Colts get serious about protecting Luck

[crazycolt1]

I don't have a criss cross opinion of Polian. I have a comprehensive opinion of him. I recognize both his positives and his negatives. I couldn't disagree more with your characterization of the "bottom line" of analyzing a GM's success or failure, but that's neither here nor there. This really isn't about Polian, to me.

 

The point, as it pertains to this particular thread, is that Ryan Grigson has to take ownership for the state of the offensive line last season because of specific decisions he made. Yes, he was handed a mess. Yes, he did a fantastic job improving the roster, for the most part. Yes, he took Polian's dysfunctional 2-14 team and made decisions that helped lead to an 11-5 season. And far and away, he deserved to be the Executive of the Year in 2012.

 

But there were decisions he could have made that would have allowed him to do more with the offensive line. As bad as things were when he took over, he still had the resources and circumstances to do more than he did with the line. So I reject the idea that Polian's mismanagement prevented Grigson from improving the offensive line in 2012. It did not. Grigson has to take ownership for the roster he put on the field, specifically because Grigson had the ability to do more.

I really don't understand why you think that Grison should have done more. Getting high caliber offensive linemen is not an easy thing to do. Every team in the NFL has a problem with that. You give props then break it down. I couldn't imagine any GM that worked harder than Grigson has done since joining the Colts. When last season started there was not one football mind that thought the Colts would even be a winning team let alone be one game out of taking their division and making the playoffs. Grigson done last season what most teams take 2 or 3 years to do and yet to you it wasn't enough. Dealing with 90 plus players and then picking and choosing what players to keep to fill a 53 man roster while being strapped with $38 million dollars in dead money is almost impossible. Grigson did it but still that's not good enough in your mind. This has been an interesting debate to say the least.

[Superman]

I really don't understand why you think that Grison should have done more. Getting high caliber offensive linemen is not an easy thing to do. Every team in the NFL has a problem with that. You give props then break it down. I couldn't imagine any GM that worked harder than Grigson has done since joining the Colts. When last season started there was not one football mind that thought the Colts would even be a winning team let alone be one game out of taking their division and making the playoffs. Grigson done last season what most teams take 2 or 3 years to do and yet to you it wasn't enough. Dealing with 90 plus players and then picking and choosing what players to keep to fill a 53 man roster while being strapped with $38 million dollars in dead money is almost impossible. Grigson did it but still that's not good enough in your mind. This has been an interesting debate to say the least.

 

I'm not interested in being critical of Grigson, that's what you don't understand. I'm only saying that the offensive line we fielded last season has very little to do with the mess Bill Polian left. It's true that it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers. But the idea around here is that Grigson simply and absolutely could NOT have done more to improve the offseason line, that because of the dead cap space we had, Grigson's hands were incontrovertibly tied. That's not true.

 

I can praise Grigson all day long; there's plenty to be positive about. But that doesn't mean that he was perfect. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. I like what he's done and what he's doing. But the Freeney situation wasn't handled all that well. It's ironic to me that you'd argue that Bill Polian's cap management was such a big problem, but then ignore the fact that Grigson chose to keep Freeney at $14m last season. I agree with most of what Grigson did last year; I'm not nitpicking his 6th round draft picks in an effort to discredit him. But let's call a spade a spade here: paying Freeney $14m last season is bad cap management. 

[crazycolt1]

I'm not interested in being critical of Grigson, that's what you don't understand. I'm only saying that the offensive line we fielded last season has very little to do with the mess Bill Polian left. It's true that it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers. But the idea around here is that Grigson simply and absolutely could NOT have done more to improve the offseason line, that because of the dead cap space we had, Grigson's hands were incontrovertibly tied. That's not true.

 

I can praise Grigson all day long; there's plenty to be positive about. But that doesn't mean that he was perfect. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. I like what he's done and what he's doing. But the Freeney situation wasn't handled all that well. It's ironic to me that you'd argue that Bill Polian's cap management was such a big problem, but then ignore the fact that Grigson chose to keep Freeney at $14m last season. I agree with most of what Grigson did last year; I'm not nitpicking his 6th round draft picks in an effort to discredit him. But let's call a spade a spade here: paying Freeney $14m last season is bad cap management. 

If Freeney would have been cut the dead cap would have still been $5 million dollars. Grigson took a gamble and thought he could get $9 million of play out of him No it did not work I agree. Had Grigson cut Freeney the dead money would have been $43 million. Grigson had $80.8 million to spend last season. By the way that $80.8 million dollars was the lowest in the NFL last season. The original debate was about the o-line. On a scale of 10 Grigson hit a 9 but you choose to nit pick and be critical of the Freeney contract. "If" is the biggest two letter word in the dictionary. The fans base was all up in arms with what was done but most agreed at least we still have Freeney and Mathis and that was a good thing in the eyes of the fans. (damage control). Grigson did put Freeney on the trade block but found no takers. The Colts would have happily taken a middle round pick for him had someone be willing to take the contract that Polian signed Freeney to. If Polians 1-17 record on super bowl bids is OK by you it is what it is. Grigson brought in 6 offensive linemen last season. McGlynn, McKinney, Satele, Taylor, Foster and Hicks. With the little cap room he had he did attempt to improve the o-line. But to you it wasn't good enough. OK, I get the picture. He replaced close to 70% of the roster and put a 11-5 teams out on the field. You want to be negative of one player out of 90 plus players? If you would, I would like you to give me the list of GMs that hit on 100% of their moves. 

[Superman]

If Freeney would have been cut the dead cap would have still been $5 million dollars. Grigson took a gamble and thought he could get $9 million of play out of him No it did not work I agree. Had Grigson cut Freeney the dead money would have been $43 million. Grigson had $80.8 million to spend last season. By the way that $80.8 million dollars was the lowest in the NFL last season. The original debate was about the o-line. On a scale of 10 Grigson hit a 9 but you choose to nit pick and be critical of the Freeney contract. "If" is the biggest two letter word in the dictionary. The fans base was all up in arms with what was done but most agreed at least we still have Freeney and Mathis and that was a good thing in the eyes of the fans. (damage control). Grigson did put Freeney on the trade block but found no takers. The Colts would have happily taken a middle round pick for him had someone be willing to take the contract that Polian signed Freeney to. If Polians 1-17 record on super bowl bids is OK by you it is what it is. Grigson brought in 6 offensive linemen last season. McGlynn, McKinney, Satele, Taylor, Foster and Hicks. With the little cap room he had he did attempt to improve the o-line. But to you it wasn't good enough. OK, I get the picture. He replaced close to 70% of the roster and put a 11-5 teams out on the field. You want to be negative of one player out of 90 plus players? If you would, I would like you to give me the list of GMs that hit on 100% of their moves. 

 

Prove the bolded. Source it, give me a reference, something. You keep saying it. All I heard from the Colts was "Freeney is going to be a Colt."

 

Freeney's base salary was $14m, not $9m. Releasing him would have saved us $14m against the cap. If you think paying Freeney that amount of money was better than having an additional $5m in dead cap space (but trading off for $14m in cap space), then we disagree.

 

As for everything else, something is preventing you from absorbing my very simple point. Feel free to go back and read one of the other dozen-plus posts I've made already.

[crazycolt1]

Prove the bolded. Source it, give me a reference, something. You keep saying it. All I heard from the Colts was "Freeney is going to be a Colt."

 

Freeney's base salary was $14m, not $9m. Releasing him would have saved us $14m against the cap. If you think paying Freeney that amount of money was better than having an additional $5m in dead cap space (but trading off for $14m in cap space), then we disagree.

 

As for everything else, something is preventing you from absorbing my very simple point. Feel free to go back and read one of the other dozen-plus posts I've made already.

Peter King- Bleacher Report / Adam Schefter- ESPN and Robert Klemko- USA Today. All dated march 2012.  If the Colts would have cut Freeney he still would have counted $5 million in cap space. That explains my difference between $14 and $9 million. I could say the same thing about your comprehension also. If it's that important to you that you feel your opinion is any better than mine be my guest. You have turned a debate into an argument and I will not partake in this dead end no more.

[Superman]

Peter King- Bleacher Report / Adam Schefter- ESPN and Robert Klemko- USA Today. All dated march 2012.  If the Colts would have cut Freeney he still would have counted $5 million in cap space. That explains my difference between $14 and $9 million. I could say the same thing about your comprehension also. If it's that important to you that you feel your opinion is any better than mine be my guest. You have turned a debate into an argument and I will not partake in this dead end no more.

 

To clarify on Freeney: his cap hit was $19m. There was prorated bonus of $5m, and if we had released him, that would have been the dead cap hit. His base salary -- what we actually paid him in 2012 -- was $14m. If we had released him, we would have saved $14m in cash and against the 2012 cap.

 

And again, you naming media outlets doesn't really support your claim that the team tried to trade Freeney.

 

Lastly, it's really simple. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Ryan Grigson, who I have repeatedly praised. It's about shifting blame back to Bill Polian, which in this case, I don't think is appropriate.

[Albaby]

To clarify on Freeney: his cap hit was $19m. There was prorated bonus of $5m, and if we had released him, that would have been the dead cap hit. His base salary -- what we actually paid him in 2012 -- was $14m. If we had released him, we would have saved $14m in cash and against the 2012 cap.

 

And again, you naming media outlets doesn't really support your claim that the team tried to trade Freeney.

 

Lastly, it's really simple. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Ryan Grigson, who I have repeatedly praised. It's about shifting blame back to Bill Polian, which in this case, I don't think is appropriate.

Superman - I really enjoy reading your responses.  You are always fair in my opinion.  You also know what you're talking about. 

[crazycolt1]

To clarify on Freeney: his cap hit was $19m. There was prorated bonus of $5m, and if we had released him, that would have been the dead cap hit. His base salary -- what we actually paid him in 2012 -- was $14m. If we had released him, we would have saved $14m in cash and against the 2012 cap.

 

And again, you naming media outlets doesn't really support your claim that the team tried to trade Freeney.

 

Lastly, it's really simple. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Ryan Grigson, who I have repeatedly praised. It's about shifting blame back to Bill Polian, which in this case, I don't think is appropriate.

You ask for a source and I gave you three. If you chose to ignore those references thats up to you. The original thread was the o-line. You went somewhere else in your defense of Polian. Do you find that appropriate? You are a forum moderator. I was under the assumption that came with certain restrictions on arguing with a member of this forum. We all have different opinions and you chose to discard mine by telling me I fail to see your point of view. We differ on our opinions of Polian. Neither one of us needs to write a book on point counter point anymore. Good day.

[Superman]

You ask for a source and I gave you three. If you chose to ignore those references thats up to you. The original thread was the o-line. You went somewhere else in your defense of Polian. Do you find that appropriate? You are a forum moderator. I was under the assumption that came with certain restrictions on arguing with a member of this forum. We all have different opinions and you chose to discard mine by telling me I fail to see your point of view. We differ on our opinions of Polian. Neither one of us needs to write a book on point counter point anymore. Good day.

 

Practically everything you say in this post further convinces me that you don't appreciate the simplicity of my viewpoint.

 

But you have a good day as well.