Gordy signs tender, Costa retires (won't get any money) [Merge]

[TKnight24]

Ah at 1st I was worked up about this, now I don't even care

Throw Khaled Holmes in the starting C spot & let him earn his stripes (Horseshoe in our case) for all I care

[YOUR GM]

No, no, no. Grigson should have been able to look through Costa's eyes and see into the depths of his soul, to make a determination about the depth of his character and motivations, to deduce that he would lose the will to play within the next 45 days. Anyone of us would have been able to do so.

/sarcasm

OR... he could've just looked at the fact that the guy has played a total of 6 games the last 2 years....

Not saying Grigson should've been able to detect Costa was going to retire off that fact, but one would think that questions of his health would've came up during the interview at some point. There were better, more durable players available. This whole incident only highlights how big of a waste it was to pursue a gimpy player with marginal talent to begin with

[CopenhagenColt]

I disagree with the bolded, very much. Getting rid of Satele and McGlynn is the very definition of addition by subtraction. We do have serious question marks, but we definitely don't look worse. Not even close. 

I doubt that many Colts fans will be heartbroken over McGlynn or Satele leaving.

I do however have a difficult time seeing the whole "adition by subtraction" argument as valid. We have less NFL experience in our O-line right now, than we did last season. We haven't done anything to upgrade that line, despite everyone watching the NFL knowing that we needed to improve that line significantly. What we have, is a huge questionmark and players who have never played NFL football. Players that we apparently didn't think was better than the ones who played last season and we even have less depth now.

How that suddenly is an improvement is beyond me.

 

But signing an average NFL player, on a very cheap deal, is apparently not the way to go? That would suggest that the player(s) that we didn't play last season, is above average in the NFL. That to me, is a strange way of thinking. If that was the case why did we have to put up with Satele and McGlynn last year?

 

I like the signings we have done in FA. Our defense looks improved, and I see Nicks as a great addition to our offense. But the O-line was a mess last year, and if something is not done, it's going to be a mess next season as well, even if Donald Thomas should somehow stay healthy for an entire season. The worst part is, that it could have been dealt with, but apparently it hasn't been a priority.

[Superman]

OR... he could've just looked at the fact that the guy has played a total of 6 games the last 2 years....

Not saying Grigson should've been able to detect Costa was going to retire off that fact, but one would think that questions of his health would've came up during the interview at some point. There were better, more durable players available. This whole incident only highlights how big of a waste it was to pursue a gimpy player with marginal talent to begin with

 

He got benched last year. Far as I know, him not playing wasn't a result of injuries, unless it was residual from 2012. Which it may have been.

 

I continue to be amazed at how willing people are to judge with the benefit of hindsight on things like this. A month ago, no one was calling Costa "gimpy." I still don't think there's basis to do so. I wasn't satisfied with the Costa deal, and I'm not satisfied now, but the idea that "Grigson should have known..." continues to be difficult to understand.

[CopenhagenColt]

Signed two free agents last year (Cherilus was very good, Thomas looked good before the injury). We drafted two linemen last year, and it's worth giving them a shot to fill the gaps, otherwise why draft them? Thornton was inconsistent, but showed ability. Holmes is a huge question mark, but at some point we have to let him play, otherwise, again, why draft him?

 

I feel like Grigson did his o-line work last offseason, and it will hopefully pay off this season. Veteran depth is probably needed, but the hope is that Holmes and Thornton are the C and RG of the future. That's why we drafted them. It is scary to rely on them, particularly Holmes, but that's part of building a team.

We also drafted Justice Cunningham, Justin Anderson, Tim Fugger, John Boyett and Kernwynn Williams. We didn't trust them to be essiental parts of our line-up, so they're gone.

The point is that because we drafted someone, it doesn't mean that they're somehow entitled to a position in the line-up.

Lots of draft picks that every franchise make, never make it and don't get to get a shot to make it simply be being drafted. You draft them because you think, and hope, that they will turn out to be good NFL players. If it doesn't turn out that way, you cut your losses and go another direction.

Not signing someone who could be a usefull addition to your team, becuase you spent a 3rd/4th round draft pick on someone that plays the same position, is nothing short of madness. You sign the best players you can, regardless of how you spent your draft picks last year.

[Superman]

I doubt that many Colts fans will be heartbroken over McGlynn or Satele leaving.

I do however have a difficult time seeing the whole "adition by subtraction" argument as valid. We have less NFL experience in our O-line right now, than we did last season. We haven't done anything to upgrade that line, despite everyone watching the NFL knowing that we needed to improve that line significantly. What we have, is a huge questionmark and players who have never played NFL football. Players that we apparently didn't think was better than the ones who played last season and we even have less depth now.

How that suddenly is an improvement is beyond me.

 

But signing an average NFL player, on a very cheap deal, is apparently not the way to go? That would suggest that the player(s) that we didn't play last season, is above average in the NFL. That to me, is a strange way of thinking. If that was the case why did we have to put up with Satele and McGlynn last year?

 

I like the signings we have done in FA. Our defense looks improved, and I see Nicks as a great addition to our offense. But the O-line was a mess last year, and if something is not done, it's going to be a mess next season as well, even if Donald Thomas should somehow stay healthy for an entire season. The worst part is, that it could have been dealt with, but apparently it hasn't been a priority.

 

I think maybe you're looking for instant gratification on the offensive line. It's the only way I can understand the thinking that nothing has been done, and that the line hasn't been treated as a priority. We signed two starters last season, and drafted two FUTURE starters. Even if Donald Thomas isn't 100%, in two seasons, that's 80% of the line, rebuilt. And 40% of it is with drafted players who are cheap and can be here for a while. 

 

It's like running a business. One of your more experienced guys starts making mistakes, showing up late, etc. You have a younger guy who doesn't have experience, but he's doing everything you ask him to do. He's at meetings on time, he takes notes, when you do give him a menial task, he's all over it. He's earned his shot. When you decide to get rid of the older guy, is it really necessary to go hire someone to take his place? Didn't you get rid of him so that you could give his role to the young guy you've been training? Promoting from within is often the best way to go.

 

Just like everyone else, I would have loved for us to sign a rock solid veteran center; Goodwin is still available, so we might still. But the writing was on the wall for this strategy a year ago. Grigson drafted Holmes so that he could take over for Satele. If they don't give him a chance to do so, it's a waste of a draft pick, and good teams with highly paid QBs (which we'll soon have) can't afford to waste draft picks. (Which is why I never stand in the way of someone who wants to bang on Grigson for the Richardson trade.) Same thing with Thornton. Despite his mistakes last season, his talent and ability is obvious, and it would be plain foolish to not give him every chance to earn a starting spot. We have depth at guard with Reitz and Nixon, and we'll undoubtedly add line players yet.

 

Getting rid of Satele and McGlynn makes room for our young guys to fill the spots they were drafted to fill. This is what GMs and coaches are talking about when they preach about process. You can't go impatiently lurching from one strategy to the next. 

[TKnight24]

We also drafted Justice Cunningham, Justin Anderson, Tim Fugger, John Boyett and Kernwynn Williams. We didn't trust them to be essiental parts of our line-up, so they're gone.

The point is that because we drafted someone, it doesn't mean that they're somehow entitled to a position in the line-up.

Lots of draft picks that every franchise make, never make it and don't get to get a shot to make it simply be being drafted. You draft them because you think, and hope, that they will turn out to be good NFL players. If it doesn't turn out that way, you cut your losses and go another direction.

Not signing someone who could be a usefull addition to your team, becuase you spent a 3rd/4th round draft pick on someone that plays the same position, is nothing short of madness. You sign the best players you can, regardless of how you spent your draft picks last year.

There's nothing wrong with signing best FA available at a position of need for the average team. But when you have 4-5 superstars on offense who're in their 3rd season & you must retain them for the next decade, you can't splurge money at big names like the Broncos & Patriots

[ztboiler]

I doubt that many Colts fans will be heartbroken over McGlynn or Satele leaving.

I do however have a difficult time seeing the whole "adition by subtraction" argument as valid. We have less NFL experience in our O-line right now, than we did last season. We haven't done anything to upgrade that line, despite everyone watching the NFL knowing that we needed to improve that line significantly. What we have, is a huge questionmark and players who have never played NFL football. Players that we apparently didn't think was better than the ones who played last season and we even have less depth now.

How that suddenly is an improvement is beyond me.

 

But signing an average NFL player, on a very cheap deal, is apparently not the way to go? That would suggest that the player(s) that we didn't play last season, is above average in the NFL. That to me, is a strange way of thinking. If that was the case why did we have to put up with Satele and McGlynn last year?

 

I like the signings we have done in FA. Our defense looks improved, and I see Nicks as a great addition to our offense. But the O-line was a mess last year, and if something is not done, it's going to be a mess next season as well, even if Donald Thomas should somehow stay healthy for an entire season. The worst part is, that it could have been dealt with, but apparently it hasn't been a priority.

Amidst your conclusive reaction that "nothing has been done", sprinkle in a few non-linear thoughts about how the stew might taste with a little more siimmering and you might feel a little differently about the strength of our top 7-8 O-linemen.

 

Or...keep running with what you like if it suits you better.  

 

If seeking a diversion, go on a quest to locate fan comments from other teams about how satisfied they are with their team's approach to fixing their O-line issues. Might as well stand in a round barn and try to pee in a corner, but at least you'd have plenty of company (including many familiar faces from our very own forum).

[Superman]

We also drafted Justice Cunningham, Justin Anderson, Tim Fugger, John Boyett and Kernwynn Williams. We didn't trust them to be essiental parts of our line-up, so they're gone.

The point is that because we drafted someone, it doesn't mean that they're somehow entitled to a position in the line-up.

Lots of draft picks that every franchise make, never make it and don't get to get a shot to make it simply be being drafted. You draft them because you think, and hope, that they will turn out to be good NFL players. If it doesn't turn out that way, you cut your losses and go another direction.

Not signing someone who could be a usefull addition to your team, becuase you spent a 3rd/4th round draft pick on someone that plays the same position, is nothing short of madness. You sign the best players you can, regardless of how you spent your draft picks last year.

 

You just named a handful of late 6th and 7th round picks. Not the same as a 3rd and 4th rounder.

 

And no one is "entitled" to anything. I'm not talking about fairness. I'm talking about giving your own strategy -- filling these spots with the young players you drafted -- a chance to succeed.

 

There are a lot of potentially useful additions a team can make every year. They don't because they have young players they're counting on to fill those gaps. As I said in the previous post, your stance suggests a desire for instant gratification. And that's simply unreasonable in sports in general, especially the NFL, where every team has to rely on young players to earn their stripes. Teams start first year players on the offensive line all the time. Good teams, even. This is not unusual; it's definitely not madness. It's business as usual.

[CopenhagenColt]

@ Superman

 

It doesn't matter if a guy is drafted in the 3rd round, the 4th round or in the 7th round. The point is that if you can get someone, or has someone, who is a better player, you're a fool if you don't go with that someone. Especially when you can easily afford it.

Best man for the job - Always.

[CopenhagenColt]

There's nothing wrong with signing best FA available at a position of need for the average team. But when you have 4-5 superstars on offense who're in their 3rd season & you must retain them for the next decade, you can't splurge money at big names like the Broncos & Patriots

Who said anything about "splurging money at big names"?

This whole thing started with people in this thread claiming that there was "no need to sign average NFL players", because after all we have some 3rd/4th round picks with little/no NFL experience that we apparently think will be able to do better based on little more than the fact that we drafted them and some draft profiles. Well, I'll take an "average" NFL Center any day over someone who hasn't played and for some reason wasn't able to get the nod over the disaster known as Satele a few months ago.

 

My whole point is that I just don't get where this idea that Holmes is suddenly a "better than average" NFL Center comes from, and if he isn't somehow better, then why wouldn't we want to sign one who is, when we could have at a very low and affordable price?

 

I find this whole blind faith thing quite bizarre.

[Superman]

@ Superman

 

It doesn't matter if a guy is drafted in the 3rd round, the 4th round or in the 7th round. The point is that if you can get someone, or has someone, who is a better player, you're a fool if you don't go with that someone. Especially when you can easily afford it.

Best man for the job - Always.

 

"Better player" is a moving target, and certainly isn't definitive.

 

And your "best man for the job" line is great and motivating, but it's not true in practice. You don't go out and sign the best free agents every year. Sometimes you give your young players a chance to fill the void. Heck, sometimes you draft young players to start for you that year. 

 

If you're arguing against Grigson's strategy, that's one thing. That appears to be the conversation we're now having. I agree that a different strategy would have been preferable to us here on the message board, because then we would feel better about checking center off on the needs list. What I don't agree with is the statement that Grigson has done nothing to address the offensive line, the assertion that the line isn't or hasn't been a priority. As I've stated over and over again, the moves that Grigson made last offseason will be crucial for us in 2014. What's foolish is judging what you don't know yet. There's nothing wrong with being patiently and cautiously optimistic. Six months from now, we all might be pleasantly surprised.

[Superman]

Who said anything about "splurging money at big names"?

This whole thing started with people in this thread claiming that there was "no need to sign average NFL players", because after all we have some 3rd/4th round picks with little/no NFL experience that we apparently think will be able to do better based on little more than the fact that we drafted them and some draft profiles. Well, I'll take an "average" NFL Center any day over someone who hasn't played and for some reason wasn't able to get the nod over the disaster known as Satele a few months ago.

 

My whole point is that I just don't get where this idea that Holmes is suddenly a "better than average" NFL Center comes from, and if he isn't somehow better, then why wouldn't we want to sign one who is, when we could have at a very low and affordable price?

 

I find this whole blind faith thing quite bizarre.

 

That's not how this whole thing started. This whole thing started with the assertion that the team has done nothing to improve the offensive line (which is ironic since virtually no one liked the Costa signing to begin with). It makes sense to give your drafted players a chance to play. I haven't seen a legitimate argument against that strategy.

 

I'm also curious, who are these "better than average" centers who were available for a very low and affordable price?

 

And I especially love the "blind faith" stuff. It's not blind faith. It's a simple recognition of the fact that the team's chosen strategy isn't foreign or strange; in fact, it's quite common, and quite often it's effective. Again, good teams start young linemen -- even rookies -- every year. If the collective fan base would stop hyperventilating long enough to look around at how good teams build their offensive lines, it would be obvious that the Colts aren't ignoring the line. It might even make you more optimistic about our chances moving forward.

[DougDew]

My feeling is that the loss of Costa is no big deal.  The Oline will be AC, Thomas, Holmes, Thornton, and GC.  Thomas and Thornton have enough talent and experience that would be hard to replace with any rookie, especially one that is drafted in the lower parts of round 2.

 

There is no gurantee that any rookie will not struggle as much as Holmes or Thornton did last year.  Drafting a guard/center with a mid-round pick with the idea of him competing with Holmes/Thornton seems like a wasted draft pick to me.  There is no clear indication that Holmes/Thortnon will fail in their roles next year, or that any rookie will be better, even in the long run.

 

Why Holmes didn't get much playing time probably has to do with the injuries and lack of continuity on the oline to begin with.  Last year, if the line was AC, DT, Satele, McGlynn/Thornton, GC, we probably would have seen Holmes in there much more.

 

Also, since the defense let us down early in games, there was no games that I can recall where the Colts were way up score wise in the 3rd and 4th quarters.  A blow out would have been another opportunity for him to gain experience.  Every game was a bit of a struggle for the Colts last year, IIRC.  Really, every offensive series was pretty important last year.  I can see where the coaches would want to go with the known commodity in Satele, even if he wasn't playing that well.

[YOUR GM]

"Better player" is a moving target, and certainly isn't definitive.

 

And your "best man for the job" line is great and motivating, but it's not true in practice. You don't go out and sign the best free agents every year. Sometimes you give your young players a chance to fill the void. Heck, sometimes you draft young players to start for you that year. 

 

If you're arguing against Grigson's strategy, that's one thing. That appears to be the conversation we're now having. I agree that a different strategy would have been preferable to us here on the message board, because then we would feel better about checking center off on the needs list. What I don't agree with is the statement that Grigson has done nothing to address the offensive line, the assertion that the line isn't or hasn't been a priority. As I've stated over and over again, the moves that Grigson made last offseason will be crucial for us in 2014. What's foolish is judging what you don't know yet. There's nothing wrong with being patiently and cautiously optimistic. Six months from now, we all might be pleasantly surprised.

 

 

What you don't seem to understand is, things change.  Between last off-season and now, what all has transpired? If Donald Thomas wasn't recovering from 2 serious injuries, I would be on board with this strategy. If Khaled Holmes had actually got some playing time last year, I would be on board with this strategy. If the guys he brought in as backups didn't have their own struggles with the injury bug, I would be on board with this strategy. None of that is the case, however....So to try and present what Grigson is doing right now as anything more than an extreme gamble is not being honest, to the forum or yourself. He should've acquired a starting caliber interior linemen as insurance. There are just way too many question marks, stemming from events which occurred long after we acquired Holmes, Thornton, Cherilus and Thomas.... And it is completely fair to say that Grigson has ignored the offensive line this off-season, when you factor in the aforementioned hurdles that I just spoke of.  It's really not that hard to understand

 

I guess all we can do is wait (and hope that i'm wrong)

[Superman]

What you don't seem to understand is, things change.  Between last off-season and now, what all has transpired? If Donald Thomas wasn't recovering from 2 serious injuries, I would be on board with this strategy. If Khaled Holmes had actually got some playing time last year, I would be on board with this strategy. If the guys he brought in as backups didn't have their own struggles with the injury bug, I would be on board with this strategy. None of that is the case, however....So to try and present what Grigson is doing right now as anything more than an extreme gamble is not being honest, to the forum or yourself. He should've acquired a starting caliber interior linemen as insurance. There are just way too many question marks, stemming from events which occurred long after we acquired Holmes, Thornton, Cherilus and Thomas.... And it is completely fair to say that Grigson has ignored the offensive line this off-season, when you factor in the aforementioned hurdles that I just spoke of.  It's really not that hard to understand

 

I guess all we can do is wait (and hope that i'm wrong)

 

Yeah, you're way off, IMO. The primary source of concern -- particularly in this thread -- is Khaled Holmes at center. And whether he got time last year or not isn't really relevant. Young players get inserted into the lineup all the time, and work out often enough. Grigson drafted him so that he could be the starter. That's the strategy, and it dates back to last offseason. Getting rid of Satele and McGlynn allows the strategy to mature. It's not that difficult to understand. At least it shouldn't be.

 

It is sort of a gamble, a risk. If Holmes doesn't work out, it's a problem. But the offseason isn't over yet. There's this thing in a couple weeks that the NFL does, where teams get to select collegiate players to join their team, I think it's called the draft? Then there's summer free agency, mostly post-June 1 cuts. There are other veteran players still available. Even if you don't believe in guys like Louis, Reitz, Nixon, etc., the team is not a finished product.

[IndyFan93]

Why do so many people assume that because Holmes wasn't given the chance to start over Satele then he must be a worse center? We all seen for ourselves last year that McGlynn was a better center than Satele, but he only got to play there when Satele was out due to injury. The way I see it, that means we can't assume that Satele was the best center on our roster just because he was the starter.

 

None of us know the full reason why Holmes didn't get his shot last year. I believe it was a combination of injuries, not wanting to start rookie linemen, and maybe even the FO being stubborn at times. Also, towards the end of the season our O line (even Satele) did seem to be playing slightly better than earlier in the season, and I'm sure the coaches didn't want to change anything and risk messing that up. But I don't have a problem with giving Holmes a fair shot this year at all. Every player starts their NFL career as an "unknown", we'll never know what we have in Holmes until we let him play. I just want us to find a capable back up in case it doesn't work out like we hoped.

[YOUR GM]

Yeah, you're way off, IMO. The primary source of concern -- particularly in this thread -- is Khaled Holmes at center. And whether he got time last year or not isn't really relevant. Young players get inserted into the lineup all the time, and work out often enough. Grigson drafted him so that he could be the starter. That's the strategy, and it dates back to last offseason. Getting rid of Satele and McGlynn allows the strategy to mature. It's not that difficult to understand. At least it shouldn't be.

It is sort of a gamble, a risk. If Holmes doesn't work out, it's a problem. But the offseason isn't over yet. There's this thing in a couple weeks that the NFL does, where teams get to select collegiate players to join their team, I think it's called the draft? Then there's summer free agency, mostly post-June 1 cuts. There are other veteran players still available. Even if you don't believe in guys like Louis, Reitz, Nixon, etc., the team is not a finished product.

That may be your primary source of concern but you can hardly dismiss the fact that Donald Thomas is a major question mark as well. You can deny it all you want but it's the truth. He's recovering from a severe tendon tear. There's no guarantee that he'll even be the same player anymore.

And whether Holmes got time or not is very relevant. If it was, indeed, the plan to make him the starter all along, one would think that they would try to get him reps last season. It's ridiculous that I even have to explain how it might not be a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket, on a player who has little game film and has yet to take a professional snap at the position he will be starting all year. You're right, I'm crazy for thinking that's not a smart idea.

Also, I'd just like to note that you're kind of talking out of both sides right now. One minute it's, "We got our starters last off-season. It wouldn't make sense to bring someone else in without giving them a chance first" then when I bring up the fact that those "starters" have serious question marks surrounding them, and it would be smart to have some insurance, you say, "Oh, well, we have the draft and post June cuts to address that if need be..." Seems like you're cherry-picking, a bit, IMO

[YOUR GM]

Why do so many people assume that because Holmes wasn't given the chance to start over Satele then he must be a worse center? We all seen for ourselves last year that McGlynn was a better center than Satele, but he only got to play there when Satele was out due to injury. The way I see it, that means we can't assume that Satele was the best center on our roster just because he was the starter.

That sentence in itself shows how asinine the coaching staff's decisions were at times, regarding the depth chart, and should have you worried. Not our best center, yet started every game as long as he was healthy.....??

[jameszeigler834]

I agree, we need our line to improve dramatically. But we still have to make smart decisions. Drafting Holmes and Thornton is -- hopefully -- the fix for the old Satele/McGlynn problem.

Well I think Holmes will be a good player but im not sold on Thorton yet he needs to be doing a lot of improvement.

[Superman]

Well I think Holmes will be a good player but im not sold on Thorton yet he needs to be doing a lot of improvement.

 

Thornton has a ton of ability. He needs to develop more awareness and play with more balance. But I think he's got the goods.

 

Holmes is a question mark, but I look at him as a rookie, just with more pro readiness. Being exposed to the team, the playbook, etc., and having spent the last year working on his body without distractions -- school, scouting, pro days, private workouts, all of which are entirely different from what a professional football player spends his time doing -- he's ahead of the curve. If guys like the Pouncey brothers and Travis Frederick (and many others over the years) can step in as rookies and play reasonably well, Holmes ought to be able to hold his own. 

[BrentMc11]

Thornton has a ton of ability. He needs to develop more awareness and play with more balance. But I think he's got the goods.

 

Holmes is a question mark, but I look at him as a rookie, just with more pro readiness. Being exposed to the team, the playbook, etc., and having spent the last year working on his body without distractions -- school, scouting, pro days, private workouts, all of which are entirely different from what a professional football player spends his time doing -- he's ahead of the curve. If guys like the Pouncey brothers and Travis Frederick (and many others over the years) can step in as rookies and play reasonably well, Holmes ought to be able to hold his own. 

Thornton will be a beast in time...and when healthy....and when playing again on the right side!!  

[YOUR GM]

Thornton has a ton of ability. He needs to develop more awareness and play with more balance. But I think he's got the goods.

Holmes is a question mark, but I look at him as a rookie, just with more pro readiness. Being exposed to the team, the playbook, etc., and having spent the last year working on his body without distractions -- school, scouting, pro days, private workouts, all of which are entirely different from what a professional football player spends his time doing -- he's ahead of the curve. If guys like the Pouncey brothers and Travis Frederick (and many others over the years) can step in as rookies and play reasonably well, Holmes ought to be able to hold his own.

Surely you understand the difference between the Pouncey's and Frederick, and Khaled Holmes, right? Those guys were drafted in the first round, and expected to be day 1 starters. In the case of the Pouncey's, they were drafted in the middle of the first round, which is extremely rare for the center position.

I don't think just because Holmes sat on the bench and studied the playbook all last year makes it even the least bit reasonable to compare him coming in raw to those guys, who were more pro ready than most veteran centers at the time. It's just funny how quickly widely accepted opinions shift around here.

A couple of months ago, it was presented as fact around here that Holmes wasn't strong enough and didn't play because he wasn't ready. Now 2 or so month's later, we're comparing him to the Pouncey brothers, solely because of the position they all play. I don't get it, sorry

[BrentMc11]

No...not you too Brent!  Don't take the bait...we don't know nearly enough of the whole story nor does it really matter, but to draw conclusions about "interviewing skills" or due diligence from outlier occurrences does not make sense.  This is particularly true when all the evidence points to Grigson being an important and savvy leader of the exec. team that makes decisions about player characteristics that make up one of the strongest locker rooms in the NFL.

Maybe a little harsh ztboiler, but I have interviewed hundreds of employees and taught interviewing classes.  I just feel Grigs could have seen some passion in his eyes...his body movements and actions...some kind of indicator.

 

I did not like the Costa signing to begin with....so I am actually glad he retired now instead of after the draft.  I wonder what Charles Barkley would call HIM????  It rhymes.....

[Superman]

That may be your primary source of concern but you can hardly dismiss the fact that Donald Thomas is a major question mark as well. You can deny it all you want but it's the truth. He's recovering from a severe tendon tear. There's no guarantee that he'll even be the same player anymore.

And whether Holmes got time or not is very relevant. If it was, indeed, the plan to make him the starter all along, one would think that they would try to get him reps last season. It's ridiculous that I even have to explain how it might not be a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket, on a player who has little game film and has yet to take a professional snap at the position he will be starting all year. You're right, I'm crazy for thinking that's not a smart idea.

Also, I'd just like to note that you're kind of talking out of both sides right now. One minute it's, "We got our starters last off-season. It wouldn't make sense to bring someone else in without giving them a chance first" then when I bring up the fact that those "starters" have serious question marks surrounding them, and it would be smart to have some insurance, you say, "Oh, well, we have the draft and post June cuts to address that if need be..." Seems like you're cherry-picking, a bit, IMO

 

Again, this isn't my preferred strategy. I just recognize the strategy for what it is. If you refuse to acknowledge that Grigson CHOSE to roll with the players he scouted and his coaches have spent the last year developing, then sure, you can look at this offseason and say that he has ignored the offensive line. But if you stop comparing what Grigson has done with what you wanted him to do, then maybe you can see what the team is shooting for.

 

I wrestled with this from the moment the season ended, trying to figure out not only what Grigson might do, but what I'd do in his situation. I went from wanting EDS (and I would have been all over him, offering him considerably more than he got from the Bucs), to settling for a younger player who would cost less, but could compete with Holmes and provide depth at guard -- Joe Hawley, from the Falcons (I also would have offered him more than he got from Atlanta, but as it stands, he never hit free agency; rumor has it the Colts were interested, by the way, but he was on my radar well in advance). After Hawley was off the market, I would have tried to sign Will Montgomery or Jonathan Goodwin as veteran competition and depth. (Grigson chose Costa; no one's favorite player, but it still scratches the itch.) I also would have tendered Reitz, and signed a low-level guard; Grigson tendered Reitz, and signed Lance Louis. 

 

Similar approach, but I would have gone in a different direction than Costa and Louis, and that seems to be your beef with Grigson's strategy. You don't like the veteran depth. Costa is gone, so that obviously didn't make our team better. Louis has a significant injury history, so he might not work out, either. And if Thomas isn't 100%, that would hurt as well. But that's just depth. And depth players can and will be added throughout the offseason, in a lot of different ways. That's why I brought up the draft and late free agency.

 

The starters are here, and have been since last offseason. Presumably, it's AC, DT, KH, HT, GC. And I think that's a promising unit, assuming health. We've jettisoned the two worst linemen from last year (perhaps the worst C/RG duo in the league, and I'm not exaggerating), and the two guys we drafted last year are penciled into those spots. And if there are injuries to those five, guys like Reitz and Nixon, who performed decently in their reserve roles last year, can step in. Who knows what Louis or Austin can or will do, but they are a part of the picture as well.

 

It's still a work in progress, not a finished product. Between the draft and late free agency last season, Grigson added a net of five offensive linemen to the roster. A couple weeks into the season, he added Nixon, who stayed on the roster for the rest of the season. 

 

So again, my point is not that our offensive line is awesome and there are no question marks at any level, and anyone who thinks there are is just being critical of Grigson. My point is that it makes sense for Grigson to use the young players he drafted last year, because this is what he drafted them for. So while I would like another veteran interior lineman, preferably someone who doesn't have significant injury concerns, I see the value in being patient and waiting to see how things play out over the next few weeks. I'm certainly not panicking because we lost Phil Costa, a player none of us were thrilled about in the first place. I think we can easily plug another player into that spot at anytime between now and the start of camp, and even beyond then. But the big improvements have been made with the replacements for Satele and McGlynn, and I'm optimistic about those developments.

[NewColtsFan]

At this the risk of jumping into hornets nest,  maybe -- just maybe -- the Colts will draft a player for the interior OL in two weeks?

 

This is supposed to be a very good year for guards.    Maybe we'll take one.

 

There might be a center that we like.     Maybe we'll take one.

 

Depending on what pick we use to take a guard or center,  that might indicate the level of concern from the front office, scouts and coaches.    If we use a #2 or a #3 on a guard,  that probably means Thomas is not healing well.     If we use a #5 or a #6 on a Center, then that could be a quality back-up.

 

And if we don't use a pick to draft someone, then that's probably a good indication that everyone is on board with what we have and how players are healing.....

 

But to go on and on and on and on about what Grigson has or has NOT done when the draft hasn't even happened yet seems premature at best, IMO.

 

Fair enough?

[Superman]

Surely you understand the difference between the Pouncey's and Frederick, and Khaled Holmes, right? Those guys were drafted in the first round, and expected to be day 1 starters. In the case of the Pouncey's, they were drafted in the middle of the first round, which is extremely rare for the center position.

I don't think just because Holmes sat on the bench and studied the playbook all last year makes it even the least bit reasonable to compare him coming in raw to those guys, who were more pro ready than most veteran centers at the time. It's just funny how quickly widely accepted opinions shift around here.

A couple of months ago, it was presented as fact around here that Holmes wasn't strong enough and didn't play because he wasn't ready. Now 2 or so month's later, we're comparing him to the Pouncey brothers, solely because of the position they all play. I don't get it, sorry

 

Travis Frederick was projected as a third rounder. The entire draft realm snickered when the Cowboys took him in the first. Many felt Holmes would have gone higher than the fourth round, if not for his injuries. Definitely a different prospect than Holmes; more power and size, less athleticism. But neither of them were really considered first round prospects. You're definitely exaggerating how "pro ready" all three of those guys were coming in. 

 

That's not really the point, though. They are just the name examples. I'm not comparing any of them to Holmes. Young players -- with little to no pro experience -- start at center every year in the NFL. The Ravens sat Gradkowski virtually all of 2012, save for a few snaps here and there at guard, then put him in the lineup at the end of the season at center. He played through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, then started all of 2013. He was a seventh round prospect that many felt the Ravens reached for in drafting him in the fourth round.

 

I never agreed with the perception that Holmes not starting was a reflection of his ability, and I argued against it at the time. I wish they had used him at guard some, so that he could be more ready for this season. But the fact that they didn't doesn't speak to whether he'd be able to play in the future.

[YOUR GM]

Again, this isn't my preferred strategy. I just recognize the strategy for what it is. If you refuse to acknowledge that Grigson CHOSE to roll with the players he scouted and his coaches have spent the last year developing, then sure, you can look at this offseason and say that he has ignored the offensive line. But if you stop comparing what Grigson has done with what you wanted him to do, then maybe you can see what the team is shooting for.

I wrestled with this from the moment the season ended, trying to figure out not only what Grigson might do, but what I'd do in his situation. I went from wanting EDS (and I would have been all over him, offering him considerably more than he got from the Bucs), to settling for a younger player who would cost less, but could compete with Holmes and provide depth at guard -- Joe Hawley, from the Falcons (I also would have offered him more than he got from Atlanta, but as it stands, he never hit free agency; rumor has it the Colts were interested, by the way, but he was on my radar well in advance). After Hawley was off the market, I would have tried to sign Will Montgomery or Jonathan Goodwin as veteran competition and depth. (Grigson chose Costa; no one's favorite player, but it still scratches the itch.) I also would have tendered Reitz, and signed a low-level guard; Grigson tendered Reitz, and signed Lance Louis.

Similar approach, but I would have gone in a different direction than Costa and Louis, and that seems to be your beef with Grigson's strategy. You don't like the veteran depth. Costa is gone, so that obviously didn't make our team better. Louis has a significant injury history, so he might not work out, either. And if Thomas isn't 100%, that would hurt as well. But that's just depth. And depth players can and will be added throughout the offseason, in a lot of different ways. That's why I brought up the draft and late free agency.

The starters are here, and have been since last offseason. Presumably, it's AC, DT, KH, HT, GC. And I think that's a promising unit, assuming health. We've jettisoned the two worst linemen from last year (perhaps the worst C/RG duo in the league, and I'm not exaggerating), and the two guys we drafted last year are penciled into those spots. And if there are injuries to those five, guys like Reitz and Nixon, who performed decently in their reserve roles last year, can step in. Who knows what Louis or Austin can or will do, but they are a part of the picture as well.

It's still a work in progress, not a finished product. Between the draft and late free agency last season, Grigson added a net of five offensive linemen to the roster. A couple weeks into the season, he added Nixon, who stayed on the roster for the rest of the season.

So again, my point is not that our offensive line is awesome and there are no question marks at any level, and anyone who thinks there are is just being critical of Grigson. My point is that it makes sense for Grigson to use the young players he drafted last year, because this is what he drafted them for. So while I would like another veteran interior lineman, preferably someone who doesn't have significant injury concerns, I see the value in being patient and waiting to see how things play out over the next few weeks. I'm certainly not panicking because we lost Phil Costa, a player none of us were thrilled about in the first place. I think we can easily plug another player into that spot at anytime between now and the start of camp, and even beyond then. But the big improvements have been made with the replacements for Satele and McGlynn, and I'm optimistic about those developments.

That's a fair assessment. For the record though, it has nothing to do with his initial strategy. As I've said, I'd be on board with that strategy if DT wasn't recovering from a serious injury and Holmes had more reps last year. Those two things go hand-in-hand in my argument because I feel one of the key factors to Holmes success this coming season will be the guard play around him. So to have uncertainty at the guard position when you're planning to roll with a raw talent like Holmes is a big gamble.

I felt he should have been more aggressive in finding a sure starter at either guard or center, and let it sort itself out. As it stands now, I feel like Holmes is being handed the job, and Thomas is being given the benefit of the doubt that both his I injuries are completely behind him. It's just not very smart, IMO, especially considering the fact that he and Pagano continue to preach about keeping Luck upright as priority #1. I don't think I'd be quite as annoyed if they didn't continue to make statements like that. Their actions do not match their words at all

[BrentMc11]

Travis Frederick was projected as a third rounder. The entire draft realm snickered when the Cowboys took him in the first. Many felt Holmes would have gone higher than the fourth round, if not for his injuries. Definitely a different prospect than Holmes; more power and size, less athleticism. But neither of them were really considered first round prospects. You're definitely exaggerating how "pro ready" all three of those guys were coming in. 

 

That's not really the point, though. They are just the name examples. I'm not comparing any of them to Holmes. Young players -- with little to no pro experience -- start at center every year in the NFL. The Ravens sat Gradkowski virtually all of 2012, save for a few snaps here and there at guard, then put him in the lineup at the end of the season at center. He played through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, then started all of 2013. He was a seventh round prospect that many felt the Ravens reached for in drafting him in the fourth round.

 

I never agreed with the perception that Holmes not starting was a reflection of his ability, and I argued against it at the time. I wish they had used him at guard some, so that he could be more ready for this season. But the fact that they didn't doesn't speak to whether he'd be able to play in the future.

Don't forget Frederick was a guard at Wisconsin who lost a ton of weight Pre-combine.  We discussed this as he was preparing to play center in the NFL.

 

I do not know how many argued against me....but it was true.  I believe he had a rough start but ended up having a solid season.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

[Superman]

Maybe a little harsh ztboiler, but I have interviewed hundreds of employees and taught interviewing classes.  I just feel Grigs could have seen some passion in his eyes...his body movements and actions...some kind of indicator.

 

I did not like the Costa signing to begin with....so I am actually glad he retired now instead of after the draft.  I wonder what Charles Barkley would call HIM????  It rhymes.....

 

It's not a fair criticism unless you were in the room, IMO. And even then, it's cheap.

[Gavin]

I happened to like Frederick alot

[BrentMc11]

I happened to like Frederick alot

Me too Gav.

[BrentMc11]

It's not a fair criticism unless you were in the room, IMO. And even then, it's cheap.

I am always cheap....except my classes  Old cheap retiree...BrentMc.....hey that rhymes!!

 

Costa could have been extremely excited in the room.  You are correct....if you are not in the room it is easy to be a critic.

[Superman]

That's a fair assessment. For the record though, it has nothing to do with his initial strategy. As I've said, I'd be on board with that strategy if DT wasn't recovering from a serious injury and Holmes had more reps last year. Those two things go hand-in-hand in my argument because I feel one of the key factors to Holmes success this coming season will be the guard play around him. So to have uncertainty at the guard position when you're planning to roll with a raw talent like Holmes is a big gamble.

I felt he should have been more aggressive in finding a sure starter at either guard or center, and let it sort itself out. As it stands now, I feel like Holmes is being handed the job, and Thomas is being given the benefit of the doubt that both his I injuries are completely behind him. It's just not very smart, IMO, especially considering the fact that he and Pagano continue to preach about keeping Luck upright as priority #1. I don't think I'd be quite as annoyed if they didn't continue to make statements like that. Their actions do not match their words at all

 

Holmes not having reps isn't alarming to me, because I don't take that as an indication of how the staff feels about him. The fact that we cut the previous starter and didn't sign an outside replacement is much more indicative, IMO. As Holmes himself said, 2013 was a redshirt year, and the benefits that can conceivably come with that were iterated above. Doesn't mean he's a surefire replacement, but it does give reason for some optimism. And again, young players with less pedigree and experience than Holmes start at interior line, including center, all the time. 

 

Donald Thomas is a legitimate concern, and I don't know if I should put it in my signature line that I'm nervous about him as well, but I've said it a thousand times myself. I'm not ignoring that, and I think it's highly unlikely that Grigson is. I acknowledged in an earlier post that it's a gamble and a risk, but I understand the reasoning.

 

And like I said, I don't consider the offensive line or the team in general to be a finished product. It never is. While I think our projected starting five is already penciled in, I think we'll add a couple legitimate players in the next couple of months, and beyond, for depth. Question marks abound, but to me, it seems like the noise about "Grigson is ignoring the offensive line!" is coming from people who wanted us to upgrade the starters from outside. And I don't think that was ever going to happen.

 

Last thing, I know the company line has been about keeping Luck upright, but I think that comes with time, and is more an issue of gameplanning, playcalling, and QB awareness. Our playcalling has been curious at times over the last two years, leading to a lot of pressure. And Luck sometimes holds the ball too long. If you shorten up your passing concepts, even an average line can keep a quarterback clean. The bigger issue -- to me -- is the run game. And that's where I think our offense will realize its full potential, is when we can run the ball effectively in varied situations. 

[Superman]

I happened to like Frederick alot

 

In the first round?

 

I know you liked Warford in the first round...

[TKnight24]

I don't know why some of you even waste your time, no matter what we do people will never be satisfied with it

Whether people like it or not, Holmes is currently the starting center for

If you don't like it, then that's between you & your feelings

[ztboiler]

Maybe a little harsh ztboiler, but I have interviewed hundreds of employees and taught interviewing classes.  I just feel Grigs could have seen some passion in his eyes...his body movements and actions...some kind of indicator.

 

I did not like the Costa signing to begin with....so I am actually glad he retired now instead of after the draft.  I wonder what Charles Barkley would call HIM????  It rhymes.....

We all have our life experience to filter circumstantial evidence with.  Having spent that much of your life in an interview room then you appreciate not only the art of the business, but how often even the elite of hiring managers will be wrong.

 

You could be right, and Grigs may have missed something....or there could be a lot more going on behind the scenes in Costa's life than we can see on the surface.  Either way, I always appreciate your perpectives and life experiences woven into this forum.

[Gavin]

In the first round?

 

I know you liked Warford in the first round...

No, I saw both as 2nd round talents...Yeah I whiffed on Warford

[ztboiler]

Donald Thomas is a legitimate concern, and I don't know if I should put it in my signature line that I'm nervous about him as well, but I've said it a thousand times myself. I'm not ignoring that, and I think it's highly unlikely that Grigson is. I acknowledged in an earlier post that it's a gamble and a risk, but I understand the reasoning.

 

I'm suspicious that Grigs is very comfortable with Nixon or Reitz at LG if DT can't go.  Maybe Louis too.  Counting on DT doesn't look like a big risk to me - Grigs/Pags have seen enough from Nixon to make a valid projection.  

[NewColtsFan]

No, I saw both as 2nd round talents...Yeah I whiffed on Warford

 

How did you whiff on Warford.

 

He went toward the top of the 3rd round and my understanding is he had a pretty good year as a rookie....

 

Where's the whiff?