Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Grigson Confrence call


Recommended Posts

We all knew that there would be some forum backlash if Grigson chose to stand pat on Costa/Holmes/Thornton/Thomas and the draft.  However, consider this standard forum contradiction: Most are quick to lament the trading of AQ Shipley without giving the same GM credit for signing Shipley off the street when he'd been out of the game for a season. You can't criticize the move without complementing his selection of the talent that nobody else wanted. It's a contradiction.  To think that Grigson doesn't have a long list of contingency plan players who are hungry to come play competent football, is to ignore history.

 

If Grigson wants to paraphrase the immortal words of Norman Dale and say "My team is on the field",  then it isn't blind faith for us to think it might just work out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Couldn't agree more. I think Holmes will be solid but unspectacular this year. I'm hoping beyond hope not to see Costa at center though. Let's ramp up Khaled's development. Grigs isn't going anywhere. Continuity is key. 

 

If the Colts stagnate or regress, he will be.  It's a bottom line business and Grigson doesn't have the pedigree to survive many down seasons.  Irsay has publicly lamented the organization's failure to build balanced teams around Manning.   If he sees Luck's career being wasted, I doubt he'll have much patience the second time around.  Also, we're no longer in the infancy of this process.  We're going into year 3.  Mora was out in 4, after one down year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feels like a gamble to me. The team's biggest issues are interior Oline and the Colts want to go with a guy that's never played at the pro level and a newly acquired backup that's average.....

Hope it works out.

Is it any more of a gamble than to overpay for a guy like Mack and completely wreck your salary struture? That seems a big gamble of another sort. If you can get in the ballpark comparable play from a guy who costs millions less, can't you argue that as a less of a gamble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holmes was def injured before training camp last year; I remember he only put up 13 reps of the bench press, which is the same as some kickers.

Holmes strained a pec or something when lifting and stopped

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it any more of a gamble than to overpay for a guy like Mack and completely wreck your salary struture? That seems a big gamble of another sort. If you can get in the ballpark comparable play from a guy who costs millions less, can't you argue that as a less of a gamble.

 

Those are different gambles?    One is about ability.    The other is about salary structure for the team.

 

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Mack,  but I don't get to make those calls.    And it appears Grigson disagrees with me.

 

It looks like Costa and Holmes.    And if I'm Grigson,  I'm praying every day that one of them turns into what he hopes they can become......

 

Otherwise................

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I have just accepted that Grigsons eye for O Line talent is marginal at the very best

Just simply Dear God...

 

 

No the bad picks(Satele, Mcglynn) certainly dont overshadow the good ones and I know he has made some good picks like the ones you named, I guess Im just more disappointed in Grigsons apparent unwillingness to sign an established Center instead electing apparently to let a 2nd year player and Costa to fight it out to see who starts

I would guess that he studied all centers available - of this I am certain - and determined that what he already has in Holmes and what he signed in Costa is a far better option than overpaying for Mack or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are different gambles?    One is about ability.    The other is about salary structure for the team.

 

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Mack,  but I don't get to make those calls.    And it appears Grigson disagrees with me.

 

It looks like Costa and Holmes.    And if I'm Grigson,  I'm praying every day that one of them turns into what he hopes they can become......

 

Otherwise................

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I have just accepted that Grigsons eye for O Line talent is marginal at the very best

 

Really?     You've come to this conclusion on Grigson after two years?

 

And year one he was severely handicapped by $40 Mill in dead cap space?

 

And last year he invested in Cherilous/Thomas/Thornton/Holmes?

 

And you've decided his eye for talent is marginal at best?

 

Wow.

 

I'm sorry to read this.....................

 

Just.     Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those are different gambles?    One is about ability.    The other is about salary structure for the team.

 

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Mack,  but I don't get to make those calls.    And it appears Grigson disagrees with me.

 

It looks like Costa and Holmes.    And if I'm Grigson,  I'm praying every day that one of them turns into what he hopes they can become......

 

Otherwise................

 

 

Hey, JS....

 

If you meant to make a comment on my post,  you forget to write it....   

 

All I got back was my post...   but nothing from you.

 

As always, I look forward to reading your views....     :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, JS....

 

If you meant to make a comment on my post,  you forget to write it....   

 

All I got back was my post...   but nothing from you.

 

As always, I look forward to reading your views....     :thmup:

Not sure what happened there. Maybe too many beers at lunch. What's worse is that I have no idea now what I wanted to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are different gambles? One is about ability. The other is about salary structure for the team.

Personally, I'd rather gamble on Mack, but I don't get to make those calls. And it appears Grigson disagrees with me.

It looks like Costa and Holmes. And if I'm Grigson, I'm praying every day that one of them turns into what he hopes they can become......

Otherwise................

It would be worse to spend big on Mack and it doesn't work for whatever reason -- as these free agency deals sometimes go -- than to trust your in-house talent and continue developing your young players. If Holmes isn't the guy, you can move to Plan B, or C, or D. If Mack doesn't work and you've given him big money, you are compelled to ride it out, and it could cost you some of you young guys who are soon to be due for new deals. So in certain ways, signing Mack is a bigger gamble. Prudence and discernment are necessary.

I'd have liked a midway option, like EDS or Goodwin, but I also understand the route Grigson is taking. We are all romantic about Mack, but it's probably best that we don't go after him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be worse to spend big on Mack and it doesn't work for whatever reason -- as these free agency deals sometimes go -- than to trust your in-house talent and continue developing your young players. If Holmes isn't the guy, you can move to Plan B, or C, or D. If Mack doesn't work and you've given him big money, you are compelled to ride it out, and it could cost you some of you young guys who are soon to be due for new deals. So in certain ways, signing Mack is a bigger gamble. Prudence and discernment are necessary.

I'd have liked a midway option, like EDS or Goodwin, but I also understand the route Grigson is taking. We are all romantic about Mack, but it's probably best that we don't go after him.

 

Let me ask you a question, if I may....

 

Reportedly, the previous administration in Cleveland was set to let Mack walk...   make him a complete free agent.

 

If that had happened, do you think we would've put a bid in on him?     Do you think we would have gone after him?

 

I sure do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you a question, if I may....

Reportedly, the previous administration in Cleveland was set to let Mack walk... make him a complete free agent.

If that had happened, do you think we would've put a bid in on him? Do you think we would have gone after him?

I sure do.

Can't tell. I was somewhat against it personally, because I don't think the difference between Mack and EDS was substantial enough to pay Mack $8m/year, and I thought EDS could be had for $5m/year. All indications are that we didn't try for EDS. So an offer for Mack at a 40% premium seems unlikely, to me.

The other alternative is that Grigson didn't like EDS, which I find difficult to accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't tell. I was somewhat against it personally, because I don't think the difference between Mack and EDS was substantial enough to pay Mack $8m/year, and I thought EDS could be had for $5m/year. All indications are that we didn't try for EDS. So an offer for Mack at a 40% premium seems unlikely, to me.

The other alternative is that Grigson didn't like EDS, which I find difficult to accept.

 

I've said this in other posts,  but I think it's worth repeating...    (Mighty big of me!)

 

If we're sitting here a year from now and we're talking about how Costa was not much better than Satele and how Holmes looked over-matched for a guy getting his first real playing time and our running game has struggled for the 3rd straight year,  I think it will look incredibly bad for Grigson.    Especially considering (A) he's a former OL himself and (B) he went on record after his first year saying his goal was to build the best OL in football.

 

So....

 

Do I agree that Center is a spot where you can find a quality guy even as a free agent?   Yes.   History shows you can.

 

But the gamble is incredibly big.    3 straight years of substandard center play is unacceptable.    Especially, if I may add when our OL looked better with Shipley and he traded him for a 7, and our OL looked better even with McGlynn at C and he didn't get used as much and we're releasing him outright.   I think it would look bad for the franchise and bad for Grigson.

 

And I say all this as an unabashed Grigson admirer.   I defend him here constantly.  But I find the very idea of Costa being his solution to be almost incomprehensible to me.     I hope and pray he's right.    If I were Irsay and and our center play is poor again, I think next off-season I'd be lighting a fire under Grigson's a** to fix the problem -- finally, and once and for all.

 

Don't shop at the 99-cent store for a solution.   Pay full retail price and get a quality starting center.    Period.

 

Sorry for the rant.......    Just wanted to offer a longer view of things.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically we are standing down from FA with 13 million in cap space left?  

 

Kind of disappointed, I was hoping he would at least get a free safety.  Hopefully Howell and Holmes are ready to play.  

 

If the coaches are confident that these guys are ready to start then to me it begs the question of why we arn't using that cap space to make improvements elsewhere.  

money in the bank if someone good comes along

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be worse to spend big on Mack and it doesn't work for whatever reason -- as these free agency deals sometimes go -- than to trust your in-house talent and continue developing your young players. If Holmes isn't the guy, you can move to Plan B, or C, or D. If Mack doesn't work and you've given him big money, you are compelled to ride it out, and it could cost you some of you young guys who are soon to be due for new deals. So in certain ways, signing Mack is a bigger gamble. Prudence and discernment are necessary.

I'd have liked a midway option, like EDS or Goodwin, but I also understand the route Grigson is taking. We are all romantic about Mack, but it's probably best that we don't go after him.

I suppose I am guilty of thinking there were some indications that Grigs was hunting that big fish, and maybe even of hoping a little that he would land that big fish...

But it never really fit the overall impression I have of Grigson... that every move he makes is about attempting to get value.

10M per year for a C would NEVER fit that construct.

All that said, I admit to being a little apprehensive about where the team stands a C at the moment, but you don't draft a guy to be your starter, pay him to enjoy a bonus year to develop, and then take a pass on at least kicking those tires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this in other posts,  but I think it's worth repeating...    (Mighty big of me!)

 

If we're sitting here a year from now and we're talking about how Costa was not much better than Satele and how Holmes looked over-matched for a guy getting his first real playing time and our running game has struggled for the 3rd straight year,  I think it will look incredibly bad for Grigson.    Especially considering (A) he's a former OL himself and (B) he went on record after his first year saying his goal was to build the best OL in football.

 

So....

 

Do I agree that Center is a spot where you can find a quality guy even as a free agent?   Yes.   History shows you can.

 

But the gamble is incredibly big.    3 straight years of substandard center play is unacceptable.    Especially, if I may add when our OL looked better with Shipley and he traded him for a 7, and our OL looked better even with McGlynn at C and he didn't get used as much and we're releasing him outright.   I think it would look bad for the franchise and bad for Grigson.

 

And I say all this as an unabashed Grigson admirer.   I defend him here constantly.  But I find the very idea of Costa being his solution to be almost incomprehensible to me.     I hope and pray he's right.    If I were Irsay and and our center play is poor again, I think next off-season I'd be lighting a fire under Grigson's a** to fix the problem -- finally, and once and for all.

 

Don't shop at the 99-cent store for a solution.   Pay full retail price and get a quality starting center.    Period.

 

Sorry for the rant.......    Just wanted to offer a longer view of things.....

 

All these veteran centers were once young and unproven players. Like Holmes. Grigson said the other day that Holmes was drafted to eventually be the starter. In his mind, that's probably where it begins and ends.

 

I disagree with any statement that frames Costa as a "solution" of any kind. It is incomprehensible, which is why I don't agree with the premise. Costa is veteran depth and competition. If it were me, I'd have signed someone other that Costa, but he's not the worst option for that role. 

 

McGlynn was, along with Satele, the problem with our offensive line. And from what I hear about McGlynn in free agency right now, he doesn't want to play center. He wants to play guard. And honestly, when rewatching his play at center, it wasn't that much better than Satele's. The big difference is that we had a better player at RG when McGlynn was filling in at center. In the Niners game, that was Linkenbach, probably our third worst lineman last season. That might actually mean that better play at RG makes our center look better, and if we're rolling with Thornton at RG next year, that's a good thing, because the one game Thornton got at RG was a good one. Long story short, I believe there's going to be some addition by subtraction. Letting McGlynn go will not be looked back on as a negative thing. 

 

What I do agree with is that three years of substandard play at center is unacceptable. That would mean that Grigson signed a bad player, then missed a draft pick, then passed on an opportunity to improve the position in free agency. Would be a big blemish on Grigson's record, and like you, I'm a big Grigson fan. 

 

But here's the real reason this approach makes sense: If you pay Mack, it's going to cost you. Maybe not now, maybe not next year, but eventually. It's going to cost you Coby Fleener, or Dwayne Allen, Hugh Thornton, Bjoern Werner, Anthony Castonzo, Jerrell Freeman, and so on like that. We're not ever going to let Luck leave; he's going to get his franchise QB money. But when he does, our ability to fill holes through the draft -- to add and then develop young players at little cost -- is going to be the key to maintaining a balanced roster.

 

Most people view cap space as a one year commodity. The reality is that the new CBA makes this year's cap space a long-term commodity, because it can be rolled over year to year. So frugality now gives us flexibility in the future, even when Luck is making however much he winds up getting on his new contract. That means we're better able to fix whatever holes develop through draft mistakes or injuries or whatever. 

 

So if -- IF -- Holmes can plug the hole at center right now, then we've just saved something like $20m over the next two seasons by not signing Mack. And that helps us keep our young players in the future, and allows us more freedom in the draft, and so on. IMO, that's the real LONG view. Signing Mack is the short view: "Fix it now, cap constraints in the future be damned." 

 

It IS a risk, and Grigson will be judged on how this move works, or doesn't work. He could throw money at it, and if doesn't work he could say "well I tried, right?" But he can trust his approach, rely on the coaches' evaluation of the talent we have and their ability to develop said talent, and have big value and big rewards, assuming it works out.

 

Sorry for the long response. I just want to express that I get Grigson's approach in this case. Not that it's a sure-fire way to handle it, and not that there's no risk, and not even that it's the way I would do it. Just that I understand it, and if it works the way we hope it does, it will have been the very best outcome overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I am guilty of thinking there were some indications that Grigs was hunting that big fish, and maybe even of hoping a little that he would land that big fish...

But it never really fit the overall impression I have of Grigson... that every move he makes is about attempting to get value.

10M per year for a C would NEVER fit that construct.

All that said, I admit to being a little apprehensive about where the team stands a C at the moment, but you don't draft a guy to be your starter, pay him to enjoy a bonus year to develop, and then take a pass on at least kicking those tires.

 

Yeah, I think we all found ourselves imagining that Grigson was trying to land Mack one way or the other. But it doesn't go with what we know of Grigson, or with what Grigson has expressed over the last year or so about how he wants to build this roster. Paying a center $8-10m/year doesn't fit his MO; it would be like seeing a vegan eating a $100 steak.

 

I'm nervous about Holmes as the starter as well. I think we all are, given that he basically didn't play last year. But if your nervousness about a young lineman keeps you from ever playing him, then you might as well build your entire offensive line through FA. Every good lineman got his first chance at some point. 

 

What's tough about young linemen is that you can't work them in gradually, like you would at other positions. No one platoons offensive linemen. It's like your QB, in that you have one guy at each position, and ideally he gets all the reps at that position. You don't pull your starter out to get young guys playing time, because continuity on the line is crucial. With a rookie defensive lineman, you get him 5 snaps here, 10 snaps there, and eventually he's working his way into the starting lineup. You don't have that luxury on the offensive line. At one point or another, you're going to throw your young guys to the wolves, and you hope he can hold his own.

 

Where I think Grigson could have done better is with the veteran competition/backup. Costa wouldn't have been my guy. But handing it to Holmes, while nerve-wracking, is pretty much what needs to happen at one point or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this in other posts,  but I think it's worth repeating...    (Mighty big of me!)

 

If we're sitting here a year from now and we're talking about how Costa was not much better than Satele and how Holmes looked over-matched for a guy getting his first real playing time and our running game has struggled for the 3rd straight year,  I think it will look incredibly bad for Grigson.    Especially considering (A) he's a former OL himself and (B) he went on record after his first year saying his goal was to build the best OL in football.

 

So....

 

Do I agree that Center is a spot where you can find a quality guy even as a free agent?   Yes.   History shows you can.

 

But the gamble is incredibly big.    3 straight years of substandard center play is unacceptable.    Especially, if I may add when our OL looked better with Shipley and he traded him for a 7, and our OL looked better even with McGlynn at C and he didn't get used as much and we're releasing him outright.   I think it would look bad for the franchise and bad for Grigson.

 

And I say all this as an unabashed Grigson admirer.   I defend him here constantly.  But I find the very idea of Costa being his solution to be almost incomprehensible to me.     I hope and pray he's right.    If I were Irsay and and our center play is poor again, I think next off-season I'd be lighting a fire under Grigson's a** to fix the problem -- finally, and once and for all.

 

Don't shop at the 99-cent store for a solution.   Pay full retail price and get a quality starting center.    Period.

 

Sorry for the rant.......    Just wanted to offer a longer view of things.....

Your opening paragraph was the reason I stated Grigsons eye for O Line talent is marginal(and yes I knew I would come under scrutiny for saying that)....Some GM's even scouts struggle with spotting traits in a prospect or current NFL player (That goes for any position), Now I know Grigson brought in Cherilus and Thomas and that would alone suggests he knows a good O Lineman when he sees one....of course the fact that he is a former O Lineman himself also suggests that, But what we have desparately needed since Grigson became GM (and actually before that) was an interior O Line, Now the first year he did what he thought he could bringing in Satele and Mcglynn.....So I'll give him a pass..I think he could have addressed it differently but I'l give him a pass but he kept Satele and Mcglynn yet again for a 2nd year when there was a couple of FA' at Center and especially at Guard that llasted on until mid june-july. My frustration with Grigson is he will go out and spend 35 mill on a RT of all the O Line positions(and one thats not a real good run blocker which is what a RT strength is supposed to be...I know he had a great year last year and only 15 mill is guaranteed) But when it comes to the interior of the O Line which is vital to our success of running the ball he goes cheap and seemingly wishes our running backs the best of luck running behind them. Now maybe Holmes works out....He has all the raw tools to except strength  but he didn't sign any insurance policy in case he struggles......Yes I know he signed Costas....But I am here to tell ya if Holmes fails to win the job and Costa is forced to start then the failure to sign an insurance policy is going to blow up in Grigsons face 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opening paragraph was the reason I stated Grigsons eye for O Line talent is marginal(and yes I knew I would come under scrutiny for saying that)....Some GM's even scouts struggle with spotting traits in a prospect or current NFL player (That goes for any position), Now I know Grigson brought in Cherilus and Thomas and that would alone suggests he knows a good O Lineman when he sees one....of course the fact that he is a former O Lineman himself also suggests that, But what we have desparately needed since Grigson became GM (and actually before that) was an interior O Line, Now the first year he did what he thought he could bringing in Satele and Mcglynn.....So I'll give him a pass..I think he could have addressed it differently but I'l give him a pass but he kept Satele and Mcglynn yet again for a 2nd year when there was a couple of FA' at Center and especially at Guard that llasted on until mid june-july. My frustration with Grigson is he will go out and spend 35 mill on a RT of all the O Line positions(and one thats not a real good run blocker which is what a RT strength is supposed to be...I know he had a great year last year and only 15 mill is guaranteed) But when it comes to the interior of the O Line which is vital to our success of running the ball he goes cheap and seemingly wishes our running backs the best of luck running behind them. Now maybe Holmes works out....He has all the raw tools to except strength  but he didn't sign any insurance policy in case he struggles......Yes I know he signed Costas....But I am here to tell ya if Holmes fails to win the job and Costa is forced to start then the failure to sign an insurance policy is going to blow up in Grigsons face 

 

Except here's the difference......

 

You've already decided Grigson has a poor eye for talent.    My first paragraph -- which you pointed to -- the key word in that graph is....   "if"...  it's talking about a year from now -- not now.    If it's spring of 2015 and we're having this conversation THEN I'm going to have issues with RG.

 

Plus, there is this....  it's not his eye for talent I question,  it's his decision making process.   Now, I grant you I'm now making one of the Cardinal Sins of Fandom.   I'm talking as if I know what's going on inside the Colts headquarters.   Clearly I don't.

 

But from the outside looking in, Grigson has made a series of curious moves and I'd love to be able to sit down with him (there's the former Journalist in me) and ask him a series of questions so he could take us all through the decision making process.

 

I'd love to have an interview with him that would make everyone here -- me included -- say....  "Ohhhhh.....  NOW I get it!  That makes perfect sense!"    I'd love to do that, but we all know it's never going to happen!   So, I give Grigson the benefit of the doubt.    But, another year from now, if the middle of our OL is still a failure, it'll be harder and harder to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

But, we're not there yet.    I'm not there yet.    You appear to be, Gavin.   You've said you don't think RG has a good eye for OL talent.   I don't share that view -- yet.   I may someday....  but it's a long way off for me.   I may get there someday,  but not tonight.   Not this year.   We can revisit this in a year and see where we are....  but I'm not there yet.   And there's the difference between us.

 

By the way,  this is NOT to say that I'm right and you're wrong.   Just to say we see the same thing differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict is out on Ryan Grigson, whether he can judge talent or not. But, there is a big problem somewhere. The Satele, McGlynn, Shipley, and others, "problem" was obvious last year, and the year before, and was never addressed. Whether that was coaching decisions, or personnel decisions, it was obviously a problem!

If it isn't resolved this year, heads will roll. Hopefully, the problem will be addressed and we all can cool down and enjoy football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except here's the difference......

 

You've already decided Grigson has a poor eye for talent.    My first paragraph -- which you pointed to -- the key word in that graph is....   "if"...  it's talking about a year from now -- not now.    If it's spring of 2015 and we're having this conversation THEN I'm going to have issues with RG.

 

Plus, there is this....  it's not his eye for talent I question,  it's his decision making process.   Now, I grant you I'm now making one of the Cardinal Sins of Fandom.   I'm talking as if I know what's going on inside the Colts headquarters.   Clearly I don't.

 

But from the outside looking in, Grigson has made a series of curious moves and I'd love to be able to sit down with him (there's the former Journalist in me) and ask him a series of questions so he could take us all through the decision making process.

 

I'd love to have an interview with him that would make everyone here -- me included -- say....  "Ohhhhh.....  NOW I get it!  That makes perfect sense!"    I'd love to do that, but we all know it's never going to happen!   So, I give Grigson the benefit of the doubt.    But, another year from now, if the middle of our OL is still a failure, it'll be harder and harder to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

But, we're not there yet.    I'm not there yet.    You appear to be, Gavin.   You've said you don't think RG has a good eye for OL talent.   I don't share that view -- yet.   I may someday....  but it's a long way off for me.   I may get there someday,  but not tonight.   Not this year.   We can revisit this in a year and see where we are....  but I'm not there yet.   And there's the difference between us.

 

By the way,  this is NOT to say that I'm right and you're wrong.   Just to say we see the same thing differently.

Well said

Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict is out on Ryan Grigson, whether he can judge talent or not. But, there is a big problem somewhere. The Satele, McGlynn, Shipley, and others, "problem" was obvious last year, and the year before, and was never addressed. Whether that was coaching decisions, or personnel decisions, it was obviously a problem!

If it isn't resolved this year, heads will roll. Hopefully, the problem will be addressed and we all can cool down and enjoy football.

 

I wish people would stop complaining about the AQ Shipley trade. He's not a good lineman. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict is out on Ryan Grigson, whether he can judge talent or not. But, there is a big problem somewhere. The Satele, McGlynn, Shipley, and others, "problem" was obvious last year, and the year before, and was never addressed. Whether that was coaching decisions, or personnel decisions, it was obviously a problem!

If it isn't resolved this year, heads will roll. Hopefully, the problem will be addressed and we all can cool down and enjoy football.

 

Not to be argumentative, but it actually was addressed.

 

We drafted Thornton and Holmes.   We signed Thomas.     Three moves to address the middle of our OL.

 

It's just that last year,  none of those actually worked out the way we hoped.    Sometimes stuff happens......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people would stop complaining about the AQ Shipley trade. He's not a good lineman. 

 

As someone who complained about the Shipley trade and who also mentioned McGlynn in another post, I want to be clear.....

 

It's not that I think either of them are all that great.   But they were serviceable as a center.   And from time to time, they appeared to be better than what we had going, which was Satele.

 

So, if you're going to trade a serviceable back-up, I'd like to get more than a 7.   That's all I'm saying.

 

Now, clearly no one offered us a 6 otherwise, Grigson would've taken it.   It just seemed to be a curious move given that at the time all we had going for us was Satele and the rookie, Holmes.   

 

Look...    no one would be saying word-one if the position had been stabilized.   But it hasn't been.   At least,  not yet.

 

Hopefully it will be within the next few months and we can look back on this time and reflect and maybe even chuckle a bit...

 

But until then..........    it's nail-biting time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were Irsay and our center play is poor again, I think next off-season I'd be lighting a fire under Grigson's a** to fix the problem -- finally, and once and for all.

 

Don't shop at the 99-cent store for a solution.   Pay full retail price and get a quality starting center.    Period.

 

 

Strongly agree with this except I felt this way last season.  I figured this would be FA market where we'd pony up and pay for quality -- and not risk a repeat of the last two seasons on the interior OL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strongly agree with this except I felt this way last season.  I figured this would be FA market where we'd pony up and pay for quality -- and not risk a repeat of the last two seasons on the interior OL.

 

^^This^^  I wanted and expected Grigson to spend the money to guarantee the OL was fixed this offseason...not this "have faith and hope" game we played last season that did not work. 

 

I realize we have ""potential" for a good OL, but I think Grigson is placing far too much faith that a rookie guard who showed some flashes, but was overall unimpressive .... an unproven 4th rnd pick at C who hasn't seen the field,.... and a guard that looked good in a previous back up roll and is coming off an injury.  Maybe gamble on one of those things, but gambling on every position on the interior line?? I don't like it.

 

I am holding out hope that he still brings in some proven OL and not just "Costa/camp bodies" before its all said and done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who complained about the Shipley trade and who also mentioned McGlynn in another post, I want to be clear.....

 

It's not that I think either of them are all that great.   But they were serviceable as a center.   And from time to time, they appeared to be better than what we had going, which was Satele.

 

So, if you're going to trade a serviceable back-up, I'd like to get more than a 7.   That's all I'm saying.

 

Now, clearly no one offered us a 6 otherwise, Grigson would've taken it.   It just seemed to be a curious move given that at the time all we had going for us was Satele and the rookie, Holmes.   

 

Look...    no one would be saying word-one if the position had been stabilized.   But it hasn't been.   At least,  not yet.

 

Hopefully it will be within the next few months and we can look back on this time and reflect and maybe even chuckle a bit...

 

But until then..........    it's nail-biting time!

 

Regarding Shipley, to be honest, I'm surprised we even got a 7th for him. He's really not good. I think "serviceable" is being generous. The Ravens mostly played him at guard, which is certain ways is less challenging than center, and he was bad as a pass blocker and a run blocker. He was decent as a screen blocker, so he's got that going for him...

 

The thing is that Satele was so bad, so people feel like Shipley would have been better. And that's possible, but given how bad Shipley was himself, it's hard for me to accept that. To me, it's another example of how the grass is always greener somewhere else. 

 

If we're going to complain about something, let's really make it a good complaint. There are other players we could have had at interior line last season, players better than Shipley. I agree that Grigson is gambling here, and I would love it if we added a contingency other than Costa. But I wouldn't and don't want Shipley. I'd rather have the 7th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Shipley, to be honest, I'm surprised we even got a 7th for him. He's really not good. I think "serviceable" is being generous. The Ravens mostly played him at guard, which is certain ways is less challenging than center, and he was bad as a pass blocker and a run blocker. He was decent as a screen blocker, so he's got that going for him...

 

The thing is that Satele was so bad, so people feel like Shipley would have been better. And that's possible, but given how bad Shipley was himself, it's hard for me to accept that. To me, it's another example of how the grass is always greener somewhere else. 

 

If we're going to complain about something, let's really make it a good complaint. There are other players we could have had at interior line last season, players better than Shipley. I agree that Grigson is gambling here, and I would love it if we added a contingency other than Costa. But I wouldn't and don't want Shipley. I'd rather have the 7th.

 

 

Understood....    I was only ranting because the position has yet to be stabilized yet.    As I said,  if it had been by now,  me (and everyone else here) would just zip it.     I don't mean to whine here....    only to comment how unusual the journey has been to find a quality center.  

 

This feels like the long and winding road.    I hope it leads to finding the right guy.    I really don't care who it is (though my preference at the moment is Holmes)  but I'll take anyone who can be a decent quality center between two decent guards so we can have some quality pass blocking up the middle,  plus have some good run blocking to we can generate a running game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood.... I was only ranting because the position has yet to be stabilized yet. As I said, if it had been by now, me (and everyone else here) would just zip it. I don't mean to whine here.... only to comment how unusual the journey has been to find a quality center.

This feels like the long and winding road. I hope it leads to finding the right guy. I really don't care who it is (though my preference at the moment is Holmes) but I'll take anyone who can be a decent quality center between two decent guards so we can have some quality pass blocking up the middle, plus have some good run blocking to we can generate a running game.

I'm with you there. I've just always thought the noise about Shipley was, well, noise. A bunch of stuff, if you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict is out on Ryan Grigson, whether he can judge talent or not. But, there is a big problem somewhere. The Satele, McGlynn, Shipley, and others, "problem" was obvious last year, and the year before, and was never addressed. Whether that was coaching decisions, or personnel decisions, it was obviously a problem!

If it isn't resolved this year, heads will roll. Hopefully, the problem will be addressed and we all can cool down and enjoy football.

 

I seriously doubt Grigson will be fired if the Center position isn't improved this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Shipley, to be honest, I'm surprised we even got a 7th for him. He's really not good. I think "serviceable" is being generous. The Ravens mostly played him at guard, which is certain ways is less challenging than center, and he was bad as a pass blocker and a run blocker. He was decent as a screen blocker, so he's got that going for him...

 

The thing is that Satele was so bad, so people feel like Shipley would have been better. And that's possible, but given how bad Shipley was himself, it's hard for me to accept that. To me, it's another example of how the grass is always greener somewhere else. 

 

If we're going to complain about something, let's really make it a good complaint. There are other players we could have had at interior line last season, players better than Shipley. I agree that Grigson is gambling here, and I would love it if we added a contingency other than Costa. But I wouldn't and don't want Shipley. I'd rather have the 7th.

 

The thing with Shipley is it seemed to me that we could have used as the starter and trade Satele or dumped him for cap space.  Shipley was making like the min NFL wage.

 

I don't think Shipley was the long term answer at center.  But if he was slightly better then Satele then play your best guys and put your best team out there.  

 

As far as the 7th rounder.  Honestly it's a fairly worthless pick if you ask me.  Most 7th rounders don't even make the team and if last year is any indication, they don't even get on the practice squad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If nicks can pull it together and become our number one, and Rogers stays patient, he could become our number two when Reggie leaves... I like the sound of it.... Not Reggie leaving just the sound of our for now, future WR group.

 

I'd still figure, until he shows otherwise, that Hilton will be in the #1/#2 role despite what he lacks in size.  They'll continue to move him around to challenge defenses and potentially take the top off as he has in the past.  I'd figure Rogers as the #3 in the future if we retain Nicks, and he could potentially be a #2 if Nicks goes the route of DHB and doesn't stick past this year.  I'd figure Nicks is still a large question mark due to durability, whereas both Hilton and Rogers have been largely healthy thus far in their careers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but checking out college players means NOTHING. Seems like I say this every year to no avail, but if they check out 100 guys, only one or two of those end up actually getting drafted by the Colts, if that many.

Pagano and grigson at Werner's pro day last year???? Pagano at Usc's pro day talking w Khaled holmes?? When Pagano gets sent to the pro day, it seems to me that it means they are thinking about drafting them and grigson's wants pagano's personal opinion for confirmation. Pagano doesn't go to alot of the pro days. I think there's a difference b/w scouts being at a pro day vs whether the coach is showing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with Shipley is it seemed to me that we could have used as the starter and trade Satele or dumped him for cap space.  Shipley was making like the min NFL wage.

 

I don't think Shipley was the long term answer at center.  But if he was slightly better then Satele then play your best guys and put your best team out there.  

 

As far as the 7th rounder.  Honestly it's a fairly worthless pick if you ask me.  Most 7th rounders don't even make the team and if last year is any indication, they don't even get on the practice squad.  

 

Yeah, keeping Shipley instead of Satele would have saved the team about $1.3m in 2013. But that's not a substantial savings, only about 1% of the cap. 

 

And I know that 7th rounders have a tough road to go, but given how poorly Shipley played last year, we're better off with the pick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, keeping Shipley instead of Satele would have saved the team about $1.3m in 2013. But that's not a substantial savings, only about 1% of the cap.

And I know that 7th rounders have a tough road to go, but given how poorly Shipley played last year, we're better off with the pick.

If memory serves correct, the reasoning behind trading Shipley was because they drafted Holmes and thought Satele's struggles were due mostly to injuries in 2012. Holmes was supposed to challenge Satele last season for the starting spot. I think the trade was pointless, but overall, I agree with you that I'd take the 7th over Shipley at this point. The lack of a 1st round pick, because of the Richardson trade is the main reason I feel the extra pick is more valuable, however. If we didn't make that Richardson trade, I'd say Shipley would've been more valuable than an extra late round pick
Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves correct, the reasoning behind trading Shipley was because they drafted Holmes and thought Satele's struggles were due mostly to injuries in 2012. Holmes was supposed to challenge Satele last season for the starting spot. I think the trade was pointless, but overall, I agree with you that I'd take the 7th over Shipley at this point. The lack of a 1st round pick, because of the Richardson trade is the main reason I feel the extra pick is more valuable, however. If we didn't make that Richardson trade, I'd say Shipley would've been more valuable than an extra late round pick

 

Having an extra 7th doesn't offset losing a 1st; it offsets losing our 7th, though (it's actually better). But I agree, I'm not a fan of Shipley.

 

And I also agree that the reason we made the deal in the first place is because we expected Satele to be healthy and play better, and we expected Holmes to be in competition in preseason. Holmes didn't wind up playing, Satele played poorly, and that means Shipley shouldn't have been traded. Obviously, I don't feel the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...