Interesting comments from Grigson...

[buccolts]

I may be wrong about Trent Richardson's age JPK, but I am not wrong about Trent's lack of peripheral vision or failure to hit the crease which I readily admit I didn't say above, but I have said in other threads regarding Richardson.

Wait, you MAY be wrong about Richardson's age, but when Grigson doesn't come clean enough for you there's a problem

Also, in an earlier retort you said that no one cares about 2012, only about 2015. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought your point was that we should only care about today. If that assumption is correct why did you bring Richardson into this conversation to begin with.

[csmopar]

So if being 3rd in receiving yards in your team is slacking...... what's your definition of everyone after him in yards such as Fleener & Allen?

Well first, they weren't being used in Pep scheme.....

Second, heck yes AJ is slacking....there has been numerous times that he's dropped passes...numerous...there was one came where he literally dropped all 8 targets. Though a couple were high and uncatchable.. how about last week when he dropped 2....wide open, in his hands passes?

[TKnight24]

Well first, they weren't being used in Pep scheme.....

Second, heck yes AJ is slacking....there has been numerous times that he's dropped passes...numerous...there was one came where he literally dropped all 8 targets. Though a couple were high and uncatchable.. how about last week when he dropped 2....wide open, in his hands passes?

Yes, he drops passes. But he's still is in 3rd which makes it even worse. He has more yards than the next leader in receiving with less catches. I don't think anyone expected a top tier year from AJ. He's doing just enough to help, and that's fine with me. The big plays should be coming from the young guys, not the guy on his way out the NFL

AJ just needs to be a chain mover and solid option. Don't need him lighting it up every game

[BOTT]

AKA good coaching and execution. It's a simple adjustment that was made in preseason in the middle of the first quarter, and then once the lights went on, everything changed back again.

 

Two separate issues, but the reckless offensive approach only exacerbated the substandard protection. And that in particular goes on Luck, Pep and Pagano.

it goes more to Pagano more than anyone. He hired Arians knowing exactly what his philosophy is and followed that up with Pep....a guy who has no philosophy as far as I can tell.

[BOTT]

Well, even if you don't want to give Grigson marks for trying (like getting Cherilus, Donald Thomas etc. extending Castanzo, and drafting Mewhort, Holmes, Thornton etc.), the truth is that there is an OL epidemic around the league with more college offenses playing spread. Rarely do they have to hold on to a block for more than 2 seconds before moving on to the next target. They can't do that in the NFL and the learning curve is steep. Even Brady realizes that with his team's OL injuries and shuffling, he has to get rid of it faster and our QB can be expected to do the same.

 

I have said this before and will say it again. When you bring in different personnel and you still get the same results, it is time to take a hard look at the OL coaching, IMO. In the NFL, you do not have too many offenses that are thriving with a QB holding on to the ball close to 4 seconds. If you try to do too much of it, you have injuries like those of Big Ben and Andrew Luck (or Kaep or RG3). So calling short routes is a necessity, not just scheming around deficiencies.

Who the hell gets marks for trying? Everyone tries. Anyway, it wasn't even a swipe at Grigson, just pointing out the fact that the line has been substandard for the most part.

Brady's offense is designed to get the ball out quick no matter if the the Oline is banged up or not. Luck has never played with that type of philosophy. So to expect that to happen consistently under Arians or Pep isn't realistic. Who was Big Ben's OC when he was getting pummeled? Bruce Arians.

Although they were just talking on ESPN about all the hits Brady has been taking this season due to the Oline.....so maybe it's not quite as easy as u believe.

[Superman]

it goes more to Pagano more than anyone. He hired Arians knowing exactly what his philosophy is and followed that up with Pep....a guy who has no philosophy as far as I can tell.

 

Lots of teams run Air Coryell offenses, many with great success. It's not my favorite philosophy, but let's not act like it's fundamentally flawed and should never be used in the NFL. That's where you're better off talking about how Grigson hasn't built a good line in four years, because that's what's needed to run a good Air Coryell.

 

Pep did a lot of good stuff. What's so maddening is that he wouldn't stick with the good stuff. Like you said, it's impossible to discern what his philosophy was supposed to be. The offense lacked a definable identity with him, but the concepts were fine. Mostly...

 

Luck deserves some blame for not playing well. Pep put the flawed gameplans together and made the bad play calls. Everyone knows Pagano isn't an offensive coach, but ultimately the buck stops with him. But if I were doing a blame pie, it would be mostly Pep.

[BOTT]

Lots of teams run Air Coryell offenses, many with great success. It's not my favorite philosophy, but let's not act like it's fundamentally flawed and should never be used in the NFL. That's where you're better off talking about how Grigson hasn't built a good line in four years, because that's what's needed to run a good Air Coryell.

 

Pep did a lot of good stuff. What's so maddening is that he wouldn't stick with the good stuff. Like you said, it's impossible to discern what his philosophy was supposed to be. The offense lacked a definable identity with him, but the concepts were fine. Mostly...

 

Luck deserves some blame for not playing well. Pep put the flawed gameplans together and made the bad play calls. Everyone knows Pagano isn't an offensive coach, but ultimately the buck stops with him. But if I were doing a blame pie, it would be mostly Pep.

Where did you get the idea that I believe the Air Coryell offense is flawed and should never be used???

[crazycolt1]

Where did you get the idea that I believe the Air Coryell offense is flawed and should never be used???

The only thing I can say about the Air Coryell offense is it's no different than any other offense in the sense that you need a defense along with it to win championships. It is exciting to watch but at what cost to the defense? The defense stays on the field too much and wears out in the 2nd half. I would rather see a ball control offense that gives the other teams offense less time to beat you. Ball control (clock management) and time of possession seems to work the best. The other team cant score if they don't have the ball.

[BOTT]

The only thing I can say about the Air Coryell offense is it's no different than any other offense in the sense that you need a defense along with it to win championships. It is exciting to watch but at what cost to the defense? The defense stays on the field too much and wears out in the 2nd half. I would rather see a ball control offense that gives the other teams offense less time to beat you. Ball control (clock management) and time of possession seems to work the best. The other team cant score if they don't have the ball.

Lots of coaches have been influenced by that offense....including Norv Turner and Tom Moore. I just don't/didn't like Arian's version....or more accurately, his version of the Tom Moore offense.

[Superman]

Where did you get the idea that I believe the Air Coryell offense is flawed and should never be used???

 

Lots of coaches have been influenced by that offense....including Norv Turner and Tom Moore. I just don't/didn't like Arian's version....or more accurately, his version of the Tom Moore offense.

 

I was under the impression you had a problem with the offense itself, as opposed to Arians' use of it. I get it now. I had issues with Arians' gameplans in 2012 also, and said as much.

 

However, when Pagano came back, the offense made some significant adjustments. We played Houston in Week 15 and got torn apart by JJ Watt, then the Chiefs game the next week featured some of the worst play calling imaginable, with Luck looking as bad as he ever has. But when we played Houston again in Week 17 with Pagano back, and there was lots of quick rhythm passing and a commitment to the run game. I wonder if Arians' offense might have looked different at times with Pagano on the sidelines. 

 

Still, Arians wasn't/isn't my favorite play caller. Really good head coach, though.

[Coffeedrinker]

See my previous reply above to CC1. If you disagree with my point of view fine, that's your prerogative naturally.  Our offensive line is our biggest stumbling block or impediment to a Championship right now & the #1 reason why Luck is hurt. That's on both Pagano & Grigson. Anybody who denies that fact is living in the land of make believe. Either get better o-line coaching or stop drafting surplus WRs. It's as simple as that. 

 

"Luck should be used to pressure by now" --Pagano & he wonders why he's on the hot seat really? 

 

BPA [best Player Available] doesn't always work Grigson & if you keep signing free agent veterans from Philadelphia like Todd Herremans applying a band aid to a much larger problem, the Colts will win nothing worthwhile here under your tenure. I wanna win Lombardi trophies not division titles & the inevitable playoffs exit. 

Nothing in the bolded part is true.

 

As far as best player available, that is the only proven draft stragety to work for long, continued to success.

[chrisfarley]

Did Dakich ask Grigson why we went with Trent Richardson for so long?  Kept playing him when it was clear he was awful?  I have a feeling it was a directive from upstairs because I just don't think Pagano is that stupid. He might have asked him but I missed that part if he did.

[crazycolt1]

Did Dakich ask Grigson why we went with Trent Richardson for so long?  Kept playing him when it was clear he was awful?  I have a feeling it was a directive from upstairs because I just don't think Pagano is that stupid. He might have asked him but I missed that part if he did.

Why should he ask a question that has no bearing and hasn't for three years. Three years past and your still stuck on that? Maybe it's time to get a little more current? If that is all you can come with, it's sad.

[chrisfarley]

Why should he ask a question that has no bearing and hasn't for three years. Three years past and your still stuck on that? Maybe it's time to get a little more current? If that is all you can come with, it's sad.

This was billed as the ask-all tell-all interview, why wouldn't it get asked?, and it probably did. Whether you think it's relevant or not is completely irrelevant to me.

[bellboys]

I really don't care what he has to say. All I need to know is when is Irsay  going to tell him to clean out his office and get out of the his building.

[DougDew]

A professional person, like an NFL GM, is not going to publically criticize any player.  It would be childish and beneath them.

 

The fact that Grigson does not call out players or coaches, and even speaks words of nuanced support for someone he's even cut, does not mean that he is "hiding" something or not coming clean.

 

People have resented Grigson for three years because he doesn't make big splashes in FA, and doesn't mortgage the future on aging overpriced Olinemen.  This season just allows their resentment to sound a little bit objective because the team is 4 and 5.

[crazycolt1]

This was billed as the ask-all tell-all interview, why wouldn't it get asked?, and it probably did. Whether you think it's relevant or not is completely irrelevant to me.

That's because you have yet to have anything relevant to add to the forum.

[rkresslein]

Luck is hurt because he holds the ball and then takes off running. He is just as much at fault for getting hurt. So I guess you think the first 3 years of Grigson and Pagano were bad? But like a lot, you want heads to roll because you want it without knowing what the end results would be. I guess GMs and head coaches are grown on trees and just go out and pick you a couple.

Luck is hurt because he has never had a line in front of him and he does what every winner does and makes things happen, whether he's throwing on the run (which happens way to much, throwing from his knees (just about on his knees) or running for his life. 

You also need to discount the first year because that was all Arians and had nothing to do with Luck. And "NO" they don't grow on trees but neither do you keep on watering a dead tree. Why don't you address the fact that Pagano has not put a Defense together which is suppose to be his prowess?? It's time to move on and find some individuals who can get build this team to a real dynasty; they have the potential as long as Luck is on the team. The trial and error period is over for Pagano and it is time to solve the error by doing away with the Pagano Era.

[Defjamz26]

After listening to the whole 37 minute interview, here are my thoughts:

Overall, I think he gives a lot of "general" responses that sound really good to the un trained ear. It takes me back to the episode of Hard Knocks where O Brian was teaching the team how to respond to the media when asked tough questions.

Majority of his responses were long winded and consisted of "nah that's just not true, we're all on the same page, sure there are some disagreements but it's all passion, everyone has the same goal, etc....". The guy would ask him a simple question and he would give a two and a half minute response. But that was the general over view. Here are some specific points I wanted to discuss:

- When talking about the Hamilton hire he says specifically "Chuck handpicked his staff" obviously referring to when he was hired in 2012. But a few seconds later he says "WE were both on board with the Pep hire and it was a no-brainier". He did that a few times during the interview, going from "me" or "him" to "We". Which I don't get. Was it a no brainier for Chuck to hire Pep, or Grigson?

-I thought his responses about the OL were comical. He said he thought continuity was the key to a successful O-Line. Yet Chuck was just saying they're sticking with Harrison at Center even though Holmes has been the starting center since the middle of last season. And let's not forget the Center issue last year with Harrison, Shipley, and Holmes. And he was talking about how he drafted Holmes, but he's now essentially "benched". I'm not blaming him for that because it's a coaching decision but he clearly doesn't know what's going on there.

-Also, I now see where Colts fans get this idea that just not getting blown out by a good team is okay. Granted I felt like that with the Patriots. But Dan asked him if he thought he had built a team that could compete with other good teams. His response was "Yeah we just came off the win against Denver. And then the game against the Panthers we were in it, and against the Pats we were right there, so....". That's an unacceptable attitude to have as a GM on what you think is a Super Bowl team. To take solace in losing a close game is terrible IMO. And he basically put his foot in his mouth with that comment because he didn't mention the games against Buffalo and NY. This team is built to beat good teams in his opinion, but also lost games that weren't as close to Buffalo, NY, and the Daimts who aren't even good

-Whoever posted that article where other league higher ups said he has had the easiest job but walks around like he invented the football was right. He's quick in the interview to point out specific successes and adversity they overcame, but won't allude to any of his failures in details. He loves pointing out the major comeback at KC, but when asked about trades he just said "yeah there's been some failures"

Overall this interview didn't do anything to change the perception on Grigson. I'll admit that now I believe the story that we weren't looking at Chud as an OC candidate, but I would like to know then why he was hired almost immediately after he was hired as the "Special Assistant to the HC"? Grigs claimed in the interview that they didn't get him because they were going to make an OC change. But yeah, I still feel the same way.

[chrisfarley]

That's because you have yet to have anything relevant to add to the forum.

that made about as much sense as most of your high and mighty posts

[crazycolt1]

that made about as much sense as most of your high and mighty posts

Is there a point you are trying to make by bringing up old and stale news? Maybe a little something more up to date would work? The TRich fiasco is long gone and most of the forum members have moved on. With what is going on with the Colts in the present I guess you seemed to be stuck in the past.

[chrisfarley]

Is there a point you are trying to make by bringing up old and stale news? Maybe a little something more up to date would work? The TRich fiasco is long gone and most of the forum members have moved on. With what is going on with the Colts in the present I guess you seemed to be stuck in the past.

I haven't mentioned TRich in a long time so generalizing my posts as "stuck in the past" is way off.  I only mentioned it (as I stated before) because of the fact that Grigson was doing a VERY rare interview with the media and no questions were off-limits according to DD.  So why don't you get off the notion that I am stuck in the past?  Why, because you are fixated on one post. Time to move on CC1.

[crazycolt1]

I haven't mentioned TRich in a long time so generalizing my posts as "stuck in the past" is way off.  I only mentioned it (as I stated before) because of the fact that Grigson was doing a VERY rare interview with the media and no questions were off-limits according to DD.  So why don't you get off the notion that I am stuck in the past?  Why, because you are fixated on one post. Time to move on CC1.

Exactly. A lot complain about Grigson not being more verbal with interviews and when he does most want to complain about that.

[chrisfarley]

Exactly.

Why don't you concentrate your negative commentary on the off-topic and absurd.  Oh wait, that might be self-deprecating.

[crazycolt1]

Why don't you concentrate your negative commentary on the off-topic and absurd.  Oh wait, that might be self-deprecating.

Negative comment? Only to those who are negative minded.

[chrisfarley]

Negative comment? Only to those who are negative minded.

The mind-numbing extent to which you exert your finger-tip negativity is exhausting. 

[crazycolt1]

The mind-numbing extent to which you exert your finger-tip negativity is exhausting. 

You should know.

[crazycolt1]

Yes, he drops passes. But he's still is in 3rd which makes it even worse. He has more yards than the next leader in receiving with less catches. I don't think anyone expected a top tier year from AJ. He's doing just enough to help, and that's fine with me. The big plays should be coming from the young guys, not the guy on his way out the NFL

AJ just needs to be a chain mover and solid option. Don't need him lighting it up every game

But he don't seem to be doing any of those things you mention. Being 3rd in receiving on a team that's rated at the bottom of the league is not something to be proud of.

[jvan1973]

Well first, they weren't being used in Pep scheme.....

Second, heck yes AJ is slacking....there has been numerous times that he's dropped passes...numerous...there was one came where he literally dropped all 8 targets. Though a couple were high and uncatchable.. how about last week when he dropped 2....wide open, in his hands passes?

How did he drop all 8 if a few wye uncatchable?

[DougDew]

After listening to the whole 37 minute interview, here are my thoughts:

Overall, I think he gives a lot of "general" responses that sound really good to the un trained ear. It takes me back to the episode of Hard Knocks where O Brian was teaching the team how to respond to the media when asked tough questions.

Majority of his responses were long winded and consisted of "nah that's just not true, we're all on the same page, sure there are some disagreements but it's all passion, everyone has the same goal, etc....". The guy would ask him a simple question and he would give a two and a half minute response. But that was the general over view. Here are some specific points I wanted to discuss:

- When talking about the Hamilton hire he says specifically "Chuck handpicked his staff" obviously referring to when he was hired in 2012. But a few seconds later he says "WE were both on board with the Pep hire and it was a no-brainier". He did that a few times during the interview, going from "me" or "him" to "We". Which I don't get. Was it a no brainier for Chuck to hire Pep, or Grigson?

-I thought his responses about the OL were comical. He said he thought continuity was the key to a successful O-Line. Yet Chuck was just saying they're sticking with Harrison at Center even though Holmes has been the starting center since the middle of last season. And let's not forget the Center issue last year with Harrison, Shipley, and Holmes. And he was talking about how he drafted Holmes, but he's now essentially "benched". I'm not blaming him for that because it's a coaching decision but he clearly doesn't know what's going on there.

-Also, I now see where Colts fans get this idea that just not getting blown out by a good team is okay. Granted I felt like that with the Patriots. But Dan asked him if he thought he had built a team that could compete with other good teams. His response was "Yeah we just came off the win against Denver. And then the game against the Panthers we were in it, and against the Pats we were right there, so....". That's an unacceptable attitude to have as a GM on what you think is a Super Bowl team. To take solace in losing a close game is terrible IMO. And he basically put his foot in his mouth with that comment because he didn't mention the games against Buffalo and NY. This team is built to beat good teams in his opinion, but also lost games that weren't as close to Buffalo, NY, and the Daimts who aren't even good

-Whoever posted that article where other league higher ups said he has had the easiest job but walks around like he invented the football was right. He's quick in the interview to point out specific successes and adversity they overcame, but won't allude to any of his failures in details. He loves pointing out the major comeback at KC, but when asked about trades he just said "yeah there's been some failures"

Overall this interview didn't do anything to change the perception on Grigson. I'll admit that now I believe the story that we weren't looking at Chud as an OC candidate, but I would like to know then why he was hired almost immediately after he was hired as the "Special Assistant to the HC"? Grigs claimed in the interview that they didn't get him because they were going to make an OC change. But yeah, I still feel the same way.

You're making something out of nothing. 

[chrisfarley]

You should know.

at least you admitted it.

[BOTT]

A professional person, like an NFL GM, is not going to publically criticize any player.  It would be childish and beneath them.

 

The fact that Grigson does not call out players or coaches, and even speaks words of nuanced support for someone he's even cut, does not mean that he is "hiding" something or not coming clean.

 

People have resented Grigson for three years because he doesn't make big splashes in FA, and doesn't mortgage the future on aging overpriced Olinemen.  This season just allows their resentment to sound a little bit objective because the team is 4 and 5.

Your last statement is a tad suspect.

[DougDew]

So when will Grigson get credit for signing Matt Hasselbeck?

 

I suppose he didn't want to and both Pagano and Irsay made him do it..

[DougDew]

Grigson should get a lot of credit for signing Walden several years ago to a contract that is way below his talent level.

 

Walden was Grigson's first FA signing.  And it was a great one.

[Colts_Fan12]

Grigson should get a lot of credit for signing Walden several years ago to a contract that is way below his talent level.

Walden was Grigson's first FA signing. And it was a great one.

I don't think I'd use the word great

[DougDew]

I don't think I'd use the word great

Wow.  At the price he was signed at?  Better than great.

[Colts_Fan12]

Wow. At the price he was signed at? Better than great.

he's a penalty machine and generates no pass rush. he is good no where near a great signing. Almost can guarantee one stupid late hit or punch or something from him a game

[crazycolt1]

at least you admitted it.

Would you like a tissue or a pamper?

[DougDew]

he's a penalty machine and generates no pass rush he is good no where near a great signing

He counts only about $5 million of a $140 million salary cap.

 

He's a SAM.  He's not supposed to be a great pass rusher.

 

It was a good signing at the time...and a great one now.

 

And it's  because Grigson is a very good GM.

[Colts_Fan12]

He counts only about $5 million of a $140 million salary cap.

He's a SAM. He's not supposed to be a great pass rusher.

It was a good signing at the time...and a great one now.

And it's because Grigson is a very good GM.

I get you are Grigsons dad and love him but you should just stop he's not a bad player but he sure as hell isn't a great signing