Sports Illustrated Asks: Why isn't Grigson's Job also on the Line?

[Defjamz26]

The New York Giants have two recent Super Bowl rings. Each time the Giants regular season record was........ 9-7.

The regular season record doesn't mean a thing if you win the Super Bowl. It only means something if you don't.

Hidden underneath all that winning is a very flawed and talent deprived Colts team. A lot fans don't get that, which is why so many here accuse people of overreacting.

Regular season and playoff success doesn't matter because this team has issues that will prevent it from going to or winning the Super Bowl. Now in terms of who is to blame, I say it's pick your poison. They've both contributed to the issues IMO.

But to think there isn't a problem because of our record is laughable. John Fox had like 3 first round byes and made a Super Bowl with the Broncos, but he still got fired. They let Lovie go after a 10-6 season.

Colts may have the record of an elite team but they hardly look like one, even when they win sometimes.

[theanarchist]

He's also not paying his quarterback full quarterback money yet.  Saying he hasn't put the team in a cap bind when he's sitting with an ludicrously cheap all pro quarterback is pretty meaningless. 

 

Hows the cap gonna look when Luck's making 25M year?

 

You failed to mention the 38 million dead cap issue that Grigson had to deal with. Yes the Colts were very lucky to have Luck fall in their laps but Luck did not win those games all by himself. I don't care how good of a quarterback you are you do not break the records that Luck has all alone. The one thing Grigson has said from day one is he was never going to put the Colts in the cap space hades they were in when he took the job. Fans didn't have a problem then but seem to have a big problem with it now.

He may not have won them by himself but without him there is no way the Colts would have been where they've been without the calibur of QB play that he has provided. In order to judge what Grigson has done you have to look over the whole roster and judge it vs where it was at when he got here. He has done a nice job with the cap I won't argue that.

 

The true test of how he handles the cap will come in the next couple of years.

[Smonroe]

I'm tired of this and wish it would go away.

I'm not defending Grigson, none of us know what's really going on there.

But I have to wonder - with the best QB in the game, and only one SB appearance, why doesn't Ted Thompson get scrutinized as much as Grigs?

[teganslaw]

Several people at work are Colts fans and they are are talking about how Pagano's job is on the line. Even the fans of other teams are asking me about Pagano geting fired. I just can't get away from this.

 

I tell them it's all speculation at this poiint, that nothing has happened yet. The media is all hung up on this issue. Wait and see what happens Monday night and afterwards. Then if Pagano is fired, talk about it when/if it actually happens.

[theanarchist]

I'm tired of this and wish it would go away.

I'm not defending Grigson, none of us know what's really going on there.

But I have to wonder - with the best QB in the game, and only one SB appearance, why doesn't Ted Thompson get scrutinized as much as Grigs?

Well, the Packers won the Super Bowl and they made it to the NFC championship game atleast twice since Thompson has been there.

[Jay Kirk]

And I think it's a damn fair question....

 

I have been as big a supporter of Grigson as there is here....  and the same for Pagano.    I like both of them very much.

 

But I don't think you can blame Pagano for whatever his shortcomings are without a fair amount of the blame also falling on Grigson.   It's his job to get the talent,  and I'm sorry,  but we are now four years in and there are still areas where we are not at a playoff caliber level.

 

We are still struggling at the line of scrimmage -- both sides.

 

Our defensive line can NOT be taken seriously.   There is ONE veteran out of the first six.   Wynn makes two veterans out of 7.    The other 5 guys are either rookies or 2nd year guys who didn't play much in their first year.     That's simply NOT acceptable.

 

Our OL may or may not have enough talent,  but it certainly doesn't perform as if it does.   So whether it's talent or coaching,  that's all on Grigson.     He gets the talent, and reportedly is heavily involved in the selection of the coaches.   

 

Sorry,  I may like them both,  but if the marriage has gone south, I'm in the camp that says it takes two to make this go bad.  

 

Ultimately,  this is on Irsay.   I don't see him letting go of both and starting over.    But I don't think it's fair that Pagano is the guy with his head in a noose and Grigson is the guy who has made Pagano's job much more difficult than it had to be.

 

Here is the Sports Illustrated article:

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/17/blanket-coverage-chuck-pagano-ryan-grigson-indianapolis-colts

Got to agree on the assessment on Pagano , lets not tie his hands.

[Smonroe]

Well, the Packers won the Super Bowl and they made it to the NFC championship game atleast twice since Thompson has been there.

In 10 years. 2 HoF QBs. A couple losing seasons in there too.

I know it's not apples to ... But my point is that just because you have one of the best QBs in the league doesn't mean you should expect to be in the SB every year. And some years in that GMs reign, the Pack weren't even contenders.

Again, I'm not defending Grigs, and I've always said we should invest in the Oline even if it means over drafting or overpaying, even to the detriment of keeping some skill players. But how can anyone argue with his success?

[Valpo2004]

I'm tired of this and wish it would go away.

I'm not defending Grigson, none of us know what's really going on there.

But I have to wonder - with the best QB in the game, and only one SB appearance, why doesn't Ted Thompson get scrutinized as much as Grigs?

 

Thompson's all pro QB pick wasn't an obvious pick at the time.

 

Thompson's team has a running game

 

Thompson's team has an offensive line.  Aaron Rodger's isn't best friends with the turf.  

 

Thompson drafts well and doesn't need to sign many free agents.

 

Thompson's team dominates a much tougher division. 

 

Thompson's team can win games against good teams without asking Rodgers to throw the ball 40 times. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

I think Grigson has done well. Yes he messed up regarding trading a LATE first Round pick for Trent but he is also responsible for drafting Luck over RG3 and TY. The TY pick offsets his mess up regarding Trent. TY went in the later rounds and Grigson recognized TY's talent. I also think the Dorsett pick is Good. We needed speed because other than TY we are big and slower with Johnson, Fleener, Allen, etc.. Give Grigson 1 more draft before ripping him I say. I think he will address our D.Line a little more in next seasons draft. If he doesn't than we have a problem. 3 = 11-5 seasons and a Title Game appearance is tough to say Grigson and Pagano hasn't had success. Every team would take that, I know it's not a SB win but Very Good.

[theanarchist]

In 10 years. 2 HoF QBs. A couple losing seasons in there too.

I know it's not apples to ... But my point is that just because you have one of the best QBs in the league doesn't mean you should expect to be in the SB every year. And some years in that GMs reign, the Pack weren't even contenders.

Again, I'm not defending Grigs, and I've always said we should invest in the Oline even if it means over drafting or overpaying, even to the detriment of keeping some skill players. But how can anyone argue with his success?

Grigson has done this to himself. He basically said they are a contender now. He doesn't extend the head coach in the off season. Personally I believe the roster is not yet to where it needs to be to contend for the Super Bowl. The past 3 seasons luck has covered up our short comings. I think part of this is self inflicted

[bababooey]

The New York Giants have two recent Super Bowl rings.   Each time the Giants regular season record was........    9-7.

 

The regular season record doesn't mean a thing if you win the Super Bowl.      It only means something if you don't.

Exactly.

 

Anyone can go on a run. Giants started 0-2 in 07 then set the record for most consecutive road games, barely lost to the Pats in the regular season and Coughlin said to Belichik during the handshake "see you in the superbowl". If you believe you can achieve.

[theanarchist]

He's also not paying his quarterback full quarterback money yet.  Saying he hasn't put the team in a cap bind when he's sitting with an ludicrously cheap all pro quarterback is pretty meaningless. 

 

Hows the cap gonna look when Luck's making 25M year?

 

The dead cap issue is a long past issue.  He gets a pass for not getting much talent on the team in 2012 outside of the draft and the Vontae trade.  He can't sign FA's with that hanging around his neck.  But when that went away he signed a bunch of FA's and the only one that's anything close to working out is Walden.  Toler maybe if he actually plays in most of the games this year.  

 

Quite frankly we just are not where we should be and I'm sick of kicking the can down the road on 1 and 2 year rent a players who are in their 30's.  

 

He's in his 4th year. . . he has no long term plan for the O-line. . . We still need 2 guards. . . same thing we've been needing for a long time.  When it looked like we had filled one spot Grigson decided that Cherilus was making too much money (in what is suppose to be a SB run year) and dumped him, moved Mewhort over and we are back where we started needing 2 guards.

 

We maybe have a long term player at RB in Robinson but he just started so you don't know.

 

We still have no long term answer at safety.  One of these spots has been hanging open for someone to be a long term player since Grigson started.  The other one has been open since Bethea walked.

 

We still lack any real good play makers at LB.  We have just a bunch of decent guys.  

 

And now with Henry Anderson and David Parry thank you now Grigson that in your 4th year we might have some long term plans at DL.  

 

Basically the only places we've had long term plans at is QB, WR, CB1, and Punter.  And Grigson still drafted a WR in the first round.  

 

And not that it's as big of a deal but no long term plans at Kicker either.  '

 

Oh yeah and he's blown every 1st rounder since Luck, his entire 2013 draft was a wash, not a single useful player came from that draft.

 

He swings for the fences but he hasn't knocked anything out of the park since trading for Davis and he's struck out too many times to count.

you're on a roll brother. Adams was a good FA pick up lol, you forgot him but as you say he is not a long term solution to the safety position.

[Smonroe]

Thompson's all pro QB pick wasn't an obvious pick at the time.

 

Thompson's team has a running game

 

Thompson's team has an offensive line.  Aaron Rodger's isn't best friends with the turf.  

 

Thompson drafts well and doesn't need to sign many free agents.

 

Thompson's team dominates a much tougher division. 

 

Thompson's team can win games against good teams without asking Rodgers to throw the ball 40 times.

I'd argue your first point, a lot of people had him going #1. You're correct about them being in a tougher division.

But all your other statements support what I said. Given all that, he's "only" won one SB. Yet no one is questioning his performance.

As I said, I'm not defending Grigs, but you must see he's being held to a higher standard if results are the ultimate qualifier.

[theanarchist]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25305243/agents-take-has-the-potential-for-a-colts-dynasty-been-squandered

 

Here is another article that basically points out things that have been eluded to by myself and others. It's a good read and makes very valid points. I'm not saying Grigson needs to be canned but he's as culpable as Pagano is in my opinion.

[chad72]

The New York Giants have two recent Super Bowl rings.   Each time the Giants regular season record was........    9-7.

 

The regular season record doesn't mean a thing if you win the Super Bowl.      It only means something if you don't.

 

I know I am being picky but in 2007, their record was 10-6. No 9-7 team had won the SB till the Giants won it in 2011.

[crazycolt1]

He's also not paying his quarterback full quarterback money yet.  Saying he hasn't put the team in a cap bind when he's sitting with an ludicrously cheap all pro quarterback is pretty meaningless. 

 

Hows the cap gonna look when Luck's making 25M year?

 

The dead cap issue is a long past issue.  He gets a pass for not getting much talent on the team in 2012 outside of the draft and the Vontae trade.  He can't sign FA's with that hanging around his neck.  But when that went away he signed a bunch of FA's and the only one that's anything close to working out is Walden.  Toler maybe if he actually plays in most of the games this year.  

 

Quite frankly we just are not where we should be and I'm sick of kicking the can down the road on 1 and 2 year rent a players who are in their 30's.  

 

He's in his 4th year. . . he has no long term plan for the O-line. . . We still need 2 guards. . . same thing we've been needing for a long time.  When it looked like we had filled one spot Grigson decided that Cherilus was making too much money (in what is suppose to be a SB run year) and dumped him, moved Mewhort over and we are back where we started needing 2 guards.

 

We maybe have a long term player at RB in Robinson but he just started so you don't know.

 

We still have no long term answer at safety.  One of these spots has been hanging open for someone to be a long term player since Grigson started.  The other one has been open since Bethea walked.

 

We still lack any real good play makers at LB.  We have just a bunch of decent guys.  

 

And now with Henry Anderson and David Parry thank you now Grigson that in your 4th year we might have some long term plans at DL.  

 

Basically the only places we've had long term plans at is QB, WR, CB1, and Punter.  And Grigson still drafted a WR in the first round.  

 

And not that it's as big of a deal but no long term plans at Kicker either.  '

 

Oh yeah and he's blown every 1st rounder since Luck, his entire 2013 draft was a wash, not a single useful player came from that draft.

 

He swings for the fences but he hasn't knocked anything out of the park since trading for Davis and he's struck out too many times to count.

Not should be where we should be? Really? One game away from the super bowl after a total rebuild? You dwell on all the negative things because of what? Also the percentages of 1st rounds picks turning out to be impact players is not as high as you think. So Grigson is far not the only GM who has not looked good after viewing the moves with 20-20 hindsight. We have no clue if these changes is going to work out but to automatically dismiss them before the finale results are in is premature. Grigson has evidently not been happy with some of his moves but he keeps trying. As I stated before, Irsay is not going to make any changes at least till the end of the season. He has left the door open to make changes and no matter how it works out they are open. Talking and debating changes at this point in the season is a useless debate and anyone's opinion means zero including mine.

[Jim H.]

It is a fair question.  It would also have been nice if they had used better information to back up their point.  Some of their evidence for Grigson to be on the hot seat, was ridiculous.

 

The article basically seems like a rehash of an article by Doyle earlier this year.  Lazy journalism again.

"Journalists" lazy?  NO WAY!

[Surge89]

I'd argue your first point, a lot of people had him going #1. You're correct about them being in a tougher division.

But all your other statements support what I said. Given all that, he's "only" won one SB. Yet no one is questioning his performance.

As I said, I'm not defending Grigs, but you must see he's being held to a higher standard if results are the ultimate qualifier.

 

You are judging Thompson like a player when he is a GM.  Grigson has no results on the field as far as saying the talent he has brought in has correct a previous problem except for D-Line this year.  Thompson has a track record of fixing things.

 

Grigs on the other hand while his team holds good records the teams continue to have the same issues.  Imo of course you can't grade a GM on wins and losses just like a QB you grade GM's on the talent and issues on the field.  Take Pitt for example.  They have had lackluster seasons as of late but one thing is always sure they don't have the same issues for more than a decade.  They had oline trouble they were agressive and got it fixed, they had only Hines and went aggressive and drafted tons of receivers, they had old linebackers they went aggressive and drafted talent into the LB corp. They had older safeties they went and drafted safeties and most likely next year they will draft corners because they have crap corners. They got results and fixed issues even though they completely rebuilt the roster with a lesser QB than Grigson has.  

[Jim H.]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25305243/agents-take-has-the-potential-for-a-colts-dynasty-been-squandered

 

Here is another article that basically points out things that have been eluded to by myself and others. It's a good read and makes very valid points. I'm not saying Grigson needs to be canned but he's as culpable as Pagano is in my opinion.

"Alluded?"

[theanarchist]

"Alluded?"

sorry professor

[Smonroe]

You are judging Thompson like a player when he is a GM.  Grigson has no results on the field as far as saying the talent he has brought in has correct a previous problem except for D-Line this year.  Thompson has a track record of fixing things.

 

Grigs on the other hand while his team holds good records the teams continue to have the same issues.  Imo of course you can't grade a GM on wins and losses just like a QB you grade GM's on the talent and issues on the field.  Take Pitt for example.  They have had lackluster seasons as of late but one thing is always sure they don't have the same issues for more than a decade.  They had oline trouble they were agressive and got it fixed, they had only Hines and went aggressive and drafted tons of receivers, they had old linebackers they went aggressive and drafted talent into the LB corp. They had older safeties they went and drafted safeties and most likely next year they will draft corners because they have crap corners. They got results and fixed issues even though they completely rebuilt the roster with a lesser QB than Grigson has.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not a Grigson apologist. To be fair though, this is his 4th season. Pittsburgh and Green Bay have had up and down years, and you're citing adjustments that were made over the last 10 years. We've only had up and upper, if you get my drift.

They're two of the elite teams in the league, only behind the Pats IMO. And our success in the three years of this regime has rivaled theirs in the last 3 seasons.

Again, my point is that we're holding our team to a higher, and maybe unrealistic standard. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing?

[NewColtsFan]

I know I am being picky but in 2007, their record was 10-6. No 9-7 team had won the SB till the Giants won it in 2011.

 

No,  not being picky at all.     You're being ACCURATE!

 

I've got no problem with that.      My bad.     You're right!

[2006Coltsbestever]

I know I am being picky but in 2007, their record was 10-6. No 9-7 team had won the SB till the Giants won it in 2011.

I still think we will go 11-5 again but can we beat the Denver or NE in the Playoffs? We need HFA.

[Surge89]

I get what you're saying, and I'm not a Grigson apologist. To be fair though, this is his 4th season. Pittsburgh and Green Bay have had up and down years, and you're citing adjustments that were made over the last 10 years. We've only had up and upper, if you get my drift.

They're two of the elite teams in the league, only behind the Pats IMO. And our success in the three years of this regime has rivaled theirs in the last 3 seasons.

Again, my point is that we're holding our team to a higher, and maybe unrealistic standard. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing?

 

I understand that they have had longer tenures but those 2 GMs are doing these things on a year to year basis.  That is my only point. Grigson while I think he has done an adequate job I do think he has a lot of faults.  I'll give him though that the O and D Lines are finally becoming stable so he is still on a route of hope.  But if he influences the coaching so much then I see it as moot.  If he had a direct influence on Hamilton then I have to question why the push away from what Hamilton did in College.  If he is the enforcer on playing certain players then again I also have to question why does he have a HC?  I haven't been the biggest Pagano fan but as of now he is more than likely the better option than what has been available let him give us his best.

 

Agreed that our success has rivaled. I haven't questioned that I only question will our continued success rival?  Every team has peaks of greatness but unless you have a QB like Manning you can't continue greatness without fixing the issues that happen year after year. 

 

I agree with you. We are holding him to a high high standard.  But as unfair as it is I think that high standard is set because the previous regime didn't have one.  They pretty much wasted a majority of the time we had with the greatest QB to ever play without fixing issues and we don't want to see that happen again.

[Superman]

Grigson's job is on the line, actually. People just haven't been able to manufacture his contract status into a story, even though the Colts have a 5th year option on him. Both Grigson and Pagano are under scrutiny right now.

[buccolts]

Grigson's job is on the line, actually. People just haven't been able to manufacture his contract status into a story, even though the Colts have a 5th year option on him. Both Grigson and Pagano are under scrutiny right now.

 

And who isn't?

[Cynjin]

"Journalists" lazy?  NO WAY!

Yeah, I know, disappointing but common.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

Our defensive line can NOT be taken seriously.   There is ONE veteran out of the first six.   Wynn makes two veterans out of 7.    The other 5 guys are either rookies or 2nd year guys who didn't play much in their first year.     That's simply NOT acceptable.

 

Our OL may or may not have enough talent,  but it certainly doesn't perform as if it does.   So whether it's talent or coaching,  that's all on Grigson.     He gets the talent, and reportedly is heavily involved in the selection of the coaches.   

 

We either build through the draft, or bring in high priced free agents. Can't really expect to have it both ways. I prefer building through the draft as it's a much more sustainable method. And as of right now, Parry & Anderson look like draft gems, and that should be a credit to Grigson, not a demerit. Sprinkle in those couple of vets for leadership, and I think come mid-season they're actually a solid line. The LB corps (and to some degree our CB depth) concerns me way more than the DL at this point.

[chad72]

I still think we will go 11-5 again but can we beat the Denver or NE in the Playoffs? We need HFA.

 

Or we should hope someone takes out the Patriots before we do and we host the AFCCG. 

[LockeDown]

The Colts lost virtually everyone...were the worst team in the league...and drafted Luck.  How long does it take for a worst to first scenario?  Let's be more specific.  How long from worst (with 1st pick in the draft) to first?  I can't even remember a team that has done that since I've been alive.  Can anyone else?  If so, then why in the world would anyone put a 3-4 year time table on something like that?  That isn't long enough imo.  

[Superman]

The Colts lost virtually everyone...were the worst team in the league...and drafted Luck.  How long does it take for a worst to first scenario?  Let's be more specific.  How long from worst (with 1st pick in the draft) to first?  I can't even remember a team that has done that since I've been alive.  Can anyone else?  If so, then why in the world would anyone put a 3-4 year time table on something like that?  That isn't long enough imo.  

 

In recent years, the Falcons and Dolphins went from bad to good in one year. Not worst, but close. The Chiefs did go from worst to first in 2013. Not first, they were actually #2 in their division...

 

I'm not saying it's common or easy, and I agree that the staff deserves credit for a quick turnaround, when everyone expected us to languish for at least a year, if not longer. Just saying it has happened.

 

And now, the staff needs to prove that they are capable of going from our current status as a near-contender with flaws to an actual heavyweight, every season. That hasn't been proven yet, not by Grigson or Pagano. And to me, that's the main reason Pagano didn't get a nice extension, not beef between him and Grigson, not issues over personnel or staffing, but the simple fact that he's already being paid as a slightly above average head coach, and he needs to prove definitively that he's worth more. Because if he's not, then we look back in two years and realize we've become the 2013 Atlanta Falcons or the 2009 San Diego Chargers.

 

They offered Pagano a one year deal so that he wasn't on lame duck status, and he turned it down. He's betting on himself. I have no problem with that.

 

Grigson could be on the final year of his contract, also. Local reports have said that the team has a fifth year option. So if the Colts crash and burn in 2015, then Irsay can reboot this puppy again. I'm fine with this approach also. Pressure can make a diamond, and it can burst a pipe. Might as well find out what kind of quality these two guys really are, right now, before we've wasted another two years on 'leaders' who aren't what we need them to be.

 

It's my hope that Grigson and Pagano are the right men for the job, and that they endure with the Colts for a long time, with much success. I don't know whether they are, or not. We'll see...

[Jim H.]

sorry professor

No worries.  Just trying to help.

[CoachLite]

"Alluded?"

Deluded.

[theanarchist]

Deluded.

Diluted

[pacolts56]

Why isn't Grigson's job also on the line?

Because he was hired as a GM, not a lineman!!

hiyoooooooo....

[evilleseniorfan]

After all of the comments, ask yourself who is responsible for hiring all of the coaches, including the head coach, and who is responsible for staffing the team with qualified players.  That's where all responsibility lies.

[cbear]

I think it's silly that both of them are involved in any kind of job security speculation after four years on the job.  Talk about being a victim of your own success.  It's not as if they inherited the Colts of 2006.

[ColtsBTM12]

Your "keep building the monster" at the bottom of your posts reminds me of what Grigson and Pagono said when they started. They were gonna build a monster defense. In my opinion that attempt sure has failed up to now. Unfortunately injuries had something to do with that. A great defense needs a few things: 1) atleast 1 great pass rusher 2) Tough run stopping insidle LB's, 3) a shut down corner, 4) disruptive front line and 5) a player, usually a safety, at the back end that can make big plays. Where are we with those things????

 

We have the shut down corner. We don't have a disruptive front line(not yet), the ILB's are suspect and the elite pass rusher was out for the year at 34  years old with an achilles injury and yet to return. The playmaking Safety, you could make a case that Adams is that guy, but he's at the tail end of his career and I don't think he can repeat the year he had last year.

It's a waste of time to complain about how we don't have a "monster defense" in week 2. We don't know what we have right now. I think the defense could have a good year. I was impressed with the D-line on Sunday, the pass-rush will better this year than last(almost a certainty), secondary should be fine(barring major injuries). Why are so many of you panicking this early on?

[2006Coltsbestever]

The Colts lost virtually everyone...were the worst team in the league...and drafted Luck.  How long does it take for a worst to first scenario?  Let's be more specific.  How long from worst (with 1st pick in the draft) to first?  I can't even remember a team that has done that since I've been alive.  Can anyone else?  If so, then why in the world would anyone put a 3-4 year time table on something like that?  That isn't long enough imo.  

I put a 5 year timetable on winning the SB when the rebuild started and we are only in year 4. I think because the Colts did so well in Andrew's rookie season that put us ahead of schedule regarding being a contender in most peoples eyes. I only had us going 8-8 his rookie season but we went 11-5. That surprised me that he and the team were that good so quickly. I figured he wouldn't be a bust and be great but not this fast.

[Superman]

I put a 5 year timetable on winning the SB when the rebuild started and we are only in year 4. I think because the Colts did so well in Andrew's rookie season that put us ahead of schedule regarding being a contender in most peoples eyes. I only had us going 8-8 his rookie season but we went 11-5. That surprised me that he and the team were that good so quickly. I figured he wouldn't be a bust and be great but not this fast.

 

Not only did it put us ahead of schedule, it cost us at least one more top 15 draft pick. I'm fine with that, just saying, usually a rebuild takes a couple years and you get some draft stock out of it. Of course, if we picked #15 in 2013, Grigson probably takes Jarvis Jones instead of Bjoern Werner, and it's the same thing anyways...