Food For Thought: Grigson on Hot Seat too? (Link Inside)

[BlueShoe]

Here's my resume.     I've removed the contact info for obvious privacy reasons.    I worked in the News Media business for 30 years.    This is one area where I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

Michael Forrest

 

truncated .........................................................

 

That is impressive.

 

For the record, I work in Information Technology and have for 20 years, but I am not posting my resume. 

 

My question is, how can you not clearly see the huge influence the Boston sports market has on sports? The blatant bias is absolutely real. When comparing a small town team like the Colts to the Patriots market, it's like David and Goliath. 

[Valpo2004]

I'm not sure I'm the biggest fan of Grigson but it would be really difficult to fire him on the heals of what's turning out to be a really good draft.

[Smash Mouth]

Whenever I hear people say this is the Polian era all over again, It makes me wonder if Jim saw Polian like qualities in Grigson and hired him out of nostalgia. Maybe he felt comfortable with what Polian had done and wanted something similar in his GM.

I don't see the similarities between Grigson and Polian. Polian never invested in FAs to the extent that Grigson has.  Polian was more focused on the draft and was pretty good at it.  While he wasn't always likable, Polian instilled organizational discipline that's currently missing.  They are similar in terms of investing more heavily in offense than defense but that's about it IMO.

[theanarchist]

A GM's main job is adding players, right?

 

The primary difference is free agency and trades, which Polian came to loath and avoid. For better and worse, Grigson has used plenty of both to rebuild the roster, and while the results have been mixed, the team has done more than anyone expected it to three years ago. With Polian, there would be no Vontae Davis, but there would also be no Trent Richardson. There would have been no Cory Redding, but there would also have been no LaRon Landry. We'd probably still have Jerry Hughes, but we'd probably still have Pierre Garcon also.

 

That was my primary issue with Polian. There are three ways to add talent to your team, and he basically ignored two of them. He had his reasons, but he came to be overly rigid, and as his drafting faltered, his refusal to supplement his drafting led to the gradual erosion of the roster, to the point where we couldn't win a single game for over three months. 

If I'm not mistaken Peirre left during Polian's regime. I essentially agree with  you. There were a couple of things that ended up bringing Bill down. 1) the trade for Tony Ugoh after Glenn retired. Bill tried with that pick/trade and Ugoh was a total bust. It hurt badly. 2) Peyton Manning got hurt. No further explanation necessary 3) Bill started to give more power to his son. But I agree, the last few of his drafts were weak and Bill alway spent lots and lots of money to our own free agents too.

[Jason_]

If I'm not mistaken Peirre left during Polian's regime. I essentially agree with  you. There were a couple of things that ended up bringing Bill down. 1) the trade for Tony Ugoh after Glenn retired. Bill tried with that pick/trade and Ugoh was a total bust. It hurt badly. 2) Peyton Manning got hurt. No further explanation necessary 3) Bill started to give more power to his son. But I agree, the last few of his drafts were weak and Bill alway spent lots and lots of money to our own free agents too.

 

One correction...Polian traded up and drafted Ugoh before Glenn retired, not after.  The idea was to have Ugoh learn on the bench for a year while Glenn played out the final year of his contract, but after the draft and before the start of training camp, Glenn notified the team he would not play out the final year of his contract and instead had chosen to retire.  That forced Ugoh into the starting lineup before they wanted him there.

[CoachLite]

It has been chic to be negative about the Colts in the media. The media loves them some Patriots and now some media people want to make an issue out of everything they can think of to disrespect the Colts. In their eyes we wronged their golden boy and their team. The media had over 6 months of articles to fill their void and will play it till there is no more. The media has blown up the whole deflate issue a lot more than the Colts did. The Colts just reported it. It was the media and the NFL who took it to the levels it got. It makes for clicks for the media who need something to be keep themselves being talked about. 90% of the sports media is no different than the $2 dollar rag mags you see at the checkout counter at Walmart.

When the Colts were out-performing media expectations, the Colts were a media darling. When the Colts underperform the media's expectations, they are the 'goats. That's life.

 

As far as Grigson and the coaching staff, I'm sure some of that is real and some just a soap-opera storyline. What is obvious is that there are very real problems with the Colts organization, but its probably too complicated to tell where the actual problems lie. While I suspect the problem is the whole coaching staff -- top to bottom -- it sure is confusing, making it very difficult to be a Colts fan.

[crazycolt1]

When the Colts were out-performing media expectations, the Colts were a media darling. When the Colts underperform the media's expectations, they are the 'goats. That's life.

 

As far as Grigson and the coaching staff, I'm sure some of that is real and some just a soap-opera storyline. What is obvious is that there are very real problems with the Colts organization, but its probably too complicated to tell where the actual problems lie. While I suspect the problem is the whole coaching staff -- top to bottom -- it sure is confusing, making it very difficult to be a Colts fan.

Sorry, if you have trouble being a Colt fan I cant make comments on that. If you have that attitude about the Colts it would be pretty hard for you to be a fan of most teams.

[theanarchist]

I'm going to comment in short: The speculation about Pagano's job started last winter. Mostly due to the offer of a 1 year contract that he turned down. That began speculation. However, the most recent stuff about Pagano and Grigson's relationship being strained I believe was started by local Indianapolis media and I believe there was the comment about a "trusted source" regarding Grigson's meddling in coaching matters etc. That's my recollection of it.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Not that I disagree with Pagano or Grigson getting canned, but where are all of these media outlets getting this information? I feel like one person made it up, and everyone else just rolled with it. I rarely ever see a source cited even an anonymous one.

 

I've brought this up before, because the "sources" are usually people "close to Pagano" or "close to Grigson".

 

Why in the world would someone "close to" our coach or GM be telling someone in the media anything about anything having to do with how we run our organization?  I seriously doubt someone "close to" Pagano told Mike Florio that Chuck believes his time in Indy might be over soon...  I seriously doubt anyone "close to" Grigson or Irsay is airing our dirty laundry to some hack at Bleacher Report...

[Jonathan24]

I think that since Pagano is on the hot seat grigs should be also.  From what is said chuck has no control over the roster or coaches and grigs gets players pagano doesnt want.

[Defjamz26]

What's more important than low 1st round picks is having a franchise QB. If Luck gets beat up or fails to progress as a QB, then the one held responsible for that will be fired. I think there is a good chance the coaching staff is replaced after this year, especially if the game plans for the rest of the season look like the second half of the Patriots game.

I think Grigs is building the team in the right way. The Pats have three rookie interior OLineman and none of them was drafted in the 1st round.

That's the Pats though. BB makes stars out of nobodies, we all know this. But look at the Cowboys line: Smith, Martin, and Frederick all drafted in the first 3 rounds. The importance of early picks isn't exclusive to just offensive line though.

It's most position groups. Look at the Colts receiving core. Hilton, Moncrief, Dorsett, Allen, and Fleener were all taken in rounds 2-3.

It just goes without saying that the best players on a team and usually the League come in the early rounds. So while it's easy to say Grigson hit on guys like Anderson, Hilton, and Mewhort, it's hard to use that as a counter point for our 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014.

No one is going to call him out because Montori Hughes, Chapman, or Boyett didn't work out. But with the 2 1st round picks he didn't hit on, you're talking about potential pro-bowl quality players.

Not hurt on 1st round picks is what does a lot of GMs in. That's part of what did Matt Millen in.

[C0lts088]

The media doesn't determine reality. I understand about all the noise and media bias and all that, which just is what it is. But just because ESPN says there's a big issue doesn't mean there is. A year ago, Jason Garrett was 'on the hot seat' and Jerry Jones was being pestered about hiring an actual GM.

May not determine it, but it alters people's perspective. Especially when it's the #1 and largest source for sports news. Is ESPN says it, people who don't really know much bout a team will buy in.

[Superman]

If I'm not mistaken Peirre left during Polian's regime. I essentially agree with  you. There were a couple of things that ended up bringing Bill down. 1) the trade for Tony Ugoh after Glenn retired. Bill tried with that pick/trade and Ugoh was a total bust. It hurt badly. 2) Peyton Manning got hurt. No further explanation necessary 3) Bill started to give more power to his son. But I agree, the last few of his drafts were weak and Bill alway spent lots and lots of money to our own free agents too.

 

Garcon left after 2011. Grigson made him an offer, and he took more from Washington. Good thing, too, because we kept Reggie, who was instrumental for us.

 

Polian overspent to keep his own players, in keeping with his 'the devil you know' philosophy. And I get it, but I'd rather overspend for Karlos Dansby than for Gary Brackett. Sometimes you have to make your roster better, and retaining your own free agents doesn't do that.

 

Grigson hasn't had a lot of players to re-sign so far, so there isn't a lot of comparison to make yet. But Davis wound up being a little underpaid, IMO. Hilton and AC both have team-friendly structures. No cap issues with Grigson so far, but I had a major beef with keeping Freeney in 2012. 

[Superman]

May not determine it, but it alters people's perspective. Especially when it's the #1 and largest source for sports news. Is ESPN says it, people who don't really know much bout a team will buy in.

 

Irsay isn't getting his opinion from ESPN, and it's only his opinion that will matter.

[Superman]

That's one of my knocks against Grigson. He's had so much capital to play with and it's been mixed results. For every good, there's a bad. Like you already alluded too.

But I think blowing consecutive first round picks is a bigger knock than people like to admit. Yes there are 7 rounds, but generally speaking the best players come in the first 3 rounds. And 1st round picks are a luxury.

 

Some of the moves that a lot of people consider 'bad' actually helped us win games. For instance, I never liked the Cherilus contract, but without him in 2013, who's our starting RT? He actually had a pretty good year. Grigson dumped a lot of money into free agency that season primarily because the roster had tons of holes. Some of them were plugged adequately in the short term, others not to much, but the intent wasn't to build the team through free agency. That's why all of those players were mid-level guys on mostly team-friendly contracts. If you're lucky, you strike gold with a few of them, and we really didn't, but we probably don't perform as well as we did in 2013 without those guys.

 

Misusing two straight first rounders is Grigson's biggest blunder. I assume everyone would agree. If Dorsett busts, that's three straight. I like Dorsett and think he'll be good for us, but the jury is still out.

 

Add to that some missed opportunities to improve the OL and add pass rushers (which is hard to quantify, because we don't know if these opportunities really existed), and I think there's plenty to be critical of Grigson for. I just don't agree with magnifying the bad and minimizing the good, which is what typically happens.

[braveheartcolt]

When we sort ourselves out and come good in the post season and blow out the Packers in the Super Bowl, Grigson will be everyone's darling. Bank on it.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

I was a member of the media for 30 years and I can flat out guarantee you that you're completely and spectacularly wrong.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't have a single fact to back it up.

 

A former media person chastising one of us common-folk for "not having facts?" Awesome.

[James]

 

For the record, I work in Information Technology and have for 20 years, but I am not posting my resume. 

 

Prove it.

Otherwise quit bellyaching.

[NewColtsFan]

A former media person chastising one of us common-folk for "not having facts?" Awesome.

 

 

I'm sorry you're offended by my comment.

 

But it's not like he had some facts and I just had more.

 

He had no facts,  all he had was his opinion and he seemed pretty insulted that I wasn't buying his opinion.    He thought his view was not only right,  it was obviously right and it seemed to irk him that I wasn't accepting his view.

 

I'm not sure how else you wanted me to communicate with him?

 

And I've got no problem with people having issues with the media.     I have tons of issues with the media.    

 

I'm just trying to explain how things work.    If someone doesn't wish to accept that -- OK.      That's on them........

[Defjamz26]

Some of the moves that a lot of people consider 'bad' actually helped us win games. For instance, I never liked the Cherilus contract, but without him in 2013, who's our starting RT? He actually had a pretty good year. Grigson dumped a lot of money into free agency that season primarily because the roster had tons of holes. Some of them were plugged adequately in the short term, others not to much, but the intent wasn't to build the team through free agency. That's why all of those players were mid-level guys on mostly team-friendly contracts. If you're lucky, you strike gold with a few of them, and we really didn't, but we probably don't perform as well as we did in 2013 without those guys.

Misusing two straight first rounders is Grigson's biggest blunder. I assume everyone would agree. If Dorsett busts, that's three straight. I like Dorsett and think he'll be good for us, but the jury is still out.

Add to that some missed opportunities to improve the OL and add pass rushers (which is hard to quantify, because we don't know if these opportunities really existed), and I think there's plenty to be critical of Grigson for. I just don't agree with magnifying the bad and minimizing the good, which is what typically happens.

Personally I felt that he's done too much in FA. You're right

[grmasterb]

"The Media," including ESPN, have covered Spygate and Deflategate in great detail. If the media were so pro-Patriots and anti-Colts, wouldn't it have simply buried the story??

[Defjamz26]

Some of the moves that a lot of people consider 'bad' actually helped us win games. For instance, I never liked the Cherilus contract, but without him in 2013, who's our starting RT? He actually had a pretty good year. Grigson dumped a lot of money into free agency that season primarily because the roster had tons of holes. Some of them were plugged adequately in the short term, others not to much, but the intent wasn't to build the team through free agency. That's why all of those players were mid-level guys on mostly team-friendly contracts. If you're lucky, you strike gold with a few of them, and we really didn't, but we probably don't perform as well as we did in 2013 without those guys.

Misusing two straight first rounders is Grigson's biggest blunder. I assume everyone would agree. If Dorsett busts, that's three straight. I like Dorsett and think he'll be good for us, but the jury is still out.

Add to that some missed opportunities to improve the OL and add pass rushers (which is hard to quantify, because we don't know if these opportunities really existed), and I think there's plenty to be critical of Grigson for. I just don't agree with magnifying the bad and minimizing the good, which is what typically happens.

Personally I felt that he's done too much in FA. You're right about Cherilus. He was great for awhile. My issue was Grigson making him the highest paid RT of all time given his age. And that's what a lot of his FAs have been. Him over-paying guys close to or over 30 as if they're long term pieces.

He's supposed to be rebuilding but he's spent excess money on hole pluggers rather than focusing on acquiring good young talent. Davis was a good non-draft acquisition because he was young and a player with upside. But the Landry signing for example wasn't good. Not only was he not a good player, but

[BlueShoe]

Prove it.

Otherwise quit bellyaching.

Lol.

And how does my information technology experience and degree prove or disprove my opinions on a Colts board?

What field do you work in Mr. Bellyaching?

[Superman]

Personally I felt that he's done too much in FA. You're right about Cherilus. He was great for awhile. My issue was Grigson making him the highest paid RT of all time given his age. And that's what a lot of his FAs have been. Him over-paying guys close to or over 30 as if they're long term pieces.

He's supposed to be rebuilding but he's spent excess money on hole pluggers rather than focusing on acquiring good young talent. Davis was a good non-draft acquisition because he was young and a player with upside. But the Landry signing for example wasn't good. Not only was he not a good player, but

 

He didn't pay those guys like they were long term pieces. Even Cherilus, for all the 'highest paid RT' stuff, it was $6.9m/year. It's not like he broke the bank on any of those guys, nor are there long term ramifications from those deals. 

 

He needed guys who could play right now, and that's what he got. For as well as we did in 2012, that roster was atrocious. Every team needs good young talent, but we also needed some guys who could contribute right away, because Polian left us with a lot of holes. Unfortunately, none of those guys took off and became big time contributors. For instance, we could have signed Brent Grimes instead of Greg Toler; he's waaay better, but he took a one year deal, blew up, and now is making $8m/year. I'd rather have him, even with the cost. None of our guys came in and outperformed their contracts, which is what you hope happens when you sign 6 'starters' in one offseason; at least one or two of them should really take off for you. 

 

More problematic than anything in free agency that year was getting rid of Hughes. My speculation is that Hughes wanted out, but we'll never know whether that's really the case. As it stands, Grigson shipped out a young player who was getting better, and got nothing in return. That hurts far more than giving Cherilus $6.9m/year.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Here's my resume.     I've removed the contact info for obvious privacy reasons.    I worked in the News Media business for 30 years.    This is one area where I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

Michael Forrest

 

 

QUALIFICATIONS

Experienced assignment editor, producer, director and writer with an expertise in news and sports.

 

EMPLOYMENT

2009 – Present

First Flight Entertainment, Inc.

l Feature Producer/Associate Producer (ESPN 30 for 30 Documentaries, NFL Today, John R. Wooden Awards)

 

2008 – 2009

KTLA News

l Writer

 

2005 – 2008

KFWB News

l Assignment Editor/Writer

 

1997 – 2004

KTTV News

l News Writer Good Day LA 1993 – 1996

KNBC News

l Sports Producer

 

1990 – 1992

KCOP News

l Sports Producer 1989 – 1990 CBS Sports

l Freelance Feature Producer

 

1980 – 1988

KCBS News

l Sports & Specials Producer

 

EDUCATION

Cal State University Northridge

l Major: Journalism / Radio-Television

 

HONORS

l One National Emmy Award (CBS Sports)

l Two Local Emmy Awards (KCBS, KTTV)

l Four Golden Mics (KNBC, KFWB)

 

 

And my best friend is Daniel Forer.    He worked for CBS New York for about 20 years.    He covered every major sporting event, Super Bowls, World Series, NBA Finals, NCAA Final Four,  Summer and Winter Olympics -- you name it.

Very impressive! You worked back when there were real sports writers......not this microwave media hyped up nonsense driven by half truths and "unnamed sources". Any nitwit with an internet connection, blog and twitter account is deemed a source of news today???? I am unsure what is worse, those who manufacture it or those who foolishly believe it?

[Defjamz26]

Some of the moves that a lot of people consider 'bad' actually helped us win games. For instance, I never liked the Cherilus contract, but without him in 2013, who's our starting RT? He actually had a pretty good year. Grigson dumped a lot of money into free agency that season primarily because the roster had tons of holes. Some of them were plugged adequately in the short term, others not to much, but the intent wasn't to build the team through free agency. That's why all of those players were mid-level guys on mostly team-friendly contracts. If you're lucky, you strike gold with a few of them, and we really didn't, but we probably don't perform as well as we did in 2013 without those guys.

Misusing two straight first rounders is Grigson's biggest blunder. I assume everyone would agree. If Dorsett busts, that's three straight. I like Dorsett and think he'll be good for us, but the jury is still out.

Add to that some missed opportunities to improve the OL and add pass rushers (which is hard to quantify, because we don't know if these opportunities really existed), and I think there's plenty to be critical of Grigson for. I just don't agree with magnifying the bad and minimizing the good, which is what typically happens.

Personally I felt that he's done too much in FA. You're right about Cherilus. He was great for awhile. My issue was Grigson making him the highest paid RT of all time given his age. And that's what a lot of his FAs have been. Him over-paying guys close to or over 30 as if they're long term pieces.

He's supposed to be rebuilding but he's spent excess money on hole pluggers rather than focusing on acquiring good young talent. Davis was a good non-draft acquisition because he was young and a player with upside. But the Landry signing for example wasn't good. Not only was he not a good player, but he was signed to a pretty decent contract.

Now a lot of those moves are offset by him setting up contracts that are easy to get out of, but the point remains the same. He's signing guys past their prime just to not have a hole there for 1-2 seasons, since that's how long most of them last. But then we're right back at square one.

And I'd be fine if we were a team like the Seahawks or Bengals where we have an almost complete time of young upside players, and we only need 1 or 2 guys to get us to the next level but I don't see the point when he's supposed to be re-building. I'm not saying settle for sucking because it's a new regime but I don't see the need for signing some of these guys.

When you experience the type of roster turn-around we did in 2012, it's the draft picks and young FAs that is the measuring stick because that's how good teams are built. And that's where I feel like he's let down. Not bringing in ENOUGH young players and thus causing the same problems to emerge.

IDK if it's the negative being magnified as much as the underlying issue with this team being exposed.

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Some of the moves that a lot of people consider 'bad' actually helped us win games. For instance, I never liked the Cherilus contract, but without him in 2013, who's our starting RT? He actually had a pretty good year. Grigson dumped a lot of money into free agency that season primarily because the roster had tons of holes. Some of them were plugged adequately in the short term, others not to much, but the intent wasn't to build the team through free agency. That's why all of those players were mid-level guys on mostly team-friendly contracts. If you're lucky, you strike gold with a few of them, and we really didn't, but we probably don't perform as well as we did in 2013 without those guys.

 

Misusing two straight first rounders is Grigson's biggest blunder. I assume everyone would agree. If Dorsett busts, that's three straight. I like Dorsett and think he'll be good for us, but the jury is still out.

 

Add to that some missed opportunities to improve the OL and add pass rushers (which is hard to quantify, because we don't know if these opportunities really existed), and I think there's plenty to be critical of Grigson for. I just don't agree with magnifying the bad and minimizing the good, which is what typically happens.

Excellent post!

[theanarchist]

Garcon left after 2011. Grigson made him an offer, and he took more from Washington. Good thing, too, because we kept Reggie, who was instrumental for us.

 

Polian overspent to keep his own players, in keeping with his 'the devil you know' philosophy. And I get it, but I'd rather overspend for Karlos Dansby than for Gary Brackett. Sometimes you have to make your roster better, and retaining your own free agents doesn't do that.

 

Grigson hasn't had a lot of players to re-sign so far, so there isn't a lot of comparison to make yet. But Davis wound up being a little underpaid, IMO. Hilton and AC both have team-friendly structures. No cap issues with Grigson so far, but I had a major beef with keeping Freeney in 2012. 

May bad. I would have swore under oath that Garcon left under the reign of Polian. I stand corrected. The human memory is curious thing.

[#12.]

I don't see the similarities between Grigson and Polian.

Completely different methods, supplying talent for different offensive and defensive schemes, yet oddly resulting in a very similar type of team.

Ultimately, this team has the QB and offensive talent to at least compete in the manner the Manning era teams did. The difference is coaching - primarily Pep and the play calling - but Chuck also. Dungy ran a much more disciplined and professional team. They rarely beat themselves with stupidity.

In the end, with Grigson's players and better coaching, do I think you could at least play on the level of the Manning era teams? Yes. But with this defense and what you have in the trenches, when it comes to the playoffs, you will still run into all the same problems you've had for the past 18 years. It's time to move in a different direction. For many of us, when you think about Grigson and this era, it's not only four years of this. It's been the same storyline for the past 18 years. Give someone else a shot. There has to be someone out there who can build a defense in this town.

[Superman]

IDK if it's the negative being magnified as much as the underlying issue with this team being exposed.

 

Looks like you were having a posting issue. I responded before you posted the full version...

 

But to this part, the only way to get good young players is to either draft them or give up draft picks for them. You only have so much draft capital every year. It's true that he did a bad job drafting in 2013 (as an aside, that draft was pretty awful for most teams), but he's only had so many picks. He's 50/50 on trading for young players.

 

Going into 2013, we had more holes than you could draft for. There's just no question. Especially when you consider the fact that most drafted players struggle in their first year. We needed to fill some holes with vets who could play right away.

 

Missing on Werner and trading for Richardson have undermined the young talent base. That hasn't helped. It's really just two moves, though.

[Bubbz]

[mod edit]

Consequences for actions? Youre acting like Grigson shouldnt have reported the pats for cheating, as if something terrible would result from it, on the colts end. Give me a break. 

 

[mod edit]

Edited October 23, 2015 by Superman

[Superman]

Mod note: We aren't going to do Deflategate again, and we're definitely not going to cross into politics. Please consider this an advance warning. Thanks.

[Superman]

For many of us, when you think about Grigson and this era, it's not only four years of this. It's been the same storyline for the past 18 years. Give someone else a shot. There has to be someone out there who can build a defense in this town.

 

I agree with that. Right or wrong, the 'no defense, poor OL' thing pre-dates Grigson, and the frustration is about more than what he's done. 

[Bubbz]

Looks like you were having a posting issue. I responded before you posted the full version...

 

But to this part, the only way to get good young players is to either draft them or give up draft picks for them. You only have so much draft capital every year. It's true that he did a bad job drafting in 2013 (as an aside, that draft was pretty awful for most teams), but he's only had so many picks. He's 50/50 on trading for young players.

 

Going into 2013, we had more holes than you could draft for. There's just no question. Especially when you consider the fact that most drafted players struggle in their first year. We needed to fill some holes with vets who could play right away.

 

Missing on Werner and trading for Richardson have undermined the young talent base. That hasn't helped. It's really just two moves, though.

Yes, but you have Chapman, Hughes (also a trade that was bothced), and Thornton and Khaled may actually not even pan out. They could, but maybe not. I was trying to add it up in my head, and I think half of Grigsons draft picks are no longer on the team. 

 

As for being 50/50 on trades I think that's a little generous. You have: Trent trade, Hughes trade, Cam Johnson trade, montori hughes trade, and probably a few others i am missing. While the only good trades I can REMEMBER were Vontae, and trading up for Hilton. Its probably more like 33% trade success.

 

We have the oldest defense in the league, several players who dont fit that scheme have been tried to be plugged in. Our offensive line is bad. Mewhort is not even that good, honestly. Thornton holds a lot and is unathletic and dumb. Holmes is getting beat anytime hes in one on one. Reitz is a solid backup. AC I would give a grade of B- compared to all LTs in the league. He drafted Dorsett, who if he even turns out, is the same playing style of Hilton. Seems silly to me. A lot of his free agents have failed and been over paid. Landry, RJF, Cherlius, DHB, Avery, Johnson, Art Jones, Donald Thomas, Todd Herremans, Lance Louis, Franklin.... all were TERRIBLE players. DQ JAX is trash as well. I know youre high on Donald Thomas, but he was not even that great the like 2 games he played. He didnt even have a big enough sample size to judge, and yes a gm can be blamed for drafting players who are injury PRONE and are constantly getting injured and re-injured. Thats something a gm should recognize. 11 free agents have been utter failures, compared to just Frank Gore, and Walden (who is mediorcre and overpaid), Redding (who isnt here anymore because grigson like old guys and he was old as fack). I wont count toler, hes been trash lately and is always hurt.

 

Pretty much, Grigson has failed on way more free agents than he has had successes. He has failed on more trades than hes had success. He's so far failed on more 1st round draft picks than hes had success. I think he may even have more draft picks who are no longer on the team, than are on the team. Irregardless, grigson is below 50% in almost every category, and 60% = D grade. So yeah, I think he should be canned.

 

Lets not forget him trying to screw with the lineup and insert people in so hopefully they can prove themselves and he looks smart and some genius that can find diamonds in the rough. What and arrogant tool. Trying to make himself look smart before he worries about whats best for the team. Not many GMs should have that authority in my opinion, ESPECIALLY a young relatively inexperienced one like Grigson.

 

Hes also an arrogant jerk. You can tell by by the way he talks.

[Defjamz26]

Looks like you were having a posting issue. I responded before you posted the full version...

But to this part, the only way to get good young players is to either draft them or give up draft picks for them. You only have so much draft capital every year. It's true that he did a bad job drafting in 2013 (as an aside, that draft was pretty awful for most teams), but he's only had so many picks. He's 50/50 on trading for young players.

Going into 2013, we had more holes than you could draft for. There's just no question. Especially when you consider the fact that most drafted players struggle in their first year. We needed to fill some holes with vets who could play right away.

Missing on Werner and trading for Richardson have undermined the young talent base. That hasn't helped. It's really just two moves, though.

Yeah my phone posts my messages if the screen locks and I re-open it.

But yeah I see your point. Only so many guys you can draft in 4 years. Which I get. Plus you can't hit on every single pick.

I just felt he jumped the gun in 2013. He saw holes and went crazy trying to do a patch job. Like with Landry. You say Pagano likes interchangeable safeties but then sign a guy who can't cover (or tackle for that matter). Then you bring in Winston Justice who was bad. RJF was a rotational guy,etc...

If you're going to patch holes, at least get good players. Some of his signings have actually hurt the team. DHB dropped a bunch of balls that stalled drives, Justice had too many holding calls and gave up pressure, and Landry missed tackles and gave up a lot of YAC and long runs.

Not only was his 2013 draft a wash (Holmes and Thorton still pending), but his FA class was a was that year too. I think Toler is the only guy he signed from that class still on the team. He completely failed to upgrade the team at all, except for at RT with Cherilus. You can't strike out on an entire off-season. And the Richardson trade basically counts against 2013 as well since it was made early in the season.

Nothing undermines the young talent base more than striking out on an entire off-season. That point often gets masked by the Colts going 11-5 and winning a playoff game.

Bottom line I think we can both agree on with this whole Grigson thing is that he's left a lot on the table. And that might be what does him in.

[MacDee1975]

I don't see the similarities between Grigson and Polian. Polian never invested in FAs to the extent that Grigson has.  Polian was more focused on the draft and was pretty good at it.  While he wasn't always likable, Polian instilled organizational discipline that's currently missing.  They are similar in terms of investing more heavily in offense than defense but that's about it IMO.

 

Well, until 2007 he was.

[Jason_]

 A lot of his free agents have failed and been over paid. Landry, RJF, Cherlius, DHB, Avery, Johnson, Art Jones, Donald Thomas, Todd Herremans, Lance Louis, Franklin.... all were TERRIBLE players. DQ JAX is trash as well

 

That is comically wrong.  RJF, Cherilus, Avery, Johnson, Jones and Franklin were NOT terrible.  Your hate of Grigson is distorting your views.

 

Hes also an arrogant jerk. You can tell by by the way he talks.

 

 

only if you already hate him

[SteelCityColt]

Lol.

And how does my information technology experience and degree prove or disprove my opinions on a Colts board?

What field do you work in Mr. Bellyaching?

 

Gastroenterology.

[Bubbz]

That is comically wrong. RJF, Cherilus, Avery, Johnson, Jones and Franklin were NOT terrible. Your hate of Grigson is distorting your views.

only if you already hate him

Ok terrible might be a stretch, how about under performing? Is that fair enough or still too

Much?

[Jonathan24]

If Grigs let Chuck control his own staff I think we would be in better shape but whoever is the O-Line coach is not developing as fast enough for grigs draft strategy to work.