Grigson is a Genius

[Evansville Blue]

Nah, but Nicks, Wayne and Hilton will be splitting some safeties.

 

I agree. Your comment makes me very happy. LOL!

[Evansville Blue]

Nah, but Nicks, Wayne and Hilton will be splitting some safeties.

[The Old Crow]

Only when he wins a Super Bowl.

[Poster X]

_{You guys are so fickle. One minute you hate him now he's a genius.}

That is how sports go sometimes. People will love you when you do good, and the minute you slip up... or it is perceived that way they will turn on a freaking dime.

[BOTT]

Albert Einstein was a genius. Stephen Hawking is a genius. 

Ryan Grigson is a good NFL general manager.

Overpaid

[C0LT5]

Overpaid

 

LOL...Grigson or the entire Colts roster?

[trueblueblood]

Albert Einstein was a genius. Stephen Hawking is a genius.

Ryan Grigson is a good NFL general manager.

Why do you think genius has to only do with science?

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

Cant believe this wasn't locked.

Who will the genius pick in the 1st rnd of the draft?

[throwing BBZ]

Brilliant offseason:

 

Re-sign Bradshaw, a good RB when healthy

Sign Jackson, who was the best player on the Browns arguably and a position of need

Sign Jones, who is a DL on the rise who can rush the QB and stop the run.

Re-sign Davis, a good press cover cornerback

Sign Costa, who is a good, tough player who will either push Holmes to be good or he will take his job.  He can also play center.

 

I still would like to see another quality o-lineman, a safety, and another potential pass rusher.  But I would say this was a very good off season so far!

 

 The Cowboys fans LAUGH about Costa being tuff. He is a wuss against power rushers. An easily replaced backup is what they got rid of.

 Competition for Austin at best.

[husker61]

Who will the genius pick in the 1st rnd of the draft?

 

i will say a rb that averages 3 ypc and misses pass blocking assignments.

[1yrdandacloudofdust]

i will say a rb that averages 3 ypc and misses pass blocking assignments.

Sounds awesome

[crazycolt1]

Well I will call Grigson a genius when he fields a football team that can win a SB. Polian did that so surely Grigson can do the same if he's a genius.

[ricker182]

Only when he wins a Super Bowl.

A lot of luck goes into that. Being competitive enough to win a SB is what's important. Especially in this day and age of the NFL.

[husker61]

it really scares me when almost all fans love the moves a team makes. i seem to recall almost everyone saying the colts had to sign paul kruger last year. that would have worked out great. and then there's the richardson trade most were loving. let's not forget jerry hughes sucks. also, pat angerer is one of the best lb's in the nfl. there are many, many more.

[loudnproudcolt]

If Nicks can come back to the form where he was in his first two years, he would be a beast for us, and the perfect replacement for Reggie when he retires. More of a possession receiver, but huge hands and faster when healthy. Also, signing Nicks presumably clears the way to not draft a WR in the second round which is another huge benefit! Love the signing. I thought he would go to SF or Carolina.

 

I admit though if Jordan Mathews for Vandy, 6ft.3 inches and ran a 4.5 in the forty, and has great big mits for hands would be an attractive offer. I would not be surprised though if Jarvis Landry drops to the 3rd due to the 4.7 speed in the 40. He would be a steal there. We cannot count on Nicks with his injury history, so we still could draft one if a good one is there, and there are plenty who are tall and fast, Montcrieft, 4.4, 6ft. 3, Matthews info above. Bennett from Cleveland, 4.5 40 and 6 ft. 3in. Davante Adams could be there also, so a decision will have to be made. Do we go best player or need.

 

WalterFootball.com has us taking David Yankey G/OT, Stanford, in the 2nd round pick. I would be very happy with that pick. I had seen him projected as high as the first round, and as much as Stanford runs, they have some tough SOB's. Stanford East.

[NewColtsFan]

How many draft picks do we have left for this year and what rounds are they :???:  Didn't we trade our first round pick on Richardson Thanks in advance for the answer to my questions.

 

Susie.....

 

We have the following....   picks,  2, 3, 5, 6, 7....   we traded both our picks,  1 and 4 to Cleveland but in separate trades.  

The 1 for Trent,  the 4 for DL Montori Hughes.

 

Hopes this helps.....

[NewColtsFan]

It's the definition for a bitter angry old man that thinks he's smarter than the common folk that are beneath him.

 

There's a good reason he thinks that....    Bill Polian IS smarter than most everyone else.    Smarter than most of the GM's who are wheeling and dealing today....

 

Look.....  I've defended Polian plenty around here.   But I've always said his time had come.   He had worn out his welcome and it was time for a fresh start.    Everyone has a shelf-life and Bill's had expired.    There needed to be a new voice,  a new direction.

 

Nobody is right 100% of the time -- not even Polian.    But when he's wrong,  that doesn't mean he's a senile old fool.   It means he's wrong on that given issue or topic.    Don't kid yourself,  Bill could run a franchise right now and do very well.

 

He's forgotten more about running a franchise than all of us on this forum combined!

 

We may not agree with him.....  but he's got the resume' to back-up whatever he says.....

[The Peytonator]

i will say a rb that averages 3 ypc and misses pass blocking assignments.

 

 

Let's not be too ambitious now.

[The Old Crow]

A lot of luck goes into that. Being competitive enough to win a SB is what's important. Especially in this day and age of the NFL.

He is doing a good job. You guys pick up quality players like the Ravens. I agree with the luck part about the Super Bowl , but you already got lucky getting Luck. Now you just have to get the final pieces around him . I like what Grigson is doing for you.

[Gavin]

Grigson is good but far from a genius, A genius move would have been to properly address the O Line not to sign a luxury pick in Nicks, Great player no question, I expect big things from him if he stays healthy....Its not about Nicks but the fact that Grigson hasn't addressed the Center spot adequately after what we went through the last 2 years boggles my mind

[TMPHBITEU]

Why do you think genius has to only do with science?

To someone with autism like myself (with the emotional capacity of a newborn), everything that can in any way be calculated stipulates "science".

Whether Ryan Grigson is a genius or not can be tested, the same way gravity can:

Hypothesis: Ryan Grigson is a genius.

1. Define: What does Genius mean:

For the sake of argument, let's just say it means: exceptional intellectual ability, creativity or originality.

While we cannot prove our hypothesis, we can attempt to disprove it. If we can't disprove it, we can call it a theory, and accept it as fact.

I want to ask you: How do you know Ryan Grigson is a genius, based on the signing of Hakeem Nicks. If we construct the argument as we did above, it's unlikely that you'd have the ability to reason with the number of variables surrounding the situation. Call it the "science of football", which would include a terrific understanding of at least: Human physiology, marketing, economics, business and psychology. (I could probably go on for hours).

I mean: How do you know Andrew Luck, Reggie Wayne and Hakeem Nicks didn't travel to the moon to hold a secret meeting in which Reggie said he was to retire next year and that Hakeem could take over his role by then. Thus took this idea to Ryan Grigson, who immediately agreed.

Of course, the above imaginative experiment is rather awkward, and obviously not true. But we can imagine it, so at the very least it's a hypothetical possibility.

What I'm saying is: Even if Ryan Grigson managed to sign Nr. Nicks, there are an almost infinite amount of variables to be deduced. Something I doubt anyone here using the word "genius" has made an actual attempt of doing. As such, the word becomes devalued, which I find sad, when I believe it was originally intended to describe the greatest minds of our history. Minds such as Einstein, Freud, Machiavelli, Plato, Marx and so on.

While Ryan Grigson hypothetically may fall into this category: I find it unlikely that he does. And even if he is a genius, we do not have the data to thoroughly discuss it yet. Bill Belichick might be one. Vince Lombardi might be one. Ryan Grigson, a 3rd year NFL GM?

Please...

[NFLfan]

Polian got us a Super Bowl, so I have no issues with him, jus shows how good of an owner we have knowing the right time to move on to something else

Most Colts fans hate Polian. Why? I believe that fans enjoy winning the free agency game more than winning a Super Bowl. Grigson has yet to win a championship but he is a "genius" and Polian, who has a Super Bowl ring and his teams have been to multiple Super Bowls, is a "bitter angry old man" & "a purple dinosaur". (Interesting that the guy who called Polian angry has come across an an angry and bitter person in many of his posts. Just my impression.)

Anyway, Grigson should be lauded for very good signings this off-season, but there is no need to disparage Polian when the Colts enjoyed years of success during his tenure there. And please spare me the "It was because of Manning" talk.

[azcolt]

Not to say he isn't a good GM but he is mostly a lucky GM. He took the job just as the best QB of the next 15 years was there for the taking. All of his decisions will look better for that good fortune. The same thing happened for Polian when he was able to draft Manning.

[trueblueblood]

To someone with autism like myself (with the emotional capacity of a newborn), everything that can in any way be calculated stipulates "science".

Whether Ryan Grigson is a genius or not can be tested, the same way gravity can:

Hypothesis: Ryan Grigson is a genius.

1. Define: What does Genius mean:

For the sake of argument, let's just say it means: exceptional intellectual ability, creativity or originality.

While we cannot prove our hypothesis, we can attempt to disprove it. If we can't disprove it, we can call it a theory, and accept it as fact.

I want to ask you: How do you know Ryan Grigson is a genius, based on the signing of Hakeem Nicks. If we construct the argument as we did above, it's unlikely that you'd have the ability to reason with the number of variables surrounding the situation. Call it the "science of football", which would include a terrific understanding of at least: Human physiology, marketing, economics, business and psychology. (I could probably go on for hours).

I mean: How do you know Andrew Luck, Reggie Wayne and Hakeem Nicks didn't travel to the moon to hold a secret meeting in which Reggie said he was to retire next year and that Hakeem could take over his role by then. Thus took this idea to Ryan Grigson, who immediately agreed.

Of course, the above imaginative experiment is rather awkward, and obviously not true. But we can imagine it, so at the very least it's a hypothetical possibility.

What I'm saying is: Even if Ryan Grigson managed to sign Nr. Nicks, there are an almost infinite amount of variables to be deduced. Something I doubt anyone here using the word "genius" has made an actual attempt of doing. As such, the word becomes devalued, which I find sad, when I believe it was originally intended to describe the greatest minds of our history. Minds such as Einstein, Freud, Machiavelli, Plato, Marx and so on.

While Ryan Grigson hypothetically may fall into this category: I find it unlikely that he does. And even if he is a genius, we do not have the data to thoroughly discuss it yet. Bill Belichick might be one. Vince Lombardi might be one. Ryan Grigson, a 3rd year NFL GM?

Please...

I never said he was, but I think of a lot of people as geniuses. One that comes to mind is Marshall mathers. I think he's a lyrical genius.

[Susie Q]

Susie.....

 

We have the following....   picks,  2, 3, 5, 6, 7....   we traded both our picks,  1 and 4 to Cleveland but in separate trades.  

The 1 for Trent,  the 4 for DL Montori Hughes.

 

Hopes this helps.....

Thank You

[Susie Q]

Friday is the day you want to watch if you pick just one.  We have both a 2nd and 3rd round pick.

Thank You

[MR. Blueblood]

The moment Grigson puts together an O-line that doesn't get Luck hammered week in and week out I will start to have a little more faith in his "Genius" stature.  For 2 years now we've seen our franchise QB be the most hit QB in the league, and the signing of Costa does very little to make me feel that the interior of this line is going to be any better than last season.  Hopefully Thomas coming back, Thornton moving to his more natural G position, and either the addition of a different Center or Holmes somehow miraculously taking the field like a beast will cause this turn around.  Still a whole lot of uncertainty in what was the biggest issue heading into this offseason.

[TMPHBITEU]

I never said he was, but I think of a lot of people as geniuses. One that comes to mind is Marshall mathers. I think he's a lyrical genius.

The premise wasn't whether or not you thought Ryan Grigson was a genius. The premise was whether or not "genius" had to do with science.

You may very well be right in the sense that Eminem is a lyrical genius. But in order to say he is, you need to be able to explain it for it to make sense. Just saying it, because you feel a connection to his lyrics doesn't make him a genius. More likely, it means his style of communicating with you was successful. 

If you can deduce why Eminem is a lyrical genius with basis in logic and knowledge, it's scientific per definition. I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I'm saying the foundation of saying it, if it is to be true, has to be scientific by definition based on my understanding of the word "genius".

[SteelCityColt]

Albert Einstein was a genius. Stephen Hawking is a genius. 

Ryan Grigson is a good NFL general manager.

 

To be fair the definition of a genius is somewhat open, if you strictly on say IQ (one of the worse quotients ever invented!) then it's not as hard as you'd imagine to be classified as one. 

 

Your point is taken though, he's doing a good job, a very good job IMO but genius might be the hyperbole too far

[Modern]

We have no offensive line, we have no first round pick. Forgive me if I dont think we are winning the Superbowl by signing Nicks.

When we stop having come from behind wins where Luck has to carry the team then I will be willing to give Grigson more credit.

Grigson needs to realize that Luck is who makes him look good and he needs to devote more resources into keeping Luck on his feet. Signing receivers and defensive ends and trading picks for runningbacks might make headlines, but the moment you see Luck on the ground in pain then it was all for nothing and the season is over.

Who is easier to replace, Luck or Grigson ?

If Luck gets hurt behind a shoddy offensive line then nothing Grigson has done matters. He needs to realize who his meal ticket is and protect him.

Grigson walked into a perfect situation amd if he plays his cards right and realizes that his success is tied to Lucks then he will be good.

Nicks could be a nice addition to the Colts, but only of Luck is on his feat and able to get him the ball.

[trueblueblood]

The premise wasn't whether or not you thought Ryan Grigson was a genius. The premise was whether or not "genius" had to do with science.

You may very well be right in the sense that Eminem is a lyrical genius. But in order to say he is, you need to be able to explain it for it to make sense. Just saying it, because you feel a connection to his lyrics doesn't make him a genius. More likely, it means his style of communicating with you was successful.

If you can deduce why Eminem is a lyrical genius with basis in logic and knowledge, it's scientific per definition. I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I'm saying the foundation of saying it, if it is to be true, has to be scientific by definition based on my understanding of the word "genius".

I get what you're saying, and we clearly have different definitions of the word "genius". I guess I see it as a special gift that someone has that is above and beyond his/ her peers. Of course I'm not talking athletes or anything, but more along the lines of artists, poets, musicians etc...

[TMPHBITEU]

To be fair the definition of a genius is somewhat open, if you strictly on say IQ (one of the worse quotients ever invented!) then it's not as hard as you'd imagine to be classified as one. 

 

Your point is taken though, he's doing a good job, a very good job IMO but genius might be the hyperbole too far

I appreciate your ability to understand, friend. I mentioned the possible interpretation of the word "genius" as it pertains to intelligence in a later post. 

Out of curiosity (in the sense that I myself value it for many different reasons, having an elite one myself), what is your problem with IQ?

[ColtsBlueFL]

Susie.....

 

We have the following....   picks,  2, 3, 5, 6, 7....   we traded both our picks,  1 and 4 to Cleveland but in separate trades.  

The 1 for Trent,  the 4 for DL Montori Hughes.

 

Hopes this helps.....

 

This is true, except...  we also traded a conditional pick in 2014 to St.Louis for Josh Gordy in August of 2012.  To this day, that pick is undisclosed; and I've been keeping my eye out.for what  the conditions are and which (if any) pick we will lose this year.

 

OTOH, I think we also have a 7th round conditional pick from the Ravens for A.Q. Shipley.

[TMPHBITEU]

I get what you're saying, and we clearly have different definitions of the word "genius". I guess I see it as a special gift that someone has that is above and beyond his/ her peers. Of course I'm not talking athletes or anything, but more along the lines of artists, poets, musicians etc...

I understand your reasoning, and I agree with it somewhat. I used to agree with it completely, although these days I'm not entirely assured of its validity.

Say the world is deterministic. If we exclude current knowledge (or rather, lack thereof) of quantum mechanics (in the sense that things cannot be accurately determined, but rather rely on probability), but instead assume the world is deterministic (which I believe it is). That means for everything to perform an action, it has to have a reason to, which can be deducted by the use of logic. Artistry could be looked upon as the understanding of the variables that makes something an effective tool for communication towards others. If you can understand the variables that makes something communicate effectively and beautifully, perhaps an objective truth is not so farfetched. 

Suppose, if we exclude the theory of relativity, and assume that Newton was right when he said every action has an appropriate reaction, that must mean that for every action to occur, it has to have an origin from a previous source. That previous source has an origin and so on. If we see these variables in chains in a massive web that connects each detail, perhaps everything can be logically deducted into an absolute truth.

Of course, that is a scary thought for human beings, as it would perfectly shatter our view of many things. If everything can be deducted (which I believe it can - although that's a discussion for another time, that I don't intend on practicing in detail on this forum), then many human constructs appear to be a lie. Just to mention a few possible ramifications: A complete destruction of our current views on ethics, morality as it pertains to free will.

[SteelCityColt]

I appreciate your ability to understand, friend. I mentioned the possible interpretation of the word "genius" as it pertains to intelligence in a later post. 

Out of curiosity (in the sense that I myself value it for many different reasons, having an elite one myself), what is your problem with IQ?

 

 

I just don't think it's the be all and end all metric yet the vast majority of people use it as such. Personally I think it's quite easy to train to take an IQ test as the questions are very narrow in their type. This is before we get into the whole debate about "artistic" genius etc. I myself find I can grade out pretty darn high in a IQ test but I wouldn't call myself a "genius". 

 

My apologies too I hadn't read all the way down before replying.

[NewColtsFan]

This is true, except...  we also traded a conditional pick in 2014 to St.Louis for Josh Gordy in August of 2012.  To this day, that pick is undisclosed; and I've been keeping my eye out.for what  the conditions are and which (if any) pick we will lose this year.

 

OTOH, I think we also have a 7th round conditional pick from the Ravens for A.Q. Shipley.

 

You're right....   but I don't think we met the "conditions" to owe St. Louis anything for Gordy.    There are too many stories being written by the Colts PR department saying we have our 2/3/5/6/7 to think we're going to lose a pick this late in the process.

 

So, I think we're clear with Gordy.

 

As for Shipley....    we do have Baltimore's 7....     but I don't think we have our 7.    Maybe that's the Gordy deal?    Maybe that's from another trade?     There are too many to keep track of.     But as of today,  I think we only have one 7th round pick.

 

At least,  that's my understanding.

[sweetsurrender]

I like the off-season so far. Grig is plotting along and filling holes. The draft will be big. He needs to hit this year.

[ColtsBlueFL]

You're right....   but I don't think we met the "conditions" to owe St. Louis anything for Gordy.    There are too many stories being written by the Colts PR department saying we have our 2/3/5/6/7 to think we're going to lose a pick this late in the process.

 

So, I think we're clear with Gordy.

 

As for Shipley....    we do have Baltimore's 7....     but I don't think we have our 7.    Maybe that's the Gordy deal?    Maybe that's from another trade?     There are too many to keep track of.     But as of today,  I think we only have one 7th round pick.

 

At least,  that's my understanding.

I hope you're right and we're clear with Gordy, but I haven't heard otherwise definitively yet.  Also, some sites (like- http://www.gbnreport.com/trades.htm ) still have us losing an undisclosed pick, and even maybe getting one for Caesar Rayford?  Hmmm....  I need to find more reliable draft sites for nfo.  LOL

[HOZER]

I understand your reasoning, and I agree with it somewhat. I used to agree with it completely, although these days I'm not entirely assured of its validity.

Say the world is deterministic. If we exclude current knowledge (or rather, lack thereof) of quantum mechanics (in the sense that things cannot be accurately determined, but rather rely on probability), but instead assume the world is deterministic (which I believe it is). That means for everything to perform an action, it has to have a reason to, which can be deducted by the use of logic. Artistry could be looked upon as the understanding of the variables that makes something an effective tool for communication towards others. If you can understand the variables that makes something communicate effectively and beautifully, perhaps an objective truth is not so farfetched.

Suppose, if we exclude the theory of relativity, and assume that Newton was right when he said every action has an appropriate reaction, that must mean that for every action to occur, it has to have an origin from a previous source. That previous source has an origin and so on. If we see these variables in chains in a massive web that connects each detail, perhaps everything can be logically deducted into an absolute truth.

Of course, that is a scary thought for human beings, as it would perfectly shatter our view of many things. If everything can be deducted (which I believe it can - although that's a discussion for another time, that I don't intend on practicing in detail on this forum), then many human constructs appear to be a lie. Just to mention a few possible ramifications: A complete destruction of our current views on ethics, morality as it pertains to free will.

\m/COLTS\m/ <<<<------not a genius! You are making my brain hurt!!!!!!

On a serious note.......in my profession I sometimes help people with varying forms of autism, and have received training on the different types and how to help. I found it very interesting to learn that Albert Einstein, a without a doubt genius, was said to have had a mild from of autism or Asperger's syndrome.

[TMPHBITEU]

I just don't think it's the be all and end all metric yet the vast majority of people use it as such. Personally I think it's quite easy to train to take an IQ test as the questions are very narrow in their type. This is before we get into the whole debate about "artistic" genius etc. I myself find I can grade out pretty darn high in a IQ test but I wouldn't call myself a "genius". 

I completely agree it is not the end all be all metric. I however believe it's extremely useful.

An anecdote from my own life: I'm not about to say just how high I score in IQ tests, as I share your concerns about the implications of people's rationalisations about what it could mean. Rather, I'll just say I'm somewhere in the top 2 percentile (being a former member of Mensa - I actually almost endured a meeting for 45 minutes before I had to exclude myself from the ridiculousness of their artificial self esteem boosts through elitism)

On the other hand: I'm deficient in a lot of ways; I perform horribly academically most of the time (having flunked out of school more than once). I also often fail at tasks that would seem trivial or extremely easy for others. Especially when it pertains to emotional maturity or intelligence - whatever that means.

Yet I find, when I'm motivated, I can be quite extraordinary in subjects that pertain to logic. For example, I've played chess against one of the historical masters - and won. I'm not saying I'm better at chess than a former world champion. I'm saying that I've beaten him at his own game, at least once, which is a feat not many can hope to achieve. Yet, I find myself deficient in many areas, where I would gladly give up my IQ to be a normal person. Basically, I'm Pinocchio.