Jason loses all cred with Colt omission from this list

[Warhorse]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/22243529/ranking-the-best-front-offices-among-the-nfls-top-tier-of-teams

 

Not in the top 10? Seriously. Um.......ok.

[Dustin]

Yeah that's ridiculous IMO.

[Luck_Is_Skilled]

Not even an honorable mention. Oh well, there's no better place to be than under the radar.

[Dustin]

This is probably based on tenure though and Grigson and Co have only been here for a season.

[deedub75]

I'm OK with the Colts being left off of this list.  The jury is still out on the Colts' front office.  Given a few years, they should be on this list.  However, I don't think the Broncos' front office should be on this list just yet. 

[Holden89]

Ehh. It's hard to argue with those teams. Also, as others have said, this FO is very young. I don't mind them being left off of a list like this.

[TMPHBITEU]

Being good for one season doesn't establish a trend.

I think the omission is quite fair.

[Luck_Is_Skilled]

Being good for one season doesn't establish a trend.

I think the omission is quite fair.

So why are the Seahawks on the list?

[TMPHBITEU]

So why are the Seahawks on the list?

An exception to the rule it proves?

The Seahawks FO have arguably been better than the Colts FO these past two off-seasons. They have arguably had the best off-season of any team twice in a row.

[ztboiler]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/22243529/ranking-the-best-front-offices-among-the-nfls-top-tier-of-teams

 

Not in the top 10? Seriously. Um.......ok.

I'm not sure that it is ridiculous to say that Grigson and Co. shouldn't be on that list.  However, his premise to limit it to the top 3rd of the league with 11 as the number of teams that truly "get it" is maybe the flaw here.  Go through the whole league team by team.  There are 12 teams that deserve to be on the list - the Colts are one of them and so are the other 11 he lists.  There are no others, so he only missed it by one, and I'm sure he'd explain that as Grigson being too early to evaluate.  However, he is overlooking the brilliance of Jim Irsay the owner as a huge part of the FO equation.  When you give Irsay credit for enabling the winningest decade in history then pulling the switches on a team that got back to the playoffs with a rookie QB after only 1 losing season.  La Canfora is really slighting Irsay here not Grigson.  The Colts deserve to be mentioned among the top 5 franchises, but the eccentric Irsay will always be somewhat discounted compared to his more regal peers.

[ztboiler]

An exception to the rule it proves?

The Seahawks FO have arguably been better than the Colts FO these past two off-seasons. They have arguably had the best off-season of any team twice in a row.

This is an interesting argument.  Like the rest of the NFL prognosticating masses, this assumes continued success for the Seahawks - one of the epic strugglers of the NFL coming off a high water mark of 11-5 last year.  Sure they look poised for success and have a promising young talent at QB, but the path to sustained success is brutal in the NFL. They are still the Detroit Lions (playoff team in 2011 also with a talented young QB) until proven otherwise.  Regardless of how many times its been done prematurely before....history repeats itself and yes, the Seahawks are this off-season's Superbowl champs to be on paper.  Take the field and bet all you can. 

[tigerkz]

New Orleans??  What?  Isn't this the team coming off mass penalties and suspensions.  Hardly think that they would be deserving of top 10 with such little oversight into what happens on their team.  In other news, this ranking obviously means NOTHING. 

[Kyle]

I dont feel the Texans should be on the list

[NewColtsFan]

So why are the Seahawks on the list?

Why??

 

Because that front office has been in place for a while and most everything they've done has turned to gold.

 

-- Drafted a 5'10" 1/2 QB and it's a home run.

-- Their 2nd round draft pick, a LB from Utah State was the Def. Rookie of the Year a year or so ago...

-- Most of their picks have been hits.

-- They've built a dominating defense and then this offense signed two top DE's in FA,  Avril and someone else whose name escapes me at the moment, and both were for contracts viewed by everyone else as below market value.

 

They've made a series of terrific moves in every area that a front office can....

 

It paid off for them last year,  and the projection is it will again this year.

[John Campbell]

I tweeted him about this article. He replied "they recently damn near had a winless season and that roster was in decay last few years under Polian. I love Grigson. Google it”

I don't buy it. Colts have had long term success with polian. Knew when to move on, hired gm of the year, rebuilt this team right. I think their front office has handled the past decaded at a top level. One season should not ruin legacy. It should actually support the unbelievable turnaround and rebuild. It's really amazing what they have done over the past 15 years.

[NewColtsFan]

The writer is talking about the CURRENT front office.    That FO has been in place for roughly 16 months or so.....

 

No shame in having them in the top 16.

 

Would they be in my top-10?    Yes.

 

But there's no obvious front office to remove to replace with the Colts.    Personally,  I'd take Denver off,  but the Manning move gives them high visibility.

 

But the rest of the front offices are solid.   The draft well,  they manage their salary caps well,  the make good free agent moves....

 

Give it a year or so,   we'll be on this list soon enough!      

[Narcosys]

The colts not being in there is not what surprises me, it's his assessment of the ravens and the steelers being in there. He commends the Ravens for over paying flacco, and has the steelers on the list even tho they have been in decline for the past 4-5 years.

[RomanianColtsFan]

NFL.com writers hate us

[coltsfanmilyman]

I think, to be fair, Jason has some validity in argument soley due to the fact that Grigson and Co. haven't been around long.  If you want to take solace in something, look at this thread about Irsay being the 2nd best owner in the league http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/18264-jim-irsay-rated-nfls-2nd-best-owner/

[Warhorse]

"The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".

 

 

 

Not sure what many of you were reading in this article, but this statement says nothing about our new front office. I would not have posted the thread if I thought that is what he was talking about. Since so many here feel that way, can you quote me some evidence of that?

[braveheartcolt]

NFL.com writers hate us

Or we have an inflated opinion about ourselves?

[TMPHBITEU]

Not sure what many of you were reading in this article, but this statement says nothing about our new front office. I would not have posted the thread if I thought that is what he was talking about. Since so many here feel that way, can you quote me some evidence of that?

"Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format" and "This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months" should suffice.

[Nadine]

"The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".

 

 

 

Not sure what many of you were reading in this article, but this statement says nothing about our new front office. I would not have posted the thread if I thought that is what he was talking about. Since so many here feel that way, can you quote me some evidence of that?

 

good point. we have competed at the highest level for prolonged period of time and while our FO is new........not too shabby in their first year.....

 

since they included the qualifier 'despite the departure of couches, scouts, and front office execs.".............we even more should be on that list

 

aint nobody met those criteria like the colts!

[RGIII]

The Saints FO doesn't deserve to be there.  They're a very hit or miss group whose biggest success was lucking into a fantastic QB and hiring a very good offensive-minded head coach.  Those two have pretty much made the Saints yearly contenders but still only partially conceal their organizational flaws in spite of the duo's well-meshed talents.

 

The Steelers are also looking increasingly unconvincing.  Feels like it's been a while since they've had young players step up on the defensive side of the ball and they haven't gotten their running game entirely right since a few years prior to Willie Parker's wheels falling off.

 

Colts are poised to jump into the top 10 if this recent draft class and free agent crop produces results but I don't think you can really earn top honors unless you've got at least a couple years momentum on your side.  Grigson and crew being only one year in should make most reasonable people reticent to group them with the likes of Ozzie Newsome, who has been doing it consistently for a LONG time.

[Gavin]

The Saints FO doesn't deserve to be there.  They're a very hit or miss group whose biggest success was lucking into a fantastic QB and hiring a very good offensive-minded head coach.  Those two have pretty much made the Saints yearly contenders but still only partially conceal their organizational flaws in spite of the duo's well-meshed talents.

 

The Steelers are also looking increasingly unconvincing.  Feels like it's been a while since they've had young players step up on the defensive side of the ball and they haven't gotten their running game entirely right since a few years prior to Willie Parker's wheels falling off.

 

Colts are poised to jump into the top 10 if this recent draft class and free agent crop produces results but I don't think you can really earn top honors unless you've got at least a couple years momentum on your side.  Grigson and crew being only one year in should make most reasonable people reticent to group them with the likes of Ozzie Newsome, who has been doing it consistently for a LONG time.

That first part of your paragraph just described the Peyton Manning led Colts

[RomanianColtsFan]

Or we have an inflated opinion about ourselves?

 

Yes, that's the other possibility.

[Qwiz]

I liked the list.

[Warhorse]

This is probably based on tenure though and Grigson and Co have only been here for a season.

 

I'm OK with the Colts being left off of this list.  The jury is still out on the Colts' front office.  Given a few years, they should be on this list.  However, I don't think the Broncos' front office should be on this list just yet. 

 

Ehh. It's hard to argue with those teams. Also, as others have said, this FO is very young. I don't mind them being left off of a list like this.

 

Being good for one season doesn't establish a trend.

I think the omission is quite fair.

 

The writer is talking about the CURRENT front office.    That FO has been in place for roughly 16 months or so.....

 

No shame in having them in the top 16.

 

Would they be in my top-10?    Yes.

 

But there's no obvious front office to remove to replace with the Colts.    Personally,  I'd take Denver off,  but the Manning move gives them high visibility.

 

But the rest of the front offices are solid.   The draft well,  they manage their salary caps well,  the make good free agent moves....

 

Give it a year or so,   we'll be on this list soon enough!      

 

I think, to be fair, Jason has some validity in argument soley due to the fact that Grigson and Co. haven't been around long.  If you want to take solace in something, look at this thread about Irsay being the 2nd best owner in the league http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/18264-jim-irsay-rated-nfls-2nd-best-owner/

First, he says this:

 

"The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".

 

Then he says this:

 

I'm looking at a wide range of how the team has drafted and signed players, if they know when to cut the cord and when to stop overpaying their own veterans. Have they been able to win with different people at the helm and have they avoided any lengthy stays at the bottom?

 

Then he completely does a turnaround with this and refutes the basis of his first statement:

 

Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format

 

and then finally this nugget:

 

This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months

 

He basically sets a filter that allows no structure or criticism. I stand by my opinion. As I read it, it is the long term ability of a team/franchise/front office to "get it". The Colts not being in that list of top ten is ludicrous. However, as others have metioned....I love flying under the radar.

[Warhorse]

I tweeted him about this article. He replied "they recently darn near had a winless season and that roster was in decay last few years under Polian. I love Grigson. Google it”

I don't buy it. Colts have had long term success with polian. Knew when to move on, hired gm of the year, rebuilt this team right. I think their front office has handled the past decaded at a top level. One season should not ruin legacy. It should actually support the unbelievable turnaround and rebuild. It's really amazing what they have done over the past 15 years.

Thanks, John.

[MAC]

I have no problem with leaving them off. Looking at the list one by one I'm not sure that the Steelers for example should still be up there. By in general assuming that a GM staff is top notch after one season (the results of which were HUGELY influenced by landing a no-brainer #1 pick) would be a bit much. By what criteria would they be rewarded? Optimistic expectations for the future by devoted fans? Lets see the list in three years.

[TMPHBITEU]

First, he says this:

 

1) "The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".

 

Then he says this:

 

2) I'm looking at a wide range of how the team has drafted and signed players, if they know when to cut the cord and when to stop overpaying their own veterans. Have they been able to win with different people at the helm and have they avoided any lengthy stays at the bottom?

 

Then he completely does a turnaround with this and refutes the basis of his first statement:

 

3) Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format

 

and then finally this nugget:

 

4) This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months

 

He basically sets a filter that allows no structure or criticism. I stand by my opinion. As I read it, it is the long term ability of a team/franchise/front office to "get it". The Colts not being in that list of top ten is ludicrous. However, as others have metioned....I love flying under the radar.

Well, now you're technically changing your opinion based on a different premise. As I understand it, your original opinion was based on the fact that you believed the Colts should be on the list based on the quote in post #20.

Now you're revising your opinion (which is fair enough), to fit the mold based on it being "a filter that allows no structure or criticism". I get your point, but I wouldn't say I agree. Jason LaCanfora mentions several variables, and although it's highly subjective and confusing, I don't see how he would "lose all credibility" by omitting the Colts from the list. While I can agree that the article is rather poorly written, and the premises of the variables are somewhat unclear, I wouldn't say his choices were all that bad. Especially when you consider how our roster in the late Polian years were becoming more and more depleted, and the only reason we were continuously in the playoffs (imo) was because of Peyton Manning.

Arguably it could be constructed as this, based on LaCanforas omission:

1) We didn't really maintain a perfect cap balance during the (late) Polian years. What Grigson inherited (because of the P. Manning situation) wasn't exactly great. While Bill Polian was a good GM for a long time, I still believe having the greatest of all time at the most important position in football surely made it easier for him and us (the Colts) to appear competent in the long run.

2) While we have avoided lengthy stays at the bottom (still imo, mostly because of Manning). Don't forget the fact that we hired Caldwell as a head coach (although I acknowledge him getting the team to the Super Bowl), we hired Chris Polian as GM (which on these boards is almost unanymously seen as a poor decision)

3) New regimes will carry-over in this opinion, as the results of what Grigson will do long-term is still to come. We don't really know how he will fare long term, although it looks promising. We can't provide an accurate assessment at this point of what he'll do, but it pertains to the matter at hand, whether our franchise should be seen long-term as a powerhouse.

4) This pertains to 3) as well. The last season pre-Grigson was horrible. And the fruits of what Grigson has done/will do is yet to be seen.

I'm not saying we don't belong in the top tier of overall franchises. I'm saying that the omission of the Colts is arguably correct. Your original premise was that LaCanfora loses all credibility with the omission, which I definitely disagree with. (Not that I remember reading any LaCanfora articles prior to this, so I don't really know whether he had credibility to being with).

[deedub75]

First, he says this:

 

"The dirty little secret of the NFL is that, at best, there is only about a third of the league that truly gets it. If you look back at the free-agency/salary cap era of the league, you find precious few teams that have been able to compete at the highest levels of the game, for any prolonged period of time, and even fewer who have been able to maintain that standard despite the inevitable departure of coaches, scouts and front office execs".

 

Then he says this:

 

I'm looking at a wide range of how the team has drafted and signed players, if they know when to cut the cord and when to stop overpaying their own veterans. Have they been able to win with different people at the helm and have they avoided any lengthy stays at the bottom?

 

Then he completely does a turnaround with this and refutes the basis of his first statement:

 

Of course, with the league flooded with first-time general managers, a lot of teams simply don't apply to this format

 

and then finally this nugget:

 

This is subjective, to say the least, and I am weighing things as well on the degree of success over the past 36 months

 

He basically sets a filter that allows no structure or criticism. I stand by my opinion. As I read it, it is the long term ability of a team/franchise/front office to "get it". The Colts not being in that list of top ten is ludicrous. However, as others have metioned....I love flying under the radar.

 

We all stand by our opinions so what's your point?

[Warhorse]

All right....after much consideration, I will give a little on my extreme statement of loses all cred. I still though, after reading his first statement where he talks about operating at the highest level over prolonged periods, I feel that the Colts are in the top 5. But since he contradicted himself by stating later about 36 months, he left himself an out.

 

I now wish I had titled the thread "Loses some cred"

 

Thanks to all for comments. .

[The Old Crow]

It works for me !!!

[Nadine]

All right....after much consideration, I will give a little on my extreme statement of loses all cred. I still though, after reading his first statement where he talks about operating at the highest level over prolonged periods, I feel that the Colts are in the top 5. But since he contradicted himself by stating later about 36 months, he left himself an out.

 

I now wish I had titled the thread "Loses some cred"

 

Thanks to all for comments. .

you are funny!