Grigson and his interest (obsession?) in finding the "diamond in the rough"

[cmgww]

JMV had one of the local media guys on the other day, and they were discussing the offseason. I think it was Conrad Brunner, but it could have been Mike Chappell. Anyway, the conversation turned to Grigson and Duron Carter. Conrad (now I think it was him after all) said something to the effect of: "Grigson seems to want to be the GM that finds 'the guy' that no one else in the NFL has heard of...and turn him into a star." I think he made a valid point. Grigson started as a scout and still has that blood in him to find the hidden gem. But more often than not it has not worked. Freeman has made an impact, but most of the the others have not....or were cut due to off the field issues.

We have seen it with Adongo, Henoc Muamba, Da'Rick Rogers, McNary and others. Freeman is solid, and Whalen to a lesser extent, but the rest have been kinda duds or the jury is still out.

Sure, every team gets a few UDFAs that turn into impact players. Polian was good at it (Jeff Saturday, Dominic Rhodes, etc). But it seems that unlike Polian, Grigson takes a few too many chances and goes with guys that have some real problems off the field. Maybe it's just me, but the conversation on the radio, and the recent signings of Carter and Heenan (both CFL standouts) got me to thinking about this. Is Grigson too much of a gambler? Or is it still too early to tell....

[NewColtsFan]

JMV had one of the local media guys on the other day, and they were discussing the offseason. I think it was Conrad Brunner, but it could have been Mike Chappell. Anyway, the conversation turned to Grigson and Duron Carter. Conrad (now I think it was him after all) said something to the effect of: "Grigson seems to want to be the GM that finds 'the guy' that no one else in the NFL has heard of...and turn him into a star." I think he made a valid point. Grigson started as a scout and still has that blood in him to find the hidden gem. But more often than not it has not worked. Freeman has made an impact, but most of the the others have not....or were cut due to off the field issues.

We have seen it with Adongo, Henoc Muamba, Da'Rick Rogers, McNary and others. Freeman is solid, and Whalen to a lesser extent, but the rest have been kinda duds or the jury is still out.

Sure, every team gets a few UDFAs that turn into impact players. Polian was good at it (Jeff Saturday, Dominic Rhodes, etc). But it seems that unlike Polian, Grigson takes a few too many chances and goes with guys that have some real problems off the field. Maybe it's just me, but the conversation on the radio, and the recent signings of Carter and Heenan (both CFL standouts) got me to thinking about this. Is Grigson too much of a gambler? Or is it still too early to tell....

 

Finding a diamond in the rough is a good thing.    Period.

 

You're finding players that will outperform their first contract, and maybe even their second contract.

 

That's a good thing.    Period.

 

Too much of a gambler?     What does that mean.    Signing a CFL players costs the Colts (or any NFL team) minimal money.   It's like getting extra free agent players after the draft.  

 

I don't know who JMV is,  but he seems to be trying to turn a positive into a negative.    That's his problem.    Most stuff on AM-Sports Talk radio is nonsense said by people who have no shortage of opinions,  but most have ill-informed opinions.

 

There's no downside risk and only upside risk to signings like Carter and the new OL,  Heenon (sp?)

 

Not sure what else to say,  other than the radio guy doesn't know what he's talking about.    Sorry.

[GoColts8818]

All GMs like to do this.  Frankly it's how good teams are built.  Look at New England they had one starter on offense taken in the first round.  With the salary cap you have you have to find diamonds in the rough to win.  Look at the Colts too Bill Polian made a living off undrafted free agents being big time players for the Colts over his career.  It's what GMs do. 

 

For those complaining about him gambling his willingness to Gamble might have brought us T-Rich but it's that same willingness to gamble that also brought us Davis and I don't think anyone has a problem with that trade or being willing to trade up to get Hilton. 

[esmort]

As long as he is gambling with low risk high reward players ... CFL, UDFAs, low round draft picks, practice squad players. etc ... I am fine with it ... I love that he is always looking for those guys.  I think he might need to put a bit more thought into gambling on over paid unproven FAs, and with high draft picks.

[bsteves]

Signing these players costs nothing. There is no downside. If they don't work, cut them, and move on.

What's the saying? "It won't work if you don't try" or something like that. Y'all get the gist.

[cmgww]

Finding a diamond in the rough is a good thing.    Period.

 

You're finding players that will outperform their first contract, and maybe even their second contract.

 

That's a good thing.    Period.

 

Too much of a gambler?     What does that mean.    Signing a CFL players costs the Colts (or any NFL team) minimal money.   It's like getting extra free agent players after the draft.  

 

I don't know who JMV is,  but he seems to be trying to turn a positive into a negative.    That's his problem.    Most stuff on AM-Sports Talk radio is nonsense said by people who have no shortage of opinions,  but most have ill-informed opinions.

 

There's no downside risk and only upside risk to signings like Carter and the new OL,  Heenon (sp?)

 

Not sure what else to say,  other than the radio guy doesn't know what he's talking about.    Sorry.

First of all, no, you don't know JMV. I do, personally. We aren't best friends but do know each other. And he was NOT trying to stir the pot. That was all on Conrad Brunner. JMV is is pretty down to earth guy who owns his mistakes and admits when he's wrong. It was just food for thought.

As for the big name FAs that haven't performed, I do agree with other posters there.

[21isSuperman]

I strongly disagree with a lot of Grigs' decisions.  But I think by looking at guys like Freeman and Duron in the CFL, you're just doing your job.  He's looking at every possible option to make the Colts better.  I don't know if he is looking for a diamond in the rough (and it's kinda hard to call a guy a diamond in the rough when so many other teams are pursuing him), but I think it's just a matter of perspective.  One person thinks he's looking for a diamond in the rough.  Another person says he's looking at every possible option to make the team better.  I'd rather have my GM look at the CFL (or whatever other place to find players) and bring in a prospect that could contribute than my GM ignore the CFL and we end up being a "could have had him" team.

[GoColts8818]

First of all, no, you don't know JMV. I do, personally. We aren't best friends but do know each other. And he was NOT trying to stir the pot. That was all on Conrad Brunner. JMV is is pretty down to earth guy who owns his mistakes and admits when he's wrong. It was just food for thought.

As for the big name FAs that haven't performed, I do agree with other posters there.

Agree with JMV he's fair.  Brunner on the other hand loves nothing more than to stir the pot.  It's a shame that Colts fans have to put with two ex-basketball guys in Brunner and Wells attempting to cover the Colts.  Honestly it's just funny at times.  You can tell they would much rather be talking about the Pacers than the Colts. 

[oldunclemark]

Finding a diamond in the rough is a good thing.    Period.

 

You're finding players that will outperform their first contract, and maybe even their second contract.

 

That's a good thing.    Period.

 

Too much of a gambler?     What does that mean.    Signing a CFL players costs the Colts (or any NFL team) minimal money.   It's like getting extra free agent players after the draft.  

 

I don't know who JMV is,  but he seems to be trying to turn a positive into a negative.    That's his problem.    Most stuff on AM-Sports Talk radio is nonsense said by people who have no shortage of opinions,  but most have ill-informed opinions.

 

There's no downside risk and only upside risk to signings like Carter and the new OL,  Heenon (sp?)

 

Not sure what else to say,  other than the radio guy doesn't know what he's talking about.    Sorry.

Finding a diamond in the rough is a good thing.    Period. 

You're finding players that will outperform their first contract, and maybe even their second contract.

 

That's a good thing.    Period.

 

Too much of a gambler?     What does that mean.    Signing a CFL players costs the Colts (or any NFL team) minimal money.   It's like getting extra free agent players after the draft.  

 

I don't know who JMV is,  but he seems to be trying to turn a positive into a negative.    That's his problem.    Most stuff on AM-Sports Talk radio is nonsense said by people who have no shortage of opinions,  but most have ill-informed opinions.

 

There's no downside risk and only upside risk to signings like Carter and the new OL,  Heenon (sp?)

 

Not sure what else to say,  other than the radio guy doesn't know what he's talking about.    Sorry.

Listen to NCF!

[oldunclemark]

all draft choices and free agents are gambles...Canadian free agents are low risk

[Indygal1218]

First of all, no, you don't know JMV. I do, personally. We aren't best friends but do know each other. And he was NOT trying to stir the pot. That was all on Conrad Brunner. JMV is is pretty down to earth guy who owns his mistakes and admits when he's wrong. It was just food for thought.

As for the big name FAs that haven't performed, I do agree with other posters there.

It was Mike Chappell. And you're right, it wasn't JMV. I'm not sure I agree that the discussion was pot-stirring though. I'd have to go back and listen to it again.

Is Grigson too much of a gambler? Or is it still too early to tell....

And there's nothing wrong with looking for diamonds in the rough. I'm sure they wash out just as much as your average UDFA. I'd rather have these guys than waste a draft pick or a high-level salary on an average player.

[Jaric]

That's how you build a team in free agency. Part of it is getting good production out of cheap players.

The last two first round picks we've used have been far more concerning than looking for hidden gold.

[Superman]

Signing CFL guys isn't finding a diamond in the rough, anymore than signing UDFAs. It's just another talent pool you can use to build your team, without committing big resources.

Adongo and Swoope are interesting cases, but with the offseason roster expansion to 90 and the practice squad expansion to 10, teams are better able to hold on to developmental prospects, again at little cost.

Out of all the ways you can criticize a GM, signing low risk developmental players and players from other leagues isn't one of them. This is a nitpick, and one that has no merit.

[AntonMcG]

Hmm... I think many have misinterpreted the intent behind these comments.

 

No one is arguing the merits of signing a low-risk, potential medium/high reward player that has not followed the conventional route to the NFL. This makes sense given the salary cap, pre-season roster and practice squads.

 

Where it may potentially derail things, is when a GM and his scouting teams are devoting too much time on these areas, whilst not performing the same level of due diligence on potential draft picks and well-known free agents, so as to ensure, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they are a fit for the franchise.

 

Now I don't think any of us can say how much time our scouting teams split their time with these evaluations, it would be interesting to know exactly how these scouting teams are made up and their process, but I have never been able to source such information.

 

Anyway, I like the fact that Grigson and co. scour all crevices to unearth talent, but it is interesting to hear someone play devil's advocate to entertain how this may be in some way detrimental.

[amfootball]

Signing CFL guys isn't finding a diamond in the rough, anymore than signing UDFAs. It's just another talent pool you can use to build your team, without committing big resources.

Adongo and Swoope are interesting cases, but with the offseason roster expansion to 90 and the practice squad expansion to 10, teams are better able to hold on to developmental prospects, again at little cost.

Out of all the ways you can criticize a GM, signing low risk developmental players and players from other leagues isn't one of them. This is a nitpick, and one that has no merit.

Will the final roster of 53 also be expanded?

[Valpo2004]

JMV had one of the local media guys on the other day, and they were discussing the offseason. I think it was Conrad Brunner, but it could have been Mike Chappell. Anyway, the conversation turned to Grigson and Duron Carter. Conrad (now I think it was him after all) said something to the effect of: "Grigson seems to want to be the GM that finds 'the guy' that no one else in the NFL has heard of...and turn him into a star." I think he made a valid point. Grigson started as a scout and still has that blood in him to find the hidden gem. But more often than not it has not worked. Freeman has made an impact, but most of the the others have not....or were cut due to off the field issues.

We have seen it with Adongo, Henoc Muamba, Da'Rick Rogers, McNary and others. Freeman is solid, and Whalen to a lesser extent, but the rest have been kinda duds or the jury is still out.

Sure, every team gets a few UDFAs that turn into impact players. Polian was good at it (Jeff Saturday, Dominic Rhodes, etc). But it seems that unlike Polian, Grigson takes a few too many chances and goes with guys that have some real problems off the field. Maybe it's just me, but the conversation on the radio, and the recent signings of Carter and Heenan (both CFL standouts) got me to thinking about this. Is Grigson too much of a gambler? Or is it still too early to tell....

 

How the heck is signing a player to a low level contract with almost no guaranteed money a gamble in any way shape or form.

 

People seem to ignore the fact that when we cut Da'Rick we lost NOTHING.  He had no guaranteed money on his contract and he was not drafted.  We lost neither draft pick nor cap space.  Same thing with the rest of those guys.  

 

I still don't understand why there is this line of thought that taking guys like this are a risk.  As long as they arn't messing up the locker room (and they arn't) then it's not a risk at all.  That's like betting $0 on a 1 in 100 chance that you might make a million dollars.  Sure most likely you don't get the million but if it costs nothing WHY WOULDN'T YOU???

 

Grigson's only real gambles of major consequence have been Vontae Davis and Trent Richardson.  One paid off, the other one didn't.  

[AntonMcG]

How the heck is signing a player to a low level contract with almost no guaranteed money a gamble in any way shape or form.

 

People seem to ignore the fact that when we cut Da'Rick we lost NOTHING.  He had no guaranteed money on his contract and he was not drafted.  We lost neither draft pick nor cap space.  Same thing with the rest of those guys.  

 

I still don't understand why there is this line of thought that taking guys like this are a risk.  As long as they arn't messing up the locker room (and they arn't) then it's not a risk at all.  That's like betting $0 on a 1 in 100 chance that you might make a million dollars.  Sure most likely you don't get the million but if it costs nothing WHY WOULDN'T YOU???

 

Grigson's only real gambles of major consequence have been Vontae Davis and Trent Richardson.  One paid off, the other one didn't.  

 

Nice math.

[Narcosys]

All GMs like to do this. Frankly it's how good teams are built. Look at New England they had one starter on offense taken in the first round. With the salary cap you have you have to find diamonds in the rough to win. Look at the Colts too Bill Polian made a living off undrafted free agents being big time players for the Colts over his career. It's what GMs do.

For those complaining about him gambling his willingness to Gamble might have brought us T-Rich but it's that same willingness to gamble that also brought us Davis and I don't think anyone has a problem with that trade or being willing to trade up to get Hilton.

I was hoping someone would say hilton. Who really knew who he was before he performed

[jskinnz]

Finding a diamond in the rough is a good thing. Period.

You're finding players that will outperform their first contract, and maybe even their second contract.

That's a good thing. Period.

Too much of a gambler? What does that mean. Signing a CFL players costs the Colts (or any NFL team) minimal money. It's like getting extra free agent players after the draft.

I don't know who JMV is, but he seems to be trying to turn a positive into a negative. That's his problem. Most stuff on AM-Sports Talk radio is nonsense said by people who have no shortage of opinions, but most have ill-informed opinions.

There's no downside risk and only upside risk to signings like Carter and the new OL, Heenon (sp?)

Not sure what else to say, other than the radio guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Sorry.

JMV and Brunner are two of the more level-headed and reasonable members of the indy media. I did not hear the interview in question but I would be shocked to find them intimating that Grigson is wasting time and resources in these pursuits but more so that he seems to be more visible in them with the number he has signed. Hope that makes sense. I don't think it was a nit pick.

[OffensivelyPC]

I heard the segment and disagreed. There isn't a problem with it at all. You can miss on these types of prospects with little to no effect on your team. Where Grigson has really hurt this team is wasting a 1st rounder for a RB we might cut 18 months after the trade and missing on a second 1st round selection in 2013.

[Valpo2004]

Nice math.

 

There is no math involved I'm talking about literally betting no money on a 1 in 100 chance that you would make a million dollars.  

 

That's what signing these guys is.  You bet nothing, most of the time you lose but occasionally you win big and it's worth it.

[bababooey]

Just want to point out I think we had 16 UDFA on our 06 superbowl team, "The Team that Nobody Wanted". This is a good thing he is leaving no stone unturned, he just has to be better in FA and with high picks.

[AntonMcG]

There is no math involved I'm talking about literally betting no money on a 1 in 100 chance that you would make a million dollars.  

 

That's what signing these guys is.  You bet nothing, most of the time you lose but occasionally you win big and it's worth it.

 

A more appropriate analogy would be putting $1 on 1/1000000 and collected $1000001. Your thing just isn't a thing.

 

Plus, are they not paying these guys anything? Do they not take up roster spots?

[AntonMcG]

There is no math involved I'm talking about literally betting no money on a 1 in 100 chance that you would make a million dollars.  

 

That's what signing these guys is.  You bet nothing, most of the time you lose but occasionally you win big and it's worth it.

 

Also, you're not well-versed on the laws of probability.

[Valpo2004]

A more appropriate analogy would be putting $1 on 1/1000000 and collected $1000001. Your thing just isn't a thing.

 

Plus, are they not paying these guys anything? Do they not take up roster spots?

 

Pay them min salary.  In comparison the the cap it's barely worth mentioning. . . Especially when none of the money is guaranteed so they can be cut for free.  Roster spot yes if they make the roster.  Some of the time these are PS guys.

 

Of course it's not a thing in gambling but it is in NFL football.  You get these troubled but talented players for nothing and while most of them may not make much of themselves because of their bad habits. . . maybe 1 in 100 will turn their lives around and grow up.

[Valpo2004]

Also, you're not well-versed on the laws of probability.

 

How do you figure.  If you have 1 in a 100 chance. . . most of the time you will lose.  But occasionally you will win big.

[AntonMcG]

How do you figure.  If you have 1 in a 100 chance. . . most of the time you will lose.  But occasionally you will win big.

 

For a start, you don't 'bet nothing'. Secondly, going by your rationale, if we sign one of these types every year, we are likely to 'win big' once every 100 years.

 

The monetary value of what you place will always be slightly more than the proportional value of your odds.

[AntonMcG]

Pay them min salary.  In comparison the the cap it's barely worth mentioning. . . Especially when none of the money is guaranteed so they can be cut for free.  Roster spot yes if they make the roster.  Some of the time these are PS guys.

 

Of course it's not a thing in gambling but it is in NFL football.  You get these troubled but talented players for nothing and while most of them may not make much of themselves because of their bad habits. . . maybe 1 in 100 will turn their lives around and grow up.

 

Not all these have character concerns, the vast majority just aren't good enough.

 

If it was as simple as 'just grow up' everyone would do it.

[ticat]

If a GM is not looking at the CFL ,he should be fired.

[JR Indy]

Finding a diamond in the rough is cool and all.  But in this Free Agency period, early in the period and early in the draft. I am thinking about the Geico commercial that made that makes alot of sense.  Why not get in the running car? Sign somebody that is proven, established, and is well known.  Draft somebody that shined in the Big Ten, SEC(nobody from Alabama please), ACC, the Big East.  Draft OL from a Wisconsin, Georgia, Nebraska, a DE, OLB from Clemson or DT from Oklahoma.  Right now is not the time to hide behind the bowling ball full of knives, like Chuck says.  

[Coffeedrinker]

Without having heard the exchange, I will say this... all GMs want to find that diamond in the rough, that is how GMs make a name for themselves.  GMs that are good at that stay GMs for a long time and have good teams.  GMs that are not good at it, don't last very long.

 

And the DIRs don't need to be superstars (every once in a while you get that with Robert Mathis or Tom Brady or T. Davis and others) But if they become consistent, reliable members of the 53 for extended years that is how you build a consistently good franchise.  

 

To stick with the diamond metaphor, what you don't want is a GM who thinks he can turn a lump of coal into a diamond.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

No harm in signing these guys. Carter's contract is a 3-year deal valued at $1.575M. If he has 2 or more TDs next season (highly likely assuming he's on the 53-man roster), I'd say he's steal.

[mintor]

No harm in signing these guys. Carter's contract is a 3-year deal valued at $1.575M. If he has 2 or more TDs next season (highly likely assuming he's on the 53-man roster), I'd say he's steal.

 amen

[jskinnz]

Finding a diamond in the rough is cool and all.  But in this Free Agency period, early in the period and early in the draft. I am thinking about the Geico commercial that made that makes alot of sense.  Why not get in the running car? Sign somebody that is proven, established, and is well known.  Draft somebody that shined in the Big Ten, SEC(nobody from Alabama please), ACC, the Big East.  Draft OL from a Wisconsin, Georgia, Nebraska, a DE, OLB from Clemson or DT from Oklahoma.  Right now is not the time to hide behind the bowling ball full of knives, like Chuck says.  

 

What does hide behind the bowling ball full of knives comment mean?  I know it is what Pagano said about TR but not sure what you mean by hiding?

[Frankster]

Could anyone tell me how Henoc Muamba progressed last year? Does he have a shot at being a regular starter in the near future?

[AntonMcG]

I heard the segment and disagreed. There isn't a problem with it at all. You can miss on these types of prospects with little to no effect on your team. Where Grigson has really hurt this team is wasting a 1st rounder for a RB we might cut 18 months after the trade and missing on a second 1st round selection in 2013.

 

The question is... is too much time and effort spent finding these diamonds in the rough, and not the exhaustive degree of due diligence required to ensure we hit in the draft in FA?

 

Sure, we can expand our scouting team, but all decision making comes down to Grigson and his core team.

[NewColtsFan]

Finding a diamond in the rough is cool and all.  But in this Free Agency period, early in the period and early in the draft. I am thinking about the Geico commercial that made that makes alot of sense.  Why not get in the running car? Sign somebody that is proven, established, and is well known.  Draft somebody that shined in the Big Ten, SEC(nobody from Alabama please), ACC, the Big East.  Draft OL from a Wisconsin, Georgia, Nebraska, a DE, OLB from Clemson or DT from Oklahoma.  Right now is not the time to hide behind the bowling ball full of knives, like Chuck says.  

 

Right now is precisely the right time to sign guys from Canada.

 

We can't hold the draft now.    That's in 12 weeks.

 

We can't sign NFL free agents now.     That's in 5 weeks.

 

There's a 90 man off-season roster to build.    You're only as good as your weakest players.     So signing CFL players now is the exact right thing to do.

 

It may not be glamorous or sexy or exciting enough for you and many others here,  but this is what happens in February.   Teams are trying to get better.

 

Oh,  and your rant about big time colleges?     Feel free to go through Grigson's three years of drafts.    You'll find that almost every player comes from a Big Boy School.    SEC,  Big-10,  Pac-12,  Big-12,  ACC,  Big East,  you name it.     He drafts from big schools.

 

Welcome to the website....

[bababooey]

Also want to add, if the Patriots had ONE diamond in the rough player from the CFL and we didn't look there, there would be people calling for Grigson's resignation/firing.

[bababooey]

No harm in signing these guys. Carter's contract is a 3-year deal valued at $1.575M. If he has 2 or more TDs next season (highly likely assuming he's on the 53-man roster), I'd say he's steal.

Easily capable of doing so especially in this offense. I love the contract.

[Stone]

Do something is better then do nothing.to find a diamond in therough you have to digging hard ; that`s what the men trying to do!