opens up a level of consideration that might not have been there, especially if there is another team willing to heavily compensate that team.

How often do we see former NFL players blast other football players or say they aren't fixable or that they don't have upside? I don't think that happens very often. To the bolded...I think the reason for the skepticism is that numbers don't usually lie. They aren't a guarantee either...but they do serve as a type of historical pre-req. Not saying that those who played the game are lying or that there can't be outliers for metrics, but the people who played the game are going to be wrong a lot. I think you could find plenty of examples of bad takes. Like Dan O. and Wentz. He was a huge fan and continued to defend him for much longer than any rational person should have. There were plenty of people saying Matt Ryan still had it before last season as well, including those who played the game. In just those two recent cases, the stats backed up that those were risky and likely bad moves. And they were right. But at the time, plenty of people were downplaying the red flags. AR isn't Wentz or Ryan, but the same thing is happening here as well. I agree that one should have a balanced viewpoint, but I think the unbalanced side is actually NOT the metrics in this case.

After two very disappointing seasons and a frustrating series of QB changes, it's interesting that they are willing to risk more games and potentially even seasons...since they don't have a viable vet starter to allow AR to sit back and learn for a season. And it doesn't even sound like they want that either. He's going to learn on the fly. And those other QBs who had low comp % in their first college seasons had the advantage of learning with experience and over time at the college level...before making the huge jump to the NFL. That's a big difference IMO. AR is skipping that part and making the huge leap right now, which is sort of like graduating halfway through a pre-med degree program and going right into the surgery room. You could have a great teacher/mentor, but it's very hard to replace learning from experience at a proper pace. But they do seem to be managing expectations much better this time around.

A few differences: Allen was at Wyoming though. Despite AR's WR talent being less than it is for others, he was still playing with 4-star and 5-star recruits. And Pearsall made a lot of tough catches. Allen put more NFL throws on tape...especially off-platform. But that's JMO as they both clearly have huge arms. Allen's issues were more on deep passes and behind LOS, which were, in theory, easier to fix with mechanic tweaks (behind LOS) or improve with NFL talent (deep passing). AR's overall short-area improvement is beyond Allen Allen is just such a lofty comparison at this point. But it does show that a QB can dramatically improve at the NFL level.

Typically, there isn't a lot of stability in any QB stats. However, comp % is one of the more stable metrics when projecting to the NFL. And nearly all of that stability comes from the short area (0-9) yards. Going back to 2015, here is the correlation for 4 different areas of the field for QBs in their 2nd and 3rd seasons in the NFL (37 total). You can clearly see the difference in short area vs. the rest: Edit: Maybe you can't clearly see it cause it's so small haha. Here are the numbers: Behind LOS: -0.038 Short (0-9 yards): +0.133 Medium (10-19 yards): -0.017 Deep: (20+ yards): +0.017

If you want to feel optimistic, go watch his game tape against Tennessee. It's on YT. There are lots of good flashes in there. Granted, it's TENN, it's not UGA. He moves around the pocket well and he's hard to bring down (though NFL players will be stronger and faster). His mechanics and footwork clearly need help. Because of this, he will throw some great passes and some wth passes. Considering he seems to throw 95 MPH fastballs every time, I think his WRs got a bad rap. You can see them some drops, but you can also see them making plays in this game...breaking tackles and getting YAC or adjusting to passes.

I think that’s a wild take. Newton and Lamar were Heisman winners. Fields was completing 70% of his passes. AR is not way beyond where those guys were at that point.

Yeah...I didn't mean to imply that it would shake the entire world of scouting. But it would have to open up some eyes, wouldn't it? Josh Allen certainly did. And I consider AR to be an even more extreme example, at least according to the metrics. The people who watch tape might see it differently. But if I had to guess, there are quite a few NFL scouts throughout the league that would have passed on drafting AR, at least in R1. But if he develops into an elite franchise QB, that perception will be heavily challenged. And the NFL is a copycat league, so I think you will start seeing other college players dubbed the "next AR" and so on...younger, athletic QBs that fit that mold. Will it push them up draft boards and therefore push some of them to declare earlier than usual. I would think it's certainly possible. Mahomes was pretty much awesome in college. I didn't really look at QBs back then because Luck was here. But I have gone back and watched some of his tape. And even though it's impossible to watch without some hindsight I think you can just see it...the off-platform throws, the arm, the angles. I think his issues stemmed somewhat from being an Air Raid QB, which much like inexperience and accuracy, was a previous red flag for QBs.

Even a well-established exec like Dodds apparently had reservations about AR's experience. So I think turning a 20 year-old traitsy QB with only 13 games in college into a legit franchise QB will and should change how QBs are scouted. Other teams will certainly come to similar educated and trained guesses about QBs. I bet it happens next season.

The popular narrative was that he didn't get any coaching, but that sounds like it was too much coaching.

The results of this AR experiment potentially could change a lot. If it works, it's a massive data point for the idea that teams can just grab just any uber-athletic QB with a big arm and mold him into an NFL-caliber passer. I mean...if you can fix/develop a QB that young with that type of short-area accuracy, in theory, you could fix/develop just about any QB (assuming they have the drive). How does that impact the top of the draft? Will more QBs go in R1? Or will teams start taking a lot more Day 2 swings on traitsy QBs? Also, what does that mean for QBs in college? If a QB can just get paid and get drafted by a team eager to develop him with NFL coaching, why go back? What value is there in trying to put another college season on tape if teams are already fine with betting on upside? I imagine we would see a lot more guys coming out after 3 years, regardless of how well that season went. It's very interesting. Like any sport, there are traditionalists that probably hate it.

Hmmm...a top exec is lukewarm on getting a QB that needs fixing, but eventually changes his mind. Doesn't sound familiar at all. I will have to read that article when I get a chance.

That's a refreshingly objective analysis. A Hurts timeline is probably the best case scenario. AR gets some run his first year and starts year 2. Takes off year 3. Hurts was one year older as a rookie than AR will be. But Hurts also had played 30 more college games at that point, including a season with Lincoln Riley. And then he got an entire 2nd season to develop with Steichen before breaking out last season. I just don't think there is going to be a cheat code for AR's lack of experience. It's going to take time.