Do you feel Grigs and Pagano force guys on the field

[Itsacoltthing]

I agree 100T% the way the o-line is right now is going to keep us from stepping up to the next level.  We have got to improve on the O-line. I'm to the point lets go get Richie Incognito. You hear how bad TRich is and I'm not taking up for him at all but he is running behind the line thats allowed our franchinse QB to get knocked down more than any QB in the league.  We never had a line like this while Mannning was with us.

[crazycolt1]

I agree 100T% the way the o-line is right now is going to keep us from stepping up to the next level.  We have got to improve on the O-line. I'm to the point lets go get Richie Incognito. You hear how bad TRich is and I'm not taking up for him at all but he is running behind the line thats allowed our franchinse QB to get knocked down more than any QB in the league.  We never had a line like this while Mannning was with us.

Yes we did. Manning threw mostly timing patters with quick read passes. Manning quick release made it very hard to catch in the backfield. Luck holds the ball a lot longer and don't use as many timing routes. How many time did you see Manning take off and want to hit a defensive player like we have seen Luck do? Hopefully his slide will get better with practice.

[Superman]

That's because I am of the same opinion. I realize this could turn into arguing semantics, but I think that Satele and McGlynn were pushed to play, when the staff knew full well that there were more talented players on the roster. Do i think they were doing it to sabotage the team? No. I do think that it mainly stemmed from them overvaluing experience, however...which is strange because this year they seem to be all in on youth, regarding the offensive line. Maybe they've realized the error of their sins, per se?

To tell you the truth, I don't really know what their strategy is regarding the offensive line (or if they even have one), they're all over the place, but I do know that last season, better players were left on the bench for a good portion of the year. The OP's question isn't unreasonable, to me

 

"More talented" doesn't equal "best option," though.

 

Now that I know you're not arguing that the staff is purposely sabotaging the team, I can move on. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand your angle a little better.

[Itsacoltthing]

I'm sure we did at some point in the 13 years that he played but the matter is that we need to build a line around Luck thats alot better than what we have.  I know that Donald Thomas went down again and that hurt in a bad way.  All we can hope is Mewhort can hold his own with Castonzo to pretect Lucks blind side. Which I think Hugh will be better on the right with Gosder than he was on the left. We never know we might be ok but that the area that scares me the most this year.

 

 

*We can say he slides a hell of lot better than RG3. Thank God we didnt take that guy and blessed we got Luck when we did.

[YOUR GM]

"More talented" doesn't equal "best option," though.

Now that I know you're not arguing that the staff is purposely sabotaging the team, I can move on. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I understand your angle a little better.

Hence, the "arguing semantics" comment. In every other case I would agree that "most talented" doesn't always mean "best option" .... but in the case of our offensive line and how bad it was last season (because of two obvious weaknesses) it was silly not to try and mix it up at some point. They only attempted to do so as injuries occurred but it should've happened much sooner than that

[Warhorse]

No

[GoColts8818]

Yes, I think they all cower under their beds hoping Pagano and Grigson won't find them but before every game they do. Then they pull the players out kicking and screaming and toss them on the field and make them play.

[Gavin]

No but there is no doubt we consistently have tried to force square pegs into a round hole BUT putting injured players on the field is not one I don't believe, But I don't think it is unheard of for GM's or coaches or upper management to apply pressure to a player to get on the field, Players have played with casts on there arms before, with noticeable limps and such, I think it would not be wise to dismiss the idea that it can and has happened, Players play hurt all the time especially in the older days, Again Im not saying Colts staff has ever done that but Im certainly not going to go all out and say they are above and beyond that just because they are home team, I would hope they would not but I'd be a fool to take for granted they don't, As far as the argument that they force bad O linemen out on the field over O Linemen who have performed a bit better...and a I stress..a bit better...Then yes and it was said as much in an interview with Pagano if I remember right (Im trying to find that quote) that the reason they did not make changes to the O Line during the Satele/Mcglynn years was they basically wanted to stay with what they got

[Defjamz26]

No but there is no doubt we consistently have tried to force square pegs into a round hole BUT putting injured players on the field is not one I don't believe, But I don't think it is unheard of for GM's or coaches or upper management to apply pressure to a player to get on the field, Players have played with casts on there arms before, with noticeable limps and such, I think it would not be wise to dismiss the idea that it can and has happened, Players play hurt all the time especially in the older days, Again Im not saying Colts staff has ever done that but Im certainly not going to go all out and say they are above and beyond that just because they are home team, I would hope they would not but I'd be a fool to take for granted they don't, As far as the argument that they force bad O linemen out on the field over O Linemen who have performed a bit better...and a I stress..a bit better...Then yes and it was said as much in an interview with Pagano if I remember right (Im trying to find that quote) that the reason they did not make changes to the O Line during the Satele/Mcglynn years was they basically wanted to stay with what they got

 

I think that's a better way to put it. And like A GM said, they value experience over actual talent at times. I still don't understand the RJF signing. It was as if he was supposed to make the Defense 10 times better. Some times it seems that it takes them too long to realize the limitations of their players. DHB is another good example. I don't understand why he wasn't benched sooner. Or how long it took them to hand the reigns over to Donald Brown when it was clear Richardson wasn't ready this season.

 

I don't think they sabotage the team either, but Grigson seems overly persistent in the idea that HIS guys can get it done, even when they show they can't.

[SOMDColtsfan]

Exactly. They put the guys on the field that they think will help them win games. It always cracks me up when fans suggest that they know the personnel better than the coaches. They watch tons of film, over and over again, they watch the players in practice (and evaluate that film), they know whether the players are executing their assignments or struggling with concepts, etc.

 

Some coaches aren't good at these things. But I can't imagine that any coach, aside from having a personal vendetta against someone, wouldn't want to put their best players on the field every week. 

Common sense says agree with this theory but then there is Satele and McGlynn last year. I still cant comprehend that. My eyeballs told me the Colts were better with Satele on the sidelines and McGlynn at center at different times yet we had to endure Satele time and time again? 

[Superman]

Common sense says agree with this theory but then there is Satele and McGlynn last year. I still cant comprehend that. My eyeballs told me the Colts were better with Satele on the sidelines and McGlynn at center at different times yet we had to endure Satele time and time again? 

 

Are you considering this? 

 

They watch tons of film, over and over again, they watch the players in practice (and evaluate that film), they know whether the players are executing their assignments or struggling with concepts, etc.

 

 

Also, as mentioned earlier, sometimes coaches make mistakes. They aren't completely above reproach. I just think there are multiple factors involved that fans don't take into consideration when they suggest that the coaches and GM would rather "play their guys" than play the best players. (And by the way, all the players on the rosters are "their guys." They survived final cuts. If the coaches or the GM had an issue with any of them, they wouldn't be on the team.)

[GoColts8818]

Are you considering this? 

 

 

Also, as mentioned earlier, sometimes coaches make mistakes. They aren't completely above reproach. I just think there are multiple factors involved that fans don't take into consideration when they suggest that the coaches and GM would rather "play their guys" than play the best players. (And by the way, all the players on the rosters are "their guys." They survived final cuts. If the coaches or the GM had an issue with any of them, they wouldn't be on the team.)

the only guys you could argue that aren't "their guys" are Wayne, Mathis, Reitz, Moala, AV, And McAfee who were all here before Grigson and Pagano got here. Taking Moala out of the mix because he's hurt they all start except for one and they have all gotten new deals since Grigson and Pagano took over. This seems to defeat the argument that Pagano only plays their guys. Still I would say the players I mentioned above have become "their guys" because they are apart of the team.

[throwing BBZ]

For instance, Louis looks better than Mewhort and Hugh, but its like he has no chance of starting. I'd like to see Mewhort get some RT reps. I'm just not sure about Gosder. Especially if you want a power run gm in the future.

Basically, there seems to be no genuine position battles. I believe the last 3 yrs the oline could've and Should've been better if Pagano or whomever would've replaced starters with their backup.

 

Mewhort is having trouble staying in front of inside lineman SO, he will be AWFUL against outside guys.

Must be why he was Immediately projected inside. Huh! The guy has tight hips and slow feet. Lets fix that 1st. lol

[ColtsBlueFL]

Exactly. They put the guys on the field that they think will help them win games. It always cracks me up when fans suggest that they know the personnel better than the coaches. They watch tons of film, over and over again, they watch the players in practice (and evaluate that film), they know whether the players are executing their assignments or struggling with concepts, etc.

 

Some coaches aren't good at these things. But I can't imagine that any coach, aside from having a personal vendetta against someone, wouldn't want to put their best players on the field every week. 

 

True, but maybe the cost (draft slot / salary) clouds their vision of what's best.  Mike & Mike laid out the scene out brilliantly.  Skinney Mike picks out a jacket he likes, and it costs a bucketful of cash.  Later he finds, it isn't that effective at keeping him warm like a jacket should.  So, does he put it away in the closet and use cheap but effective alternatives?    Heck no!  He trouts out that expensive jacket every time and suffers the chills doing it.  I've scene this play out for coaches until they are let go.  The player is not one of the new coaches drafts= picks, so he gets demoted quite quickly or released too.  It happens.

[Superman]

True, but maybe the cost (draft slot / salary) clouds their vision of what's best.  Mike & Mike laid out the scene out brilliantly.  Skinney Mike picks out a jacket he likes, and it costs a bucketful of cash.  Later he finds, it isn't that effective at keeping him warm like a jacket should.  So, does he put it away in the closet and use cheap but effective alternatives?    Heck no!  He trouts out that expensive jacket every time and suffers the chills doing it.  I've scene this play out for coaches until they are let go.  The player is not one of the new coaches drafts= picks, so he gets demoted quite quickly or released too.  It happens.

 

That's not logical. The cost benefit doesn't match.

 

As a coach, the best players perform better than not the best players, and the better the team performs as a whole, the better you perform as the coach (more wins, specifically), the closer you are to a title, the more favorable your contract negotiations go, and the more likely you are to stay employed.

 

If a high draft pick isn't performing right away, you don't necessarily stuff him in the closet, because you believe in his potential. That's why you drafted him high in the first place. You hope that, with time and coaching, he'll perform better. If not, you eventually bench him. (That's what we did with Trent last year.) It's not a too thin jacket, which you know will never get better at keeping you warm. You wear the jacket because it looks good, but you know that you're trading some warmth. In your mind, that's a reasonable trade off.

 

There are a lot of variables, and I'm sure you recognize that. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

That's not logical. The cost benefit doesn't match.

 

As a coach, the best players perform better than not the best players, and the better the team performs as a whole, the better you perform as the coach (more wins, specifically), the closer you are to a title, the more favorable your contract negotiations go, and the more likely you are to stay employed.

 

If a high draft pick isn't performing right away, you don't necessarily stuff him in the closet, because you believe in his potential. That's why you drafted him high in the first place. You hope that, with time and coaching, he'll perform better. If not, you eventually bench him. (That's what we did with Trent last year.) It's not a too thin jacket, which you know will never get better at keeping you warm. You wear the jacket because it looks good, but you know that you're trading some warmth. In your mind, that's a reasonable trade off.

 

There are a lot of variables, and I'm sure you recognize that. 

This isn't about stuffing draft picks back, this year, it's about us doing that last years while paying Satele McGlyn starter money to be  busts.  And M&M say other teams do it too.

[Superman]

This isn't about stuffing draft picks back, this year, it's about us doing that last years while paying Satele McGlyn starter money to be  busts.  And M&M say other teams do it too.

 

My thinking is that you're paying those guys whether they play or not. Bench them, cut them, it doesn't matter. As vested veterans, their salaries are guaranteed. So from my standpoint, the money is irrelevant. It's already spent.

 

Who plays should be a football decision, and for the most part, I think it is. If you spent starter's money on a guy, you probably believe in him to a certain degree. They gave Satele every opportunity to prove them wrong, and he did. He definitely wasn't right for what they wanted, and now he's gone. But to hear it from Grigson and Pagano, it was about continuity and experience, not his contract. And I disagree with them; I think Satele was so bad that practically anyone, including McGlynn (who was also bad, even at center) and the very green Holmes would have been better. But I don't for a second believe that they kept Satele in the lineup despite thinking that someone else would have been a better option. If they played him, it's because they thought he was the best option.

 

As for McGlynn, he was eventually benched, and it wasn't due to injury.

 

And from the OP, it IS about stuffing back draft picks this year. He'd rather play Lance Louis, of all people, than Jack Mewhort. (I think that's because he's contrarian, whether that matters or not.)

 

M&M are entitled to their opinion. I just don't think anyone would make that kind of decision if there weren't extenuating factors. When I was a sales manager, I would use my best available salesperson, because the staff's numbers affected my job and my pay. If I didn't use the best available salesperson, I was either training another salesperson, or the best available salesperson was on my bad side (late to work, wasn't taking his reps seriously, whatever). 

[Defjamz26]

the only guys you could argue that aren't "their guys" are Wayne, Mathis, Reitz, Moala, AV, And McAfee who were all here before Grigson and Pagano got here. Taking Moala out of the mix because he's hurt they all start except for one and they have all gotten new deals since Grigson and Pagano took over. This seems to defeat the argument that Pagano only plays their guys. Still I would say the players I mentioned above have become "their guys" because they are apart of the team.

 

For the most part, the guys you mentioned have performed up to par though. However a lot of the "outside" guys who are guys they've brought in have underwhelmed and they've been reluctant to address it. I don't think it it's a case of them playing "This guy they like over this guy that is better but they don't like" but they really do have a long leash with some of their guys. Case and point Satele.

 

We all understand the dead cap thing that Grigs had to deal with when he inherited the team, but that doesn't excuse how they kept fueling the train wreck at Center that was Satele.

[Superman]

For the most part, the guys you mentioned have performed up to par though. However a lot of the "outside" guys who are guys they've brought in have underwhelmed and they've been reluctant to address it. I don't think it it's a case of them playing "This guy they like over this guy that is better but they don't like" but they really do have a long leash with some of their guys. Case and point Satele.

 

We all understand the dead cap thing that Grigs had to deal with when he inherited the team, but that doesn't excuse how they kept fueling the train wreck at Center that was Satele.

 

Satele was a residual issue from 2012. He was signed to be the starter, but suffered through injuries all season, and his play was not anywhere near what it was in previous seasons. We drafted a potential replacement in 2013, but he wasn't ready to compete for the job in camp, and was essentially redshirted as a rookie. 

 

The team gave Satele another shot in 2013, and coupled with not wanting to move on to Holmes yet, they gave him too long of a leash. But the factors involved were many and varied.

[GoColts8818]

For the most part, the guys you mentioned have performed up to par though. However a lot of the "outside" guys who are guys they've brought in have underwhelmed and they've been reluctant to address it. I don't think it it's a case of them playing "This guy they like over this guy that is better but they don't like" but they really do have a long leash with some of their guys. Case and point Satele.

 

We all understand the dead cap thing that Grigs had to deal with when he inherited the team, but that doesn't excuse how they kept fueling the train wreck at Center that was Satele.

both Satele and the guys behind him were Grigson and Pagano's "guys" though so the idea they force their "guys" on the field wouldn't matter into that because both guys they had were their guys. The only guys who aren't theirs not only play but start for the most part. So this isn't a case of them forcing their guys on the field it's them playing who they think is better normally based on hours of tape and practice that we as fans don't have access too.

Also the idea that some fans have that just because they don't like the starter because he's not good means his backup is better isn't always true. Sometimes the backup looks good in a short stint because the other teams doesn't have film on them yet. When he other teams get film on them their flaws are often exposesed. A good example of this was Curtis Painter. Many fans wanted him to play because of how bad Collins looked. Then he did and at first Painter didn't look that bad. Then teams got tape on him and Painter was exposed.

[YOUR GM]

Are you considering this?

Also, as mentioned earlier, sometimes coaches make mistakes. They aren't completely above reproach. I just think there are multiple factors involved that fans don't take into consideration when they suggest that the coaches and GM would rather "play their guys" than play the best players. (And by the way, all the players on the rosters are "their guys." They survived final cuts. If the coaches or the GM had an issue with any of them, they wouldn't be on the team.)

It's like you refuse to even acknowledge the idea of a coach/gm potentially having bias. These guys are human as well, it happens. Logically, everything you say is correct, but since when has mankind acted on anything solely based off logic and rationalization? People are stupid, make mistakes, act on emotion, act on pride -- yes, even in professional sports

And even if bias played absolutely no role in the poor decisions of last year, that only raises the question, "If they missed that badly on their evaluation of several players, does that leave you confident in this staff and their level of competence in there particular field (strictly in comparison to their contemporaries) ?.....

[Superman]

It's like you refuse to even acknowledge the idea of a coach/gm potentially having bias. These guys are human as well, it happens. Logically, everything you say is correct, but since when has mankind acted on anything solely based off logic and rationalization? People are stupid, make mistakes, act on emotion, act on pride -- yes, even in professional sports

And even if bias played absolutely no role in the poor decisions of last year, that only raises the question, "If they missed that badly on their evaluation of several players, does that leave you confident in this staff and their level of competence in there particular field (strictly in comparison to their contemporaries) ?.....

 

I acknowledged the potential for bias a long time ago.

 

However, I don't think that us fans are really in a position to ascertain whether or not the coaches are playing one guy over another because of bias. And for some people -- including the OP, based on the premise of the thread and his previous posts -- that's automatically where this goes. "Pagano is playing his guys instead of playing the best player." "The team doesn't believe in real competition; some guys just get handed their spot in the lineup, and they don't have to earn it."

 

That's why I brought up the fact that the coaches and front office staff are the ones who evaluate the players on a daily basis, watch game film, watch them in practice, watch practice film, interact with them in meeting rooms, etc. They don't have to rely on a handful of snaps that a guy got in spot duty early in the season. They have more insight than us fans do. That doesn't mean that they are never wrong, and I acknowledged that as well. But I firmly believe that good coaches and good front offices make determinations about who gets playing time and who earns starting spots on the basis of how well they play their position, and not favoritism, politics, contract status, etc. 

 

It's also possible that the coaching staff is slow to move off of a previously established position. They may determine in September that Player A is the starting RG, and because they spent the entire offseason and preseason coming to that conclusion, they're hesitant to abandon that decision after a couple bad games. They may be hesitant to a fault at times; I believe they were last season. But I don't think they come by these decisions lightly, and I appreciate that, even if I disagree with the outcome sometimes. 

 

As for whether I'm confident in their evaluations moving forward, in some cases yes, in other cases, not as much. But I do think they do their due diligence, I believe they have access to more and better information than I do, and I believe that they generally know football better than I do. So even in cases where I don't agree with them or am nervous about their course of action, I still find it proper to defer to their judgment. At least until it's proven, through results, that they are out of their depth. As a fan, I really have no choice in the matter.

[YOUR GM]

I acknowledged the potential for bias a long time ago.

However, I don't think that us fans are really in a position to ascertain whether or not the coaches are playing one guy over another because of bias. And for some people -- including the OP, based on the premise of the thread and his previous posts -- that's automatically where this goes. "Pagano is playing his guys instead of playing the best player." "The team doesn't believe in real competition; some guys just get handed their spot in the lineup, and they don't have to earn it."

That's why I brought up the fact that the coaches and front office staff are the ones who evaluate the players on a daily basis, watch game film, watch them in practice, watch practice film, interact with them in meeting rooms, etc. They don't have to rely on a handful of snaps that a guy got in spot duty early in the season. They have more insight than us fans do. That doesn't mean that they are never wrong, and I acknowledged that as well. But I firmly believe that good coaches and good front offices make determinations about who gets playing time and who earns starting spots on the basis of how well they play their position, and not favoritism, politics, contract status, etc.

It's also possible that the coaching staff is slow to move off of a previously established position. They may determine in September that Player A is the starting RG, and because they spent the entire offseason and preseason coming to that conclusion, they're hesitant to abandon that decision after a couple bad games. They may be hesitant to a fault at times; I believe they were last season. But I don't think they come by these decisions lightly, and I appreciate that, even if I disagree with the outcome sometimes.

As for whether I'm confident in their evaluations moving forward, in some cases yes, in other cases, not as much. But I do think they do their due diligence, I believe they have access to more and better information than I do, and I believe that they generally know football better than I do. So even in cases where I don't agree with them or am nervous about their course of action, I still find it proper to defer to their judgment. At least until it's proven, through results, that they are out of their depth. As a fan, I really have no choice in the matter.

Of course they have more information than all of us do. Every coach in the league does -- good and bad. That's why I asked, "Are you confident in their evaluations?", not in comparison to our own, but to that of their contemporaries. Meaning, compared to other quality NFL staffs around the league.

The only way you can answer that question is to look at results. If you simply want to limit results to the win loss column, that's fine, but I think if we're being honest, we all know that we've been winning a larger percentage of our games than normal in quite ugly fashion. Some of it is due to poor play calling early, some of it is due to injury, and I believe some of it is due to poor evaluation of players prior to the games.

Richardson's leash was way too long, as was DHB, McGlynn, Satele, etc. All are contributing factors, in my opinion. I do give credit to Pagano for his leadership ability, as I don't feel we would've won as many of those comeback games the past two seasons were he not our coach. He has an intangible that is very effective as a head coach, I just don't necessarily agree with his technical application (X's and O's) to the game, in some instances. I differ to his and Grigson's knowledge, but I'm also observant enough to see a potential flaw in a process, regardless of the field. When it takes you 2/3rds of the season to finally pull the trigger on underwhelming players, that's a broken process, in my opinion... At least in comparison to how other successful organizations handle similar situations.

I don't think they're above reproach simply because they have access to more info than we do. That info wasn't very helpful in their decision making last year, and ultimately, they were proven to be incorrect in their evaluations by virtue of the fact that they were forced to deviate from them, and cut/bench players that they put faith in.

I don't want them to keep making the same mistakes, and the only way to avoid doing so is to re-evaluate the process

[SOMDColtsfan]

Are you considering this? 

 

 

Also, as mentioned earlier, sometimes coaches make mistakes. They aren't completely above reproach. I just think there are multiple factors involved that fans don't take into consideration when they suggest that the coaches and GM would rather "play their guys" than play the best players. (And by the way, all the players on the rosters are "their guys." They survived final cuts. If the coaches or the GM had an issue with any of them, they wouldn't be on the team.)

No, would go against everything they are trying to accomplish..its still baffling though 

[Superman]

Of course they have more information than all of us do. Every coach in the league does -- good and bad. That's why I asked, "Are you confident in their evaluations?", not in comparison to our own, but to that of their contemporaries. Meaning, compared to other quality NFL staffs around the league.

The only way you can answer that question is to look at results. If you simply want to limit results to the win loss column, that's fine, but I think if we're being honest, we all know that we've been winning a larger percentage of our games than normal in quite ugly fashion. Some of it is due to poor play calling early, some of it is due to injury, and I believe some of it is due to poor evaluation of players prior to the games.

Richardson's leash was way too long, as was DHB, McGlynn, Satele, etc. All are contributing factors, in my opinion. I do give credit to Pagano for his leadership ability, as I don't feel we would've won as many of those comeback games the past two seasons were he not our coach. He has an intangible that is very effective as a head coach, I just don't necessarily agree with his technical application (X's and O's) to the game, in some instances. I differ to his and Grigson's knowledge, but I'm also observant enough to see a potential flaw in a process, regardless of the field. When it takes you 2/3rds of the season to finally pull the trigger on underwhelming players, that's a broken process, in my opinion... At least in comparison to how other successful organizations handle similar situations.

I don't think they're above reproach simply because they have access to more info than we do. That info wasn't very helpful in their decision making last year, and ultimately, they were proven to be incorrect in their evaluations by virtue of the fact that they were forced to deviate from them, and cut/bench players that they put faith in.

I don't want them to keep making the same mistakes, and the only way to avoid doing so is to re-evaluate the process

 

I hope you don't think I've suggested they're above reproach. I've said specifically that they are NOT above reproach.

 

My point is that your opinion/belief that a different player would have been better than the player they stuck with is based on very limited information and a lesser knowledge of the process, from evaluation to decision making. You call it a "broken process," but that's not definitive, and it can't be definitive, unless we see your preferred alternative yield better results. (And even then, there are questions of whether the alternative would have worked sooner, or if it needed time to become fully available, and again, we're not privy to enough information to determine that.)

 

I also take issue with the comment about their evaluations being incorrect because they were forced to deviate from them. First, it's to their credit that they eventually made a change, and it works against the entire premise here. Second, EVERY coaching staff and front office misses from time to time, and has to deviate from their initial evaluations. The Ravens switched up 60% of their starting offensive line late in 2012. Do they deserve criticism for not getting it right the first time, or credit for finally making the changes? The info they gained through their entire process, from OTAs to camp to practices to film review, is what eventually led to the adjustments. You would have us second guess their entire process, rather than acknowledging that their process finally led to a favorable outcome. They won some games in ugly fashion, and lost some winnable games, maybe due to having the wrong guys on the field. So that calls into question their entire process, because they didn't get it right from first application, right?

 

Every team has to re-evaluate and then adjust. Every team benches players, cuts players, changes roles, etc. I think our team could be better at this, as I mentioned, since I do believe that they took too long to make the adjustments necessary in terms of player roles and gameplanning last season. But if I had to split the blame and the credit on a pie chart, I'd favor the credit. Because, not only did they get it right eventually (benched Richardson, benched DHB, benched McGlynn, cut Satele, etc., etc.), they had some tough odds to deal with along the way with all the injuries. And in the face of all this, the team still won 11 games.

 

And now, since most of the rough spots on our roster have been addressed, yes, I do trust their evaluations when it comes to the unknown spots like center and safety. If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to go around questioning everything they do on the basis of "they got this wrong last time, and took too long to fix this, so now I don't think they know what they're doing."

[YOUR GM]

I hope you don't think I've suggested they're above reproach. I've said specifically that they are NOT above reproach.

 

My point is that your opinion/belief that a different player would have been better than the player they stuck with is based on very limited information and a lesser knowledge of the process, from evaluation to decision making. You call it a "broken process," but that's not definitive, and it can't be definitive, unless we see your preferred alternative yield better results. (And even then, there are questions of whether the alternative would have worked sooner, or if it needed time to become fully available, and again, we're not privy to enough information to determine that.)

 

I also take issue with the comment about their evaluations being incorrect because they were forced to deviate from them. First, it's to their credit that they eventually made a change, and it works against the entire premise here. Second, EVERY coaching staff and front office misses from time to time, and has to deviate from their initial evaluations. The Ravens switched up 60% of their starting offensive line late in 2012. Do they deserve criticism for not getting it right the first time, or credit for finally making the changes? The info they gained through their entire process, from OTAs to camp to practices to film review, is what eventually led to the adjustments. You would have us second guess their entire process, rather than acknowledging that their process finally led to a favorable outcome. They won some games in ugly fashion, and lost some winnable games, maybe due to having the wrong guys on the field. So that calls into question their entire process, because they didn't get it right from first application, right?

 

Every team has to re-evaluate and then adjust. Every team benches players, cuts players, changes roles, etc. I think our team could be better at this, as I mentioned, since I do believe that they took too long to make the adjustments necessary in terms of player roles and gameplanning last season. But if I had to split the blame and the credit on a pie chart, I'd favor the credit. Because, not only did they get it right eventually (benched Richardson, benched DHB, benched McGlynn, cut Satele, etc., etc.), they had some tough odds to deal with along the way with all the injuries. And in the face of all this, the team still won 11 games.

 

And now, since most of the rough spots on our roster have been addressed, yes, I do trust their evaluations when it comes to the unknown spots like center and safety. If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to go around questioning everything they do on the basis of "they got this wrong last time, and took too long to fix this, so now I don't think they know what they're doing."

 

 

See, this is where you lose me, Superman. We did see the alternative yield positive results, on numerous occasions, spanning as far back as the 2012 season. Pretty much any game Satele was inactive for a stretch, we saw noticeable improvement from the unit the past two seasons. We saw the chemistry Joe Reitz had with Castonzo in 12' prior to the injuries, yet in 13' he was an afterthought for either of the starting guard spots, even after Thomas went down with injury. We saw the rushing performances our line helped produce in 13' on consecutive weeks against the 49ers and the Jags, yet the staff continued to force Satele at center and McGlynn at guard. I firmly believe most any other quality coaching staff would have stuck with the lineup we had in the Niners game until it stopped producing consistently, and been done with it. That was an egregious display of stubbornness by our staff to switch back to Satele/McGlynn, in my opinion. 

 

I'm also not willing to sing their praises for finally benching under performers, when it took 2/3rds of the season and a subtle smack of the hand to the staff (by the owner, via twitter) to finally get them to switch something up. Also, the Ravens example is not applicable, in my opinion, simply because they had never seen the alternative before they made the switch. We, on the other hand, had at least 2 games worth of positive production in 13' (Niners, Jags) that should have emboldened us to deviate much sooner, but we instead opted to keep banging our head into a wall with Satele/McGlynn/Richardson.

 

This staff's reluctance to change (regardless of how crappy the product was) was just as big a reason why we had offensive struggles last year as were injuries. I might even argue that the injuries could have even helped us. I don't know if we're running as effectively as we did against the Niners if Satele is in that game, just saying

 

So to clarify, the major sin was not in making poor evaluations of certain players, it was the reluctance in deviating after a sufficient sample size had proven their evaluations may be wrong -- Stubbornness 

[Superman]

See, this is where you lose me, Superman. We did see the alternative yield positive results, on numerous occasions, spanning as far back as the 2012 season. Pretty much any game Satele was inactive for a stretch, we saw noticeable improvement from the unit the past two seasons. We saw the chemistry Joe Reitz had with Castonzo in 12' prior to the injuries, yet in 13' he was an afterthought for either of the starting guard spots, even after Thomas went down with injury. We saw the rushing performances our line helped produce in 13' on consecutive weeks against the 49ers and the Jags, yet the staff continued to force Satele at center and McGlynn at guard. I firmly believe most any other quality coaching staff would have stuck with the lineup we had in the Niners game until it stopped producing consistently, and been done with it. That was an egregious display of stubbornness by our staff to switch back to Satele/McGlynn, in my opinion. 

 

I'm also not willing to sing their praises for finally benching under performers, when it took 2/3rds of the season and a subtle smack of the hand to the staff (by the owner, via twitter) to finally get them to switch something up. Also, the Ravens example is not applicable, in my opinion, simply because they had never seen the alternative before they made the switch. We, on the other hand, had at least 2 games worth of positive production in 13' (Niners, Jags) that should have emboldened us to deviate much sooner, but we instead opted to keep banging our head into a wall with Satele/McGlynn/Richardson.

 

This staff's reluctance to change (regardless of how crappy the product was) was just as big a reason why we had offensive struggles last year as were injuries. I might even argue that the injuries could have even helped us. I don't know if we're running as effectively as we did against the Niners if Satele is in that game, just saying

 

So to clarify, the major sin was not in making poor evaluations of certain players, it was the reluctance in deviating after a sufficient sample size had proven their evaluations may be wrong -- Stubbornness 

 

Several points of contention, but minor details that I don't think matter much.

 

Here's the main issue, to me: You are intent on continuing to hold past mistakes against the staff, even though they've taken clear steps toward fixing those mistakes. When we talk about the guys that they waited too long on -- and I agree that they waited too long, as I've said -- they are all gone. I'm not signing praises for them making those changes, I'm saying the fact that they made those changes, even if late, is reason enough to stop bringing it up. I say "they got rid of Satele and McGlynn, so our line should be better," and you say "yeah, but they took too long to get rid of them in the first place, so how can we be confident in their present evaluations?" There's no winning in this case.

 

The Ravens example is perfect. The difference between them and us is that they weren't winning games. And they STILL didn't make a change on their line until injuries forced them to. To their credit, they were unconventional with their adjustments, which leads me to believe that they were thinking about switching things up already, and it worked out. But they lost four of their last five games of the season and backed into the playoffs, then started a lineup that they hadn't used all season long, because they were forced to do so.

 

If we applied your criticism of the Colts staff to the Ravens in 2012, their fans would have been saying "Why are they making this drastic adjustment? Why should we trust their judgment when they've messed this up all season long?"

 

In contrast, the Colts were WINNING games last season, even if some of them were ugly. They benched Richardson in Week 10, after only six starts (and only two games after Reggie went down and everything changed). It wasn't two thirds of the season. and the same issues he was having cropped up with Donald Brown as the starter. It was further adjustments to the line and the gameplanning that really helped the offense get out of its funk. And the team made those adjustments one at a time, rather than all at once, because that's the better way to do it. If it were me, the first change I would have made would have been gameplanning, but oh well. Still, when you're winning games, it's hard to make drastic changes, like shifting 40% of your starting offensive line.

 

I'd also like to point out a case where you were wrong. Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point about how perspectives can be different. You hated the Nicks signing and the Moncrief selection in the draft. 'Why do we need more receivers? What about developing Whalen, Brazill and Rogers??? And aren't we supposed to be a "power running team" anyways?' You said this so many times that I asked you why you hate receivers (mostly joking). Now, Nicks is looking like a great value, Brazill is suspended for the year (which many people, including myself, pointed out as a possibility), and the team looks to be moving away from the stubborn insistence on having a run-first approach. Those acquisitions look very positive for us at this point.

 

Sometimes, the people with the superior insight and expertise deserve the benefit of the doubt. I especially feel that way when they identify their sore spots and take steps to rectify them. If Satele and McGlynn were still on our roster, I'd be a lot more critical of the staff. For now, I'm content to see how things shake out, and if the team keeps making improvements and winning games, I'm probably going to continue giving them the benefit of the doubt, even when I don't agree with their decisions.

[Warhorse]

I just wish more people were honest about their thread intentions. Asking how the forum base feels about a subject, is not the same intent as looking for an audience to argue with. 

[YOUR GM]

Several points of contention, but minor details that I don't think matter much.

 

Here's the main issue, to me: You are intent on continuing to hold past mistakes against the staff, even though they've taken clear steps toward fixing those mistakes. When we talk about the guys that they waited too long on -- and I agree that they waited too long, as I've said -- they are all gone. I'm not signing praises for them making those changes, I'm saying the fact that they made those changes, even if late, is reason enough to stop bringing it up. I say "they got rid of Satele and McGlynn, so our line should be better," and you say "yeah, but they took too long to get rid of them in the first place, so how can we be confident in their present evaluations?" There's no winning in this case.

 

I'm not holding anything against anyone. I just feel it's completely within reason to be a little uneasy about trusting their management skills regarding the depth chart and personnel usage, based off what we've seen the past few seasons. You say you don't feel they're above reproach, yet jump at the first sight of anyone questioning any move or decision they've made in the past, citing "because we don't know what they know, we can't criticize them." Well, you might as well just say they're above reproach then, because no one here knows as much as any NFL coaching staff knows, and it's lazy to dismiss any criticism simply because of that fact. On that same token, what makes any of your opinions anymore valid the few times you've been critical of our coaching staff? You can't pick and choose when to defer to someone's expertise

 

The Ravens example is perfect. The difference between them and us is that they weren't winning games. And they STILL didn't make a change on their line until injuries forced them to. To their credit, they were unconventional with their adjustments, which leads me to believe that they were thinking about switching things up already, and it worked out. But they lost four of their last five games of the season and backed into the playoffs, then started a lineup that they hadn't used all season long, because they were forced to do so.

 

As I said, the Ravens rolled out a totally different lineup (yes, due to injury) but it was for the very first time. We, on the other hand, had seen more successful combinations of players yield better results and still went back to our worst possible lineup. It made no sense, and most coaches would've played their most productive combination of players until it didn't work anymore. Continuity means nothing when it's foundation is broken to begin with. Satele/McGlynn may have knowledge of assignments and line calls, but they couldn't block. The result is the same, regardless of it being because of a missed assignment or just flat out being in over your head and outmatched. It was a waste to keep playing them because they're both gone now and there were backups (still on the roster today) who were more capable and could have used the extra reps, as they were actually in our future plans. 

 

And if ever there was a team who simultaneously won games, yet could be classified as a team backing into the playoffs, it would be last year's Colts. The fact that we win in spite of glaring weaknesses is by no means a pardon from addressing those weaknesses. Player management was a weakness for a good portion of the year. Yes, they eventually made adjustments but it's not out of line to still be a little reserved about how much I trust they'll make good decisions regarding who plays week-in and week-out

 

If we applied your criticism of the Colts staff to the Ravens in 2012, their fans would have been saying "Why are they making this drastic adjustment? Why should we trust their judgment when they've messed this up all season long?"

 

That's actually not the same thing at all. It was obvious why they made the drastic adjustment. The line was under performing and they were losing games. No one would question why a shift was made. I certainly wouldn't if I were a Ravens fan at the time. If anything, I'd say, "It's about time!"

 

In contrast, the Colts were WINNING games last season, even if some of them were ugly. They benched Richardson in Week 10, after only six starts (and only two games after Reggie went down and everything changed). It wasn't two thirds of the season. and the same issues he was having cropped up with Donald Brown as the starter. It was further adjustments to the line and the gameplanning that really helped the offense get out of its funk. And the team made those adjustments one at a time, rather than all at once, because that's the better way to do it. If it were me, the first change I would have made would have been gameplanning, but oh well. Still, when you're winning games, it's hard to make drastic changes, like shifting 40% of your starting offensive line.

 

As I said, it shouldn't be hard to make a change when your starting unit is performing so badly AND you've already seen a different combination of players perform significantly better. At that point, it's not a risk. You already have an idea of how which players work together because they were forced to do so due to injury (and did so better than the starters, albeit in a shorter stint)  

 

I'd also like to point out a case where you were wrong. Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point about how perspectives can be different. You hated the Nicks signing and the Moncrief selection in the draft. 'Why do we need more receivers? What about developing Whalen, Brazill and Rogers??? And aren't we supposed to be a "power running team" anyways?' You said this so many times that I asked you why you hate receivers (mostly joking). Now, Nicks is looking like a great value, Brazill is suspended for the year (which many people, including myself, pointed out as a possibility), and the team looks to be moving away from the stubborn insistence on having a run-first approach. Those acquisitions look very positive for us at this point.

 

Well, since we're bringing in irrelevant talking points now... How can you call out a poster in one thread for making a rash judgement about how the O-line will perform (based off a few preseason games), then come into this thread and proclaim the Nicks signing and the Moncrief draft pick "positive acquisitions?" We haven't seen them take a significant snap yet either.

 

Also, for someone who gets so annoyed by others misconstruing what you say, you sure have a knack for twisting my words. I didn't "hate" either acquisition, and I'm sure they'll figure to be a big part of our offense going forward. What I hated was, we spent free agency money and a draft pick on a position that wasn't our biggest glaring weakness at the time. And we'll never know what Da'Rick can do if he never gets on the field. From everything I've seen this preseason and last season, I would've had no problem going into this season with him as our 3rd or 4th receiver. He'll pretty much be wasted here now, with Nicks and Moncrief figuring to get work before him. Meanwhile, the O-line is still uncertain and we don't have a starting safety. Brazill wasn't a big deal, as I felt he and Whalen weren't that far apart in talent. TY, Reggie, Rogers, Whalen, with Allen and Fleener still looks like a solid receiving unit, to me. Doesn't really matter how many weapons you have to throw to when you have no time to throw it. 

 

(I'll make sure I find you at the end of the season, if it turns out both units (DB's and O-line) are the main culprits behind another end to our season.... Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point ;) )

 

Sometimes, the people with the superior insight and expertise deserve the benefit of the doubt. I especially feel that way when they identify their sore spots and take steps to rectify them. If Satele and McGlynn were still on our roster, I'd be a lot more critical of the staff. For now, I'm content to see how things shake out, and if the team keeps making improvements and winning games, I'm probably going to continue giving them the benefit of the doubt, even when I don't agree with their decisions.

 

I haven't agreed with Grigson and Pagano's approach to fixing the line thus far, but I'm going to take a wait and see attitude about it. I don't think anyone can make a definitive judgement about the line until at least week 5 or 6. We should know more by then. I hope the players pan out. As a Colts fan, I'd be happy to be wrong in this instance

[Superman]

This response is way too long. I'm sorry. I put your points in spoiler tags so they won't take up as much screen real estate. If you don't read anything else, just know that I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument, and I think you're a swell guy, especially in comparison with some of the zealots.

 

I'm not holding anything against anyone. I just feel it's completely within reason to be a little uneasy about trusting their management skills regarding the depth chart and personnel usage, based off what we've seen the past few seasons. You say you don't feel they're above reproach, yet jump at the first sight of anyone questioning any move or decision they've made in the past, citing "because we don't know what they know, we can't criticize them." Well, you might as well just say they're above reproach then, because no one here knows as much as any NFL coaching staff knows, and it's lazy to dismiss any criticism simply because of that fact. On that same token, what makes any of your opinions anymore valid the few times you've been critical of our coaching staff? You can't pick and choose when to defer to someone's expertise

 

What makes you think I don't think we should criticize them? I've never said that. I've been critical of many things the staff has done. 

 

But you've taken this schtick of yours and turned it into a username and signature line. I get it, because some people DO say that we can't criticize the staff. I just think maybe we should acknowledge all the angles before calling for someone to be fired (as the OP has done). Usually, when I'm critical, I support my criticisms as thoroughly as I can. I don't suggest, for example, that the coach and GM should be fired if they cut a particular back-end, undrafted player.

 

I take issue with this angle of yours specifically, because I feel you are undermining the moves the staff has taken to address the weaknesses from last season, and your reason for doing so is circular. Your angle is that we can't trust their adjustments because of how poorly they mismanaged the line last year. To me, that approach is impervious to reason.

 

As I said, the Ravens rolled out a totally different lineup (yes, due to injury) but it was for the very first time. We, on the other hand, had seen more successful combinations of players yield better results and still went back to our worst possible lineup. It made no sense, and most coaches would've played their most productive combination of players until it didn't work anymore. Continuity means nothing when it's foundation is broken to begin with. Satele/McGlynn may have knowledge of assignments and line calls, but they couldn't block. The result is the same, regardless of it being because of a missed assignment or just flat out being in over your head and outmatched. It was a waste to keep playing them because they're both gone now and there were backups (still on the roster today) who were more capable and could have used the extra reps, as they were actually in our future plans.

 

I agree. I said many times last year that I thought we should have gone back to the Niners line up. To me, I think it was a clear mistake not to change. But, I understand the reasons they waited. I don't think those reasons are good enough, but I also don't think it was an issue of pure stubbornness, neglect or incompetence.

 

And if ever there was a team who simultaneously won games, yet could be classified as a team backing into the playoffs, it would be last year's Colts. The fact that we win in spite of glaring weaknesses is by no means a pardon from addressing those weaknesses. Player management was a weakness for a good portion of the year. Yes, they eventually made adjustments but it's not out of line to still be a little reserved about how much I trust they'll make good decisions regarding who plays week-in and week-out

 

Disagree. Especially in comparison with the 2012 Ravens. I think 'backed in while winning' is an odd qualifier. We won 4 out of 5, including the last 3, and that included winning in KC, when most didn't think we could. And while we didn't make all the adjustments I thought we should have, we made some of them, and they paid off. Richardson was already coming in off the bench, we adjusted the gameplanning and play calling in the Bengals game, we benched DHB, and we benched McGlynn. And the results were promising. No, the team wasn't exactly on fire, and there were still clear weaknesses, and none of this pardons them, but I don't think we backed in to the playoffs.

 

That's actually not the same thing at all. It was obvious why they made the drastic adjustment. The line was under performing and they were losing games. No one would question why a shift was made. I certainly wouldn't if I were a Ravens fan at the time. If anything, I'd say, "It's about time!"

 

The way I see it is the Ravens made the adjustments, but fans would have been asking "well, who knows whether this is going to work? They messed this up, now why are we trusting them to fix it?" That's the way your angle comes across to me.

 

The staff didn't handle some of this stuff right last season. (We really weren't losing games; we were 6-3 after the bye, and never lost consecutive games.) Now they've made adjustments. I'm satisfied with seeing how it all plays out.

 

As I said, it shouldn't be hard to make a change when your starting unit is performing so badly AND you've already seen a different combination of players perform significantly better. At that point, it's not a risk. You already have an idea of how which players work together because they were forced to do so due to injury (and did so better than the starters, albeit in a shorter stint)  

 

It's absolutely a risk, IMO. It's a calculated risk, one I would have taken, I think, but when you're winning games -- and we were -- you usually don't shift 40% of your offensive line. We should have, but it's not exactly an every day occurrence. Any significant change is a risk, when you're winning. And football coaches are often risk-averse, to a fault. Fourth downs are grossly mismanaged, according to the odds. That includes Pagano (look, another criticism!)

 

Well, since we're bringing in irrelevant talking points now... How can you call out a poster in one thread for making a rash judgement about how the O-line will perform (based off a few preseason games), then come into this thread and proclaim the Nicks signing and the Moncrief draft pick "positive acquisitions?" We haven't seen them take a significant snap yet either.

 

I think it's incredibly germane, actually. My argument at the time was that adding a proven receiver is prudent, given the uncertainty of our WR corps. Some of that uncertainty has come to fruition. Meanwhile, you suggested it was a waste, especially since the team wants to be a power running offense. And now, that no longer seems to be the case. The insight the team used to make the decision on Nicks served them well, IMO.

 

Yes, I'm projecting the Nicks signing in particular to be a positive acquisition, and I think we have strong evidence that it will be. Moncrief has a lot more work to do. But I said "these acquisitions look very positive at this point." And I think the evidence supports that feeling. Again, this is a projection. Either way, after Brazill's suspension, those acquisitions, particularly Nicks, seem more prudent than you gave them credit for.

 

And I didn't call the poster out. I was going to simply point out that it's premature to call this year's offensive line poor when this year hasn't even started yet. You called it a rash judgment, and it absolutely is. 

 

Also, for someone who gets so annoyed by others misconstruing what you say, you sure have a knack for twisting my words. I didn't "hate" either acquisition, and I'm sure they'll figure to be a big part of our offense going forward. What I hated was, we spent free agency money and a draft pick on a position that wasn't our biggest glaring weakness at the time.

 

LOL, you're twisting my words so that it looks like I twisted your words. I'm not sure how what I said is different from what you said. To me, the bolded is just another way of saying you hated the acquisitions. I didn't say you hate the players.

 

But if you really take exception to my use of the word hate, I'll withdraw it. Instead, I'll say you disagreed with the acquisitions. 

 

And we'll never know what Da'Rick can do if he never gets on the field. From everything I've seen this preseason and last season, I would've had no problem going into this season with him as our 3rd or 4th receiver. He'll pretty much be wasted here now, with Nicks and Moncrief figuring to get work before him. Meanwhile, the O-line is still uncertain and we don't have a starting safety. Brazill wasn't a big deal, as I felt he and Whalen weren't that far apart in talent. TY, Reggie, Rogers, Whalen, with Allen and Fleener still looks like a solid receiving unit, to me. Doesn't really matter how many weapons you have to throw to when you have no time to throw it.

 

I like Rogers, and am pulling for him (assuming he didn't cost himself a roster spot tonight). But I don't think it would have been smart to rely on him to be our 3rd or 4th receiver this season, given his lack of experience and his reputation for immaturity. I have also suggested that he might be in the drug program already, and we don't know it. That's entirely speculation, but if he is and the staff knows it, that's another example of insight that we're not privy to, that would help explain their decision in this regard. Sometimes, when you try to consider other angles, you find a basis for extending the benefit of the doubt to other people.

 

(I'll make sure I find you at the end of the season, if it turns out both units (DB's and O-line) are the main culprits behind another end to our season.... Not to be vindictive or petty, but to make my point  ;) )

 

That's fine, but you should also note how many times this offseason I've expressed my uneasiness with our depth at both positions. Just because I'm not calling for the staff to be fired doesn't mean I co-sign every decision they make. In most of those cases, I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I haven't agreed with Grigson and Pagano's approach to fixing the line thus far, but I'm going to take a wait and see attitude about it. I don't think anyone can make a definitive judgement about the line until at least week 5 or 6. We should know more by then. I hope the players pan out. As a Colts fan, I'd be happy to be wrong in this instance

 

Unfortunately, there is a very vocal contingent that will be calling for blood the first time Luck gets sacked, or the first time a run gets stopped in the backfield. Many of them have already made very definitive statements about the line, and the team in general (and anyone who disagrees with them is a blind homer, looking at the team through rose colored glasses).

 

Compared to most of them, you're very fair. And like you, I'm hoping the team makes significant improvements in crucial areas.

[Defjamz26]

both Satele and the guys behind him were Grigson and Pagano's "guys" though so the idea they force their "guys" on the field wouldn't matter into that because both guys they had were their guys. The only guys who aren't theirs not only play but start for the most part. So this isn't a case of them forcing their guys on the field it's them playing who they think is better normally based on hours of tape and practice that we as fans don't have access too.

Also the idea that some fans have that just because they don't like the starter because he's not good means his backup is better isn't always true. Sometimes the backup looks good in a short stint because the other teams doesn't have film on them yet. When he other teams get film on them their flaws are often exposesed. A good example of this was Curtis Painter. Many fans wanted him to play because of how bad Collins looked. Then he did and at first Painter didn't look that bad. Then teams got tape on him and Painter was exposed.

 

I'd also add that the people who are their guys doesn't just equate to draft pick and FA signings. Like someone else started to bring up, bias can develop when coaches and GM's start to really like a certain players. For example, we know Grigson likes his Canadian football players. And although none of us are qualified to say why a certain player should or shouldn't be there, that's one example. Look at Muamba. He's seen a bunch of action but Andrew Jackson has yet to play. Even though he drafted Jackson, you can see Grigson wants to be the "Diamond in the rough" guy, so there is some bias there.

 

I think all coaches have certain players they just want to blow up and become huge, even if there is someone better. With Grigson, it's his un-heard of "project" players that he forces/rushes on the field. Guys like Muamba, Adongo(although he didn't get a chance to play), etc...

[YOUR GM]

Superman, I don't really have much else to say. Some good points on your end. We just see things differently, but I think we can both agree that if the o-line struggles again this year, something needs to change. You won't see me calling for anyone's job, especially if we're still winning... but if the players we've drafted aren't fitting with the scheme, maybe we need to change the scheme and not the players. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.

Good talking with you