Is Grigson a "Control Freak"...And Does It Matter

[crazycolt1]

wth does this mean?

 

are you trying to say circumstantial?

Sorry, we don't need spelling police. We are not being graded as far as I know?

[DougDew]

None of us know for sure, but the point is there shouldn't be this type of distraction, and it should have been stopped before it was allowed to escalate.

I don't think we have all these reports, if there isn't at least a hint of truth to the rumors.

Its hard to stop something if it is being continually led by outside agitators. There is very little control over what they say.

And it may very well be that the Oline decisions were made at the top. Maybe that was the best place for them to be made considering the background of the people closer to the field. Maybe the Colts won a few more games because of it.

Again, I want to know what happened when Arians was here.

[Superman]

There's zero evidence for it so far.

I would have agreed a week ago. After Holder's article, I think there's legs to this story.

[Superman]

Grigs needs to keep his nose out of so much personnel decisions and let the coaches do (or at least try to do) their jobs.

He doesn't have anywhere near the track record as Na'Polian, so he can't try to act like him and allow his ego to run things.

Sit down, Grigs.

I agree in principle. The question is whether Irsay feels the same way.

[crazycolt1]

Yes, it matters.

How can the coaches do their jobs and get the most out of the players if Grigson is interfering with their decisions.

Grigson should be concentrating on fixing his own shortcomings like paying significant money on over-the-hill players who are running on empty (or close to it)...not to mention reviewing his scouting staff and weeding out the people who have come up with duds or contributed very little.

Quit being so dramatic. How do any of us know what Grigson has done or hasn't done? Who are all these so called sources? Not one name has been linked to any of this. Just speculation and rumor is all there is. Media hounds use anything they can think of to get attention no matter if there is any truth to it.

[Corndog]

Bingo! I think the starting lineup at the beginning of the season is what is feeding this stuff.

And because Grigs signed Herremans and made the comments about Louis, we assumed he wanted them to start over players that Chuck thought were better.

How do we know that Chuck wanted JM at LG, HT at RT (BTW,which wasn't possible because he was injured) and JR at RT right off at the beginning of the season?

They played two games, they failed, and the lineup changed when HT was healthy.

Where's the Grigs led conspiracy here?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/28/chuck-pagano-on-new-look-ol-we-just-felt-like-we-needed-a-change/

 

 

The previous game Pagano made a shot at the o-line, a clear shot at Grigson.  Then the next game he makes the overhaul with those changes, saying the changes needed to be made.  If there is a "conspiracy theory" it's not coming out of nowhere, there is evidence, even if it's not strong enough for you to believe.  This article is from NBC sports, and has links to ESPN with quotes from Pagano.  This would be that ESPN and NBC are in collusion. 

 

Also another article from Stampede Blue, written by someone who even claimed to be a Grigson apologist at one point. 

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/10/4/9449181/the-case-against-ryan-grigson

[crazycolt1]

Its hard to stop something if it is being continually led by outside agitators. There is very little control over what they say.

And it may very well be that the Oline decisions were made at the top. Maybe that was the best place for them to be made considering the background of the people closer to the field. Maybe the Colts won a few more games because of it.

Again, I want to know what happened when Arians was here.

Arians is not going there. Him and Pagano are very close friends and I cant see Arians even making any comment either way. What happened 2 1/2 years ago has no bearing IMO. I think you are 100% correct in assuming this crap is started by outside agitators. All this speculation and rumor is exactly that.

[DougDew]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/28/chuck-pagano-on-new-look-ol-we-just-felt-like-we-needed-a-change/

 

 

The previous game Pagano made a shot at the o-line, a clear shot at Grigson.  Then the next game he makes the overhaul with those changes, saying the changes needed to be made.  If there is a "conspiracy theory" it's not coming out of nowhere, there is evidence, even if it's not strong enough for you to believe.  This article is from NBC sports, and has links to ESPN with quotes from Pagano.  This would be that ESPN and NBC are in collusion. 

 

Also another article from Stampede Blue, written by someone who even claimed to be a Grigson apologist at one point. 

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2015/10/4/9449181/the-case-against-ryan-grigson

Show me the quote that Chuck was "taking a clear shot at Grigson". That's simply their opinion. Show me the quote that is the basis of that opinion.

I read the articles and can't find it.

[ztboiler]

I posted this in one of the other topics of similar discussion, but if really fits better here...People might not like it, but its a relevant, unexplored angle on the topic.

 

If the case against Grigson as one who is delving into what should be coaching decisions - is seen as firming up with these reports (not saying it is), why are we not spending as much or more time on the question of "What coach worth his salt sets there and takes it while trudging along as a puppet"?  Especially a coach with 3 seasons of 11-5 in tow and 3 playoff wins?

 

From my point of view, if Grigson has wrestled coaching decision authority away from Pagano, in what is designed as a complementary shared power relationship, then that is more condemning of Pagano than it is of Grigson.  Pagano shouldn't be painted as some kind of victim here.  If you don't have enough clout to keep your authority in this business then it rightly goes to those who do.  That may seem a little bit harsh, and I only say it that way for effect, but the principle needs a little room to breathe before everybody assigns roles of villain and victim.

 

In fairness to Grigson, Irsay and Pagano, this whole thing is muddled by circumstance.  Pagano was sick, roles had to change.  Sometimes things are never quite the same after that.

[ColtRider]

I agree in principle. The question is whether Irsay feels the same way.

And if he does? (not putting you on the spot, just interested in your take) And if he doesn't? Then what? (this is the biggest ? for me!)

[DougDew]

Arians is not going there. Him and Pagano are very close friends and I cant see Arians even making any comment either way. What happened 2 1/2 years ago has no bearing IMO. I think you are 100% correct in assuming this crap is started by outside agitators. All this speculation and rumor is exactly that.

"Multiple NFL Sources" are confidential (otherwise we would already know who said what). Assuming there are actual sources.

Arians would have nothing to worry about. Especially if what he recalled defended his friend Pagano.

And nobody has to ask Arians. Ask the same people who consititute "multiple NFL sources". I assume they are a good source of information about the Colts...or else they wouldn't have been asked in the first place.

[csmopar]

Sorry, we don't need spelling police. We are not being graded as far as I know?

 

wasn't trying to be spelling popo, I wanted to make sure I was understanding what he was saying

[DougDew]

In fairness to Grigson, Irsay and Pagano, this whole thing is muddled by circumstance.  Pagano was sick, roles had to change.  Sometimes things are never quite the same after that.

Exactly. Compound that with hiring an OC who did not really have great experience yet, and the HC who is a former DC, and you get a muddling of roles.

What's happening is that the muddling of roles flies in the face of what most people think the roles should be...so they conclude it is a problem.

Also, the HC has a different goal than the GM. There is a built in rift. The HC always wants to win now (his contract depends on it) and the GM is a bit more concerned about the future.

If it comes down to the "meddling" impacting only the LG,C, RG positions, then I don't blame Grigson one bit.

All of the players are a bit of a grab bag of similar talent. A coach should just coach the similar players and not whine about it. If he could coach, the results should not be notably different. The GM has to see if there is one player amongst the lot that shines, so he knows whether or not he has to spend money or draft picks next season.

[ColtRider]

Exactly. Compound that with hiring an OC who did not really have great experience yet, and the HC who is a former DC, and you get a muddling of roles.What's happening is that the muddling of roles flies in the face of what most people think the roles should be...so they conclude it is a problem.Also, the HC has a different goal than the GM. There is a built in rift. The HC always wants to win now (his contract depends on it) and the GM is a bit more concerned about the future.If it comes down to the "meddling" impacting only the LG,C, RG positions, then I don't blame Grigson one bit.All of the players are a bit of a grab bag of similar talent. A coach should just coach the similar players and not whine about it. If he could coach, the results should not be notably different. The GM has to see if there is one player amongst the lot that shines, so he knows whether or not he has to spend money or draft picks next season.

I get it. Agree with you to a degree as well. But this whole thing leads to ONE question. Why did the players call their meeting? We get that info, and the answer is written on the wall for everyone to see. Sooner or later it comes out.

[indyagent17]

i have managed insurance agents for a long time and its a matter of teaching not meddling.  Micro managing is most evident when a manager above a manager tries to involve him or herself into the daily workings of the local manager's employees.

 

Grigson should be involved in the day to day functions of the team but not to the point of micromanaging Pagano and his staff.

 

This creates unrest with the players and coaches on who is actually making the decisions or how much power a coach has.

 

Control freaks do not do well in the league except a few notables but even those wear thin on the players and fans (ie Jerry Jones)

[crazycolt1]

"Multiple NFL Sources" are confidential (otherwise we would already know who said what). Assuming there are actual sources.

Arians would have nothing to worry about. Especially if what he recalled defended his friend Pagano.

And nobody has to ask Arians. Ask the same people who consititute "multiple NFL sources". I assume they are a good source of information about the Colts...or else they wouldn't have been asked in the first place.

My question is where does the truth lie after the media hound puts in their own two cents in? It is pretty common for the media to over dramatize a simple statement and make it more sensational than it really is. After this off season I have realized that so called sources are not truthful or dependable because of the medias slant to have more hits than the next media hound.

[DougDew]

I don't think we have all these reports, if there isn't at least a hint of truth to the rumors.

And I just wanted to ask whether or not there have really been "all these reports" or if it just hasn't been the same single report spread around multiple websites and articles...you know..the multiple authors just cutting and pasting what one person said a while ago.

[DougDew]

I get it. Agree with you to a degree as well. But this whole thing leads to ONE question. Why did the players call their meeting? We get that info, and the answer is written on the wall for everyone to see. Sooner or later it comes out.

I thought it was a pretty common thing when the team isn't playing well, and they think it will help.

I've never heard of other teams calling meetings because they heard rumors the GM is making oline decisions

[Btown_Colt]

Its hard to stop something if it is being continually led by outside agitators. There is very little control over what they say.

And it may very well be that the Oline decisions were made at the top. Maybe that was the best place for them to be made considering the background of the people closer to the field. Maybe the Colts won a few more games because of it.

Again, I want to know what happened when Arians was here.

Well, if Irsay is behind this and is/was on board with Grigson deciding who to play, then why don't he just come out and say it? I'm pretty sure it would put the rumors to bed. People may not like it, but Irsay is boss and what he says go.

You may be right, maybe Grigson was the best person to make the oline decisions, but apparently, there are people/players within or close to the organization that disagree. And not just disagree, but disagree to the point that they are leaking information to reporters every week.

[ColtRider]

I thought it was a pretty common thing when the team isn't playing well, and they think it will help.I've never heard of other teams calling meetings because they heard rumors the GM is making oline decisions

Gotcha. And I understand. It just seems very strange to me that after this meeting, the OC is gone days later.

[Jason_]

 

From my point of view, if Grigson has wrestled coaching decision authority away from Pagano, in what is designed as a complementary shared power relationship, then that is more condemning of Pagano than it is of Grigson.  

 

I'd say that there's only going to be so much that Pagano can do to try to get that authority.  But when push comes to shove, the bottom line is that Grigson is Pagano's boss, and Irsay is Grigson's.  So if Grigson starts taking authority away from Pagano (or never gave that authority in the first place...all of the rumors that have come out so far seem to indicate this is only happening on the offensive side of the ball) and Irsay is supportive of Grigson doing so, then Pagano can put up as much of a fight as he wants (which will obviously only be done behind closed doors) but ultimately he can't force Grigson/Irsay to change their minds.

[DougDew]

Gotcha. And I understand. It just seems very strange to me that after this meeting, the OC is gone days later.

Then that tells me that the team simply concluded that the OC was a problem, then told the HC.

I don't see where that points to Grigson hiring the OC over Pagano's wishes 2 years ago and the team squabbling over it all season.

[jaybird95]

I think players starting to speak up (albeit anonymous) and players meeting only to deal with this is sufficient "circunstancial" evidence.

 

 

**BRADY***

 

No, that's a conjecture.

[jaybird95]

The evidence is dorsett coming in and being the #4 WR.  I think duron didn't make the roster because Grigs didn't want the egg on his face.

 

That's a conjecture.

[ColtRider]

Then that tells me that the team simply concluded that the OC was a problem, then told the HC.I don't see where that points to Grigson hiring the OC over Pagano's wishes 2 years ago and the team squabbling over it all season.

Okay. Yeah. I see what you're getting at. Here's another query to all of this in addition to the players meeting, OC fired, you have Irsay & Grigson squabbling/arguing after one of recent games. So, where does all of this lead? I'm trying to put this whole picture into one focal point and it's lacking the final piece. It just may be lying on that player meeting room floor. That's all I'm saying.

[jaybird95]

I would have agreed a week ago. After Holder's article, I think there's legs to this story.

 

That's all a conjecture. Separate what we know from what we don't. Is it likely, yes, is it confirmed yet, not at all. If someone can find me a primary source stating Grigson controls the line-up, I will agree.

[DougDew]

Okay. Yeah. I see what you're getting at. Here's another query to all of this in addition to the players meeting, OC fired, you have Irsay & Grigson squabbling/arguing after one of recent games. So, where does all of this lead? I'm trying to put this whole picture into one focal point and it's lacking the final piece. It just may be lying on that player meeting room floor. That's all I'm saying.

Ok..breaking new ground here...to me, the heated discussion points to Irsay being behind the hiring of Pep, and Grigson pleading to him that its okay to fire him and elevate Chud if the O keeps up its crap.

Then the players only meeting shows support to let the OC go. The losing record and the O's dysfunction splayed out on national TV provides adequate documentation. Then it happens.

But that's conjecture too, but it seems to make as much sense as Grigson demanding that Joe Reitz not start.

[ColtRider]

That's all a conjecture. Separate what we know from what we don't. Is it likely, yes, is it confirmed yet, not at all. If someone can find me a primary source stating Grigson controls the line-up, I will agree.

Pretty sure this aligns itself like the Andrew Luck injury. You know it's there, but to what extent? Confirmation is a tough thing in the NFL. Knowing exactly what to say at times keeps the opposition at bay. Same thing here. Who will know exactly? It ain't gonna be us and the media if the Colts do not want to divulge.

[Btown_Colt]

And I just wanted to ask whether or not there have really been "all these reports" or if it just hasn't been the same single report spread around multiple websites and articles...you know..the multiple authors just cutting and pasting what one person said a while ago.

First, I don't disagree with any of the points you have made. And I honestly don't care who is making what decisions. If Irsay wants Grigson making those calls, fine. I can deal with that.

I just want the colts to have success, be competitive, and win.

I get that reporters can twist, distort, and fabricate what they have been told. I understand. I just can't believe that 8 weeks into a 3-5 season, after firing the OC, after all these "rumors" that Irsay hasn't spoke up.

I simply feel that if there wasn't at least a shred of truth to any of this, Irsay would have already spoke up. Surely he wouldn't want these false rumors hanging over his team?

[Corndog]

Show me the quote that Chuck was "taking a clear shot at Grigson". That's simply their opinion. Show me the quote that is the basis of that opinion.

I read the articles and can't find it.

While the Jets clearly frustrated Luck with a variety of blitzes and sometimes just by simply overpowering them in one-on-one battles in the trenches, Pagano hinted that Luck has to overcome his line’s shortcomings.

“[That has] been the case for three years now, hasn’t it?” Pagano asked. “He should be more than comfortable dealing with it.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/22/frustrated-pagano-tough-on-luck-after-loss/

 

It was in the Jets postgame press conference when asked by a reporter if Pagano would put some of Luck's performance on a poor showing from the offensive line, that was his response.  We should all remember that quote, it was played extensively on the NFL network and ESPN.  

If you are really going to argue against the opinion of 90% of the sports media, I don't think your going to win.  Opinions, sure, but educated opinions from people who scouted, played, coached and some even former GMs in the NFL.  Something you and I have no experience in at all.  Fact is, I will trust their opinions over most of our own.  Also, where there is smoke, there's usually a fire.  

[ColtRider]

Ok..breaking new ground here...to me, the heated discussion points to Irsay being behind the hiring of Pep, and Grigson pleading to him that its okay to fire him if the O keeps up its crap.But that's conjecture too.

Yep. We can sit here and discuss all the issues that the Colts face right now where this is concerned, and it still may be correct or incorrect. I just hope that the changes that have been made recently by whomever serve as a catapult to more Ws this season and beyond. Because the bottom line of it all, is exactly that.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

darn it!

 

Now nfl.com is running the story too. This is no good, and it has probably reach a level where Irsay has to gain some control for the turmoil news - true or false:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000574231/article/report-chuck-pagano-forced-into-lineup-decisions

[DougDew]

While the Jets clearly frustrated Luck with a variety of blitzes and sometimes just by simply overpowering them in one-on-one battles in the trenches, Pagano hinted that Luck has to overcome his line’s shortcomings.

“[That has] been the case for three years now, hasn’t it?” Pagano asked. He should be more than comfortable dealing with it.”

It was in the Jets postgame press conference when asked by a reporter if Pagano would put some of Luck's performance on a poor showing from the offensive line, that was his response.  We should all remember that quote, it was played extensively on the NFL network and ESPN.  If you are really going to argue against the opinion of 90% of the sports media, I don't think your going to win.  Opinions, sure, but educated opinions from people who scouted, played, coached and some even former GMs in the NFL.  Something you and I have no experience in at all.  Fact is, I will trust their opinions over most of our own.  Also, where there is smoke, there's usually a fire.

Yes, yes, yes...I figured that lone quote was the basis.

He was talking about Andrew's performance, not Grigson's as GM. The sports media doofusses interpreted that as a shot to Grigson because the Jets game was the time where the "Kravitz Rift" between the two was fresh. So the media doofusses were looking at his comments through that narrow prism.... looking for soap opera fodder between Pags and Grigs, because that was the narrative at the time.

NO. It was no a shot at Grigson. He wasn't taking "shots" at anybody.

Pagano mentioned the three year thing, and "he should used to it by now", as a way of saying that Andrew needs to figure out a way to get the ball out of his hands quicker. He should be checking down more, and he should have figured it out after three years of seeing the same thing...meaning its not the first time he's been under pressure.

Pags saw in Andrew what we finally noticed a few weeks ago. But at the time, nobody knew that and everybody was simply criticizing the Oline, and Grigs was responsible for the oline, so they interpret those statements as a shot at Grigson. They were wrong.

[DougDew]

darn it!

 

Now nfl.com is running the story too. This is no good, and it has probably reach a level where Irsay has to gain some control for the turmoil news - true or false:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000574231/article/report-chuck-pagano-forced-into-lineup-decisions

So the NFL reports the same Holder article. Please don't think of this as a new source.

Cutting and pasting someone else's work.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

So the NFL reports the same Holder article. Please don't think of this as a new source.

Cutting and pasting someone else's work.

 

Yeah, they cite Holder, but the point is that it is now national news, not "just" local Indy news. Not good.

[Corndog]

Yes, yes, yes...I figured that lone quote was the basis.

He was talking about Andrew's performance, not Grigson's as GM. The sports media doofusses interpreted that as a shot to Grigson because the Jets game was the time where the "Kravitz Rift" between the two was fresh. So the media doofusses were looking at his comments through that narrow prism.... looking for soap opera fodder between Pags and Grigs, because that was the narrative at the time.

NO. It was no a shot at Grigson. He wasn't taking "shots" at anybody.

Pagano mentioned the three year thing, and "he should used to it by now", as a way of saying that Andrew needs to figure out a way to get the ball out of his hands quicker. He should be checking down more, and he should have figured it out after three years of seeing the same thing...meaning its not the first time he's been under pressure.

Pags saw in Andrew what we finally noticed a few weeks ago. But at the time, nobody knew that and everybody was simply criticizing the Oline, and Grigs was responsible for the oline, so they interpret those statements as a shot at Grigson. They were wrong.

How is saying the o-line has been poor for 3 seasons not a shot at Grigson?  It's Grigson's job to find the right personnel for the team and if there is a glaring weakness for 3 seasons that hasn't been improved it's on the GM, plain and simple. 

 

However, I agree about your points including Luck.  Pagano was still saying that Luck should have done better in this situation as he has in the past.  It's not new territory for him and he should be prepared for it. He needs to get the ball out quicker.  He was talking about Luck at that moment, so the comment was really directed at both.  

 

On another note, the seeing the same thing over and over again was a quote I read from Pagano in the newspaper today and why he said it was time for Pep to go. 

[DougDew]

How is saying the o-line has been poor for 3 seasons not a shot at Grigson?  It's Grigson's job to find the right personnel for the team and if there is a glaring weakness for 3 seasons that hasn't been improved it's on the GM, plain and simple. 

 

However, I agree about your points including Luck.  Pagano was still saying that Luck should have done better in this situation as he has in the past.  It's not new territory for him and he should be prepared for it. He needs to get the ball out quicker.  He was talking about Luck at that moment, so the comment was really directed at both.  

 

On another note, the seeing the same thing over and over again was a quote I read from Pagano in the newspaper today and why he said it was time for Pep to go.

He didn't say the oline was poor.

He said Luck has been in the NFL for three years, and NFL defenses have applied NFL pressure for three years, so he should be used to it and not react like a rookie.

[DougDew]

double post

[jvan1973]

He didn't say the oline was poor.

He said Luck has been in the NFL for three years, and NFL defenses have applied NFL pressure for three years, so he should be used to it and not react like a rookie.

No he didn't. He said it's been like that for three years, he should be used to it

[ColtRider]

DD, let me ask you one more question, brother fan. If it turns out that Irsay & Grigson have been on the same page all along, what's the analytical solution? I think there isn't any beyond the conjectured point of Jimmy realizing he made a mistake or didn't make a mistake. The ultimate forced public perception is to let Grigson go if it's proven that he meddled with or without Irsay's blessing. Right? Just throwing around some scenarios that could be a good/bad directive as to what's been going on with the organizational disarray.