Why did Grigson get rid of 2 good pass rushers?

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's better than 50/50 that Grigson comes back, as of today. 

Then this place is about to get interesting.

 

I personally don't hate the idea, just want him to do better with his 1st round picks. He does that and he can stick around as long as he wants. Because he's done pretty well in most other rounds and in FA. At bare minimum he's not done anything to get fired but for the missed 1st rounders.

[Jason_]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's better than 50/50 that Grigson comes back, as of today. 

 

Personally, I don't think we're anywhere closer to knowing than we were a month ago.  It's all going to boil down to what coach Irsay wants to bring in and whether or not that guy is willing to work with Grigson or not.  I highly doubt we hear anything about Grigson on Monday, unless Irsay is really trying to get Cowher out of retirement.  I wouldn't be surprised if they do an interview or 2 and then Grigson gets fired.  Pretty much the pretty much the same situation they were in when Grigson was first hired and they were looking for a D-coordinator that was willing to work with Caldwell.  Once they found out Spags wouldn't come here, they fired Caldwell.  

[csmopar]

42 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Uh, Buffalo runs a 34.  He had his best year here, his last, in the 34.

 Dead Wrong.

 

Rex Ryans Defense is what is called a 4-3 Under. Which is different yet again from a 4-3 Base or Tampa 2 

 

Don't believe me, 

 

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/bills-news-notes/2015/1/13/7536851/rex-ryan-jim-schwartz-buffalo-bills-defense-donnie-henderson

[Superman]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

Then this place is about to get interesting.

 

I personally don't hate the idea, just want him to do better with his 1st round picks. He does that and he can stick around as long as he wants. Because he's done pretty well in most other rounds and in FA. At bare minimum he's not done anything to get fired but for the missed 1st rounders.

 

I think you can make a much more damning case against Grigson than just missed first rounders, and without the extremes that a lot of people who hate him rely on. I have some fundamental problems with him that can be summed up with three specific decisions.

 

1) The Richardson trade showed me that he overvalues the RB position. Yes, everyone expected Richardson to be a stud, but you still don't use a first rounder on a RB in today's NFL. Between positional value, replacement value, and projected career longevity, it's not a good use of a draft pick. I've felt that way for a long time, and when the trade was done, my stance was that I was excited to get the player (it's ungodly how big of a bust he is), but not excited about the cost. That Grigson couldn't walk away from that deal says something to me about his cost analysis skills.

 

2) Drafting Werner in the first round shows me that his scouting is flawed. I said before the draft that Werner didn't qualify as a 'gets me excited' kind of prospect, and I figured the Colts would pass on him if he were on the board. Between his film and his workouts, I never thought that much of him. Yet, Grigson drafted him, and somewhat predictably, he's not even close to being a good enough pass rusher to warrant a first round pick. That Grigson's scouting led him to Werner suggests that Grigson isn't a good enough scout.

 

3) Signing Cherilus with big guaranteed money tells me that Grigson wasn't familiar with the nature of microfracture surgery and the long term implications of it, which by extension suggests that he isn't sophisticated enough to see beyond the obvious and stay clear of potential trouble situations. They brought Cherilus in and gave him a physical, and he passed, and that's after a completely healthy season, two years removed from microfracture. All good, right? Except that anyone who's had microfracture has a degenerative knee condition that isn't going to magically get better. The likelihood of Cherilus lasting five years was always low, and we gave him $15m guaranteed. This tells me that Grigson is lacking in discernment. 

 

Every GM makes mistakes. I've defended Grigson plenty, so I'm sure you understand that I'm not just nitpicking. These decisions highlight principled flaws, IMO, that can and probably will influence other decisions.

 

The plus side of it is those decisions all came in Grigson's second season, when he was probably a little over-eager coming off of a promising debut. I think he took too many uncalculated risks, and too many chickens came home to roost. Maybe he's learned from all of that; he'd probably have to be a downright dummy to look back at 2013 and not see the mistakes he made. The last two drafts have been better. Yet, we still don't have a good or even decent offensive line (kind of neglected this past offseason, tbh), and when he (presumably) had a chance to maximize some value in the draft, he instead selected a receiver that hasn't helped the team this year. 

 

So I'm torn on Grigson. I think he's fundamentally flawed (time could convince me otherwise). Yet, he's made his mistakes, and it could be that with those out of the way, his arrow is pointing up. I have no problem with his scouting the past two seasons. He hasn't made any risky trades. A new GM is going to keep the same core that Grigson has put together, and will probably need a couple seasons to really implement any philosophy or scheme changes. Six in one, half dozen in the other.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, Jason_S said:

 

Personally, I don't think we're anywhere closer to knowing than we were a month ago.  It's all going to boil down to what coach Irsay wants to bring in and whether or not that guy is willing to work with Grigson or not.  I highly doubt we hear anything about Grigson on Monday, unless Irsay is really trying to get Cowher out of retirement.  I wouldn't be surprised if they do an interview or 2 and then Grigson gets fired.  Pretty much the pretty much the same situation they were in when Grigson was first hired and they were looking for a D-coordinator that was willing to work with Caldwell.  Once they found out Spags wouldn't come here, they fired Caldwell.  

 

Unless there's a coach Irsay really wants who refuses to work with Grigson under any circumstances, I don't see that being that big of a factor. Any coach would want autonomy over his staff and a considerable voice in personnel decisions. If there's a coach who wants more control than that, I could see Grigson walking away and going back to the Eagles.

 

There's potential for it to get kind of hairy. That's why I typically prefer the linear organization -- owner, GM, head coach. 

 

Really, my thinking on Grigson coming back is based on my own gut feeling. 

[wig]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 Dead Wrong.

 

Rex Ryans Defense is what is called a 4-3 Under. Which is different yet again from a 4-3 Base or Tampa 2 

 

Don't believe me, 

 

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/bills-news-notes/2015/1/13/7536851/rex-ryan-jim-schwartz-buffalo-bills-defense-donnie-henderson

 

Okay, you're right. And he has 5 sacks this year compared to 10 the two years prior as a 34 OLB.  Seems that further proves my point in that he is more successful in a 34 than a 43. 

[crazycolt1]

3 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Who the hell would ever ask a pure edge rusher to cover a WR or TE? 

When your team goes from the 4-3 to the 3-4. That's who.

[csmopar]

18 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Okay, you're right. And he has 5 sacks this year compared to 10 the two years prior as a 34 OLB.  Seems that further proves my point in that he is more successful in a 34 than a 43. 

Possible that his attitude and motivation was gone by the time Indy did try to use him

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Okay, you're right. And he has 5 sacks this year compared to 10 the two years prior as a 34 OLB.  Seems that further proves my point in that he is more successful in a 34 than a 43. 

 

2 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Possible that his attitude and motivation was gone by the time Indy did try to use him

 

The Bills have switched between a 3-4 and a 4-3 twice since Hughes got there. He had success in both styles. That was never his issue, and still isn't.

[Dustin]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

When your team goes from the 4-3 to the 3-4. That's who.

 

Ugh no. No RUSH LB on the Colts ever covers a WR or TE.

[OffensivelyPC]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you can make a much more damning case against Grigson than just missed first rounders, and without the extremes that a lot of people who hate him rely on. I have some fundamental problems with him that can be summed up with three specific decisions.

 

1) The Richardson trade showed me that he overvalues the RB position. Yes, everyone expected Richardson to be a stud, but you still don't use a first rounder on a RB in today's NFL. Between positional value, replacement value, and projected career longevity, it's not a good use of a draft pick. I've felt that way for a long time, and when the trade was done, my stance was that I was excited to get the player (it's ungodly how big of a bust he is), but not excited about the cost. That Grigson couldn't walk away from that deal says something to me about his cost analysis skills.

 

2) Drafting Werner in the first round shows me that his scouting is flawed. I said before the draft that Werner didn't qualify as a 'gets me excited' kind of prospect, and I figured the Colts would pass on him if he were on the board. Between his film and his workouts, I never thought that much of him. Yet, Grigson drafted him, and somewhat predictably, he's not even close to being a good enough pass rusher to warrant a first round pick. That Grigson's scouting led him to Werner suggests that Grigson isn't a good enough scout.

 

3) Signing Cherilus with big guaranteed money tells me that Grigson wasn't familiar with the nature of microfracture surgery and the long term implications of it, which by extension suggests that he isn't sophisticated enough to see beyond the obvious and stay clear of potential trouble situations. They brought Cherilus in and gave him a physical, and he passed, and that's after a completely healthy season, two years removed from microfracture. All good, right? Except that anyone who's had microfracture has a degenerative knee condition that isn't going to magically get better. The likelihood of Cherilus lasting five years was always low, and we gave him $15m guaranteed. This tells me that Grigson is lacking in discernment. 

 

Every GM makes mistakes. I've defended Grigson plenty, so I'm sure you understand that I'm not just nitpicking. These decisions highlight principled flaws, IMO, that can and probably will influence other decisions.

 

The plus side of it is those decisions all came in Grigson's second season, when he was probably a little over-eager coming off of a promising debut. I think he took too many uncalculated risks, and too many chickens came home to roost. Maybe he's learned from all of that; he'd probably have to be a downright dummy to look back at 2013 and not see the mistakes he made. The last two drafts have been better. Yet, we still don't have a good or even decent offensive line (kind of neglected this past offseason, tbh), and when he (presumably) had a chance to maximize some value in the draft, he instead selected a receiver that hasn't helped the team this year. 

 

So I'm torn on Grigson. I think he's fundamentally flawed (time could convince me otherwise). Yet, he's made his mistakes, and it could be that with those out of the way, his arrow is pointing up. I have no problem with his scouting the past two seasons. He hasn't made any risky trades. A new GM is going to keep the same core that Grigson has put together, and will probably need a couple seasons to really implement any philosophy or scheme changes. Six in one, half dozen in the other.

1 & 2. No defending the Trent trade. Spending 1st rounders on RBS isn't popular among most GMs, but it still happens pretty much every year, especially in the last handful of picks, which ours was. What makes it worse is that Trent basically cost 2 first rounders. That and Bjoern from there roll into point 2. Which is his scouting. The trend is going up but for the 1st rounders. So while 2013 (which, at least we got Vontae out of that, and got to use him for part of 12) was a colossal failure, 12, 14, and 15 have generally been positive. So generally, he has been better more than he hasnt, it's just that some of his misses were with the most costly assets - and lets not forget that, of all the 1st rounders he got right, it was the most important one. Maybe he will repeat those mistakes, but of many of the potential GMs, they will also be inexperienced and possibly prone to similar mistakes. The flaw of not improving the OL will not be ignored again for entirely obvious reasons. If he did, he should be fired immediately after theMr. Irrelevant is taken.

 

On the medical issue with Cherilus, it may just have been that his medical advisers were wrong. The treatment Cherilus got was unusual and still very new, yielding some positive results. I dont know enough about it and Im assuming Grigson resorted to medical experts. Doesn't absolve him, but for a guy with medical advisors, you and I are criticizing with the benefit of hindsight and not having sports medical experts at our disposal. It still ultimately falls on him, taking the risk, but if a group of Doctors say yeah, he will be fine, and then the medical practice later finds that the procedure is flawed or not as beneficial as originally thought, you just chalk that one up to a lesson learned. And realistically, we could have thrown money on a guy with no medical history and gotten something much worse.

 

I hope the worst is behind him. Because the flaws you  speak of are able to be corrected. Depending on available options, there may not be an alternative we prefer that we would rather just say, "Let's stick it out for Grigs last year on his deal."

[BOTT]

4 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Who the hell would ever ask a pure edge rusher to cover a WR or TE? 

Chuck's brother John. He did it for one play last yr...against Gronk no less...automatic 25 yard gain.  Genius runs in the family.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

1) The Richardson trade showed me that he overvalues the RB position. Yes, everyone expected Richardson to be a stud, but you still don't use a first rounder on a RB in today's NFL. Between positional value, replacement value, and projected career longevity, it's not a good use of a draft pick.

 

2) Drafting Werner in the first round shows me that his scouting is flawed. I said before the draft that Werner didn't qualify as a 'gets me excited' kind of prospect, and I figured the Colts would pass on him if he were on the board. Between his film and his workouts, I never thought that much of him. Yet, Grigson drafted him, and somewhat predictably, he's not even close to being a good enough pass rusher to warrant a first round pick. That Grigson's scouting led him to Werner suggests that Grigson isn't a good enough scout.

 

3) Signing Cherilus with big guaranteed money tells me that Grigson wasn't familiar with the nature of microfracture surgery and the long term implications of it, which by extension suggests that he isn't sophisticated enough to see beyond the obvious and stay clear of potential trouble situations. They brought Cherilus in and gave him a physical, and he passed, and that's after a completely healthy season, two years removed from microfracture. All good, right? Except that anyone who's had microfracture has a degenerative knee condition that isn't going to magically get better. The likelihood of Cherilus lasting five years was always low, and we gave him $15m guaranteed. This tells me that Grigson is lacking in discernment. 

 

I think you can lump all of these decisions into one description.. influenced by NEED at the time.  I don't think they are reflective of his overall talent and value analysis skills.

 

1. TRich was traded for nearly at the deadline...why, because I think we were down to only one functional RB at the time.  There were also rumors of Grigson possibly trading a third for Toby Gerhart instead, indicating to me he thought the RB situation was a problem that needed correction immediately.  I think that once you are in a position to have to make a move, you at least try to get a talented guy who can be there a few years and be your bell cow so that you don't have to address the position in the spring.  More astute negotiation probably could've gotten TRich for less than a 1, but I don't think Grigson makes that trade if the RBs we started that season with remain healthy.

 

Edit:  IIRC, this was the summer that we lost the stellar rookie Vick Ballard, (after the draft and FA period so no real replacement pool available) and Bradshaw (or Brown) went down in September for a while.

 

2. An ineffective and expensive Freeney was being let go, and rightfully so, and Mathis was nearing the end of his contract.  A 34 defense with only Walden on the roster isn't going to function.  Its possible that another player with similar skills than Werner could've have been had in round 2 or 4, but the longer you wait the higher the risk you miss them all.  I think when Grigs and Pags evaluated Werner's tape and workout, they may have saw things out of hope rather than objectivity, fueled by Need.

 

3.  Cherilous was replacing a stop gap Winston Justice, and Reitz showed little sign of being RT material.  As another has mentioned in another thread, the other options of Andre Smith and Sabastian Vollmer had character/injury issues of their own, so the need to find a RT sort of put Grigs into a bad negotiating position.  The guaranteed money was an overpayment, but Grigs probably thought the Colts had the ability to eat it..which they did.

 

I think this spring's FA signings were simply a way to try to get over the top to the SB, without also mortgaging the future with dead cap hits.  I don't like the FA he signed...AJ and Cole..but I don't think it was a big deal.  They will be gone or restructured so their addition really doesn't matter.  AJ is probably taking Duron Carter's roster spot..and Cole is taking nobody's roster spot...so who cares if they are here or not.

 

I don't think Grigson deserves to be fired for his football decisions.  I don't know about his personality and personal interaction skills, but if those are a problem, I could see him being replaced for those reasons.

 

 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

On the medical issue with Cherilus, it may just have been that his medical advisers were wrong. The treatment Cherilus got was unusual and still very new, yielding some positive results. I dont know enough about it and Im assuming Grigson resorted to medical experts. Doesn't absolve him, but for a guy with medical advisors, you and I are criticizing with the benefit of hindsight and not having sports medical experts at our disposal. It still ultimately falls on him, taking the risk, but if a group of Doctors say yeah, he will be fine, and then the medical practice later finds that the procedure is flawed or not as beneficial as originally thought, you just chalk that one up to a lesson learned. And realistically, we could have thrown money on a guy with no medical history and gotten something much worse.

 

I hope the worst is behind him. Because the flaws you  speak of are able to be corrected. Depending on available options, there may not be an alternative we prefer that we would rather just say, "Let's stick it out for Grigs last year on his deal."

 

Noted.

 

Speaking to the Cherilus decision, I'll point out that this is not a hindsight criticism. I disliked the guaranteed money and structure of his contract from the beginning, specifically because of the microfracture surgery. I'm no orthopedist or medical professional, but I had a chondroplasty and a meniscectomy a few years ago, so I'm reasonably informed about what Cherilus has gone through.

 

It's not some radical new procedure. It's been around and used in sports for well over a decade, and everyone who's had it has lingering effects afterward. It indicates that you're short on cartilage, which doesn't grow back. The faux cartilage that forms in the joint after microfracture isn't as good of a shock absorber, it's more brittle, and you're going to have loose bodies that will need to be scoped out (exactly what Cherilus had in 2014). You might even need chondroplasty, which is a removal of damaged cartilage from the joint, and that obviously makes the condition even worse. Having microfracture basically means you have or soon will have an arthritic joint. Any medical staff who doesn't go through this with a GM during a physical isn't doing their job well, IMO. I doubt they didn't expound on the nature of his knee with Grigson.

 

That's the guy Grigson chose to give $15m guaranteed to. Predictably, it went bad. If you're so inclined, you can look through the archives to see my reaction at the time -- good player, very troubling injury history, bad contract structure. I'm not just reacting to a situation that didn't go well.

 

As to the bolded, those flaws are correctable, but that requires a person's viewpoint evolving over time. Just because Richardson didn't work out doesn't mean that Grigson won't spend a first rounder on another RB; more broadly, it doesn't mean he is capable of understanding positional value and maximizing his draft picks accordingly. In fact, the Dorsett pick suggests that he hasn't really come to grasp how to maximize draft picks. Either that or he had Dorsett too high (IMO). 

 

Time reveals all. I'm just concerned that if we give Grigson more time, it will be revealed that he didn't deserve more time, and then we'll have wasted another year with him running the show. Ideally, he'd make the most of his reprieve. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think you can lump all of these decisions into one description.. influenced by NEED at the time.  I don't think they are reflective of his overall talent and value analysis skills.

 

I don't think Grigson deserves to be fired for his football decisions.  I don't know about his personality and personal interaction skills, but if those are a problem, I could see him being replaced for those reasons.

 

1) Richardson was traded for after two weeks, not midseason. But yes, it was a needs-based decision, and I'm fine with that in that context. But I think Grigson should have walked away from the trade if Cleveland wasn't willing to do it for less than a first, and then you figure out Plan B. A fundamental team building principle that I think every GM should operate from is don't use first round picks on RBs. He did. Makes me question his fundamental team building principles, which apply to more than just this one situation.

 

2) Mathis had three years remaining on his contract, but yes, pass rusher was a need. (It's auxiliary, but shortly after the draft, we traded away another pass rusher who has been twice as good as Werner.) However, another fundamental team building principle is don't reach for need, stick to your board. Just as troubling as bad scouting; maybe more, because even good scouting is undermined by needs-based drafting, which Grigson has always decried. So "we needed a pass rusher" isn't an acceptable excuse. If Grigson fell into a needs-based decision that one time, that's less troubling to me than bad scouting, because it's not typical of him. But I really think it was more bad scouting.

 

3) Same as the other two, fundamental principles, which apply to more than just one situation. Don't sign broken players to big money contracts. What happens the next time we need a particular position in free agency, and the best option is a guy with a troubling injury history (microfracture or otherwise)? Again, the discernment to walk away from situations that have great potential to go badly. Vollmer had injury history, but he didn't have microfracture surgery. I'd be okay with giving $15m guaranteed to a RT with an ACL injury, because it has entirely different implications in the short and long term. I'd be okay with giving $5m guaranteed to a guy like Smith who had character issues, because that's even less risky than guy with basically an arthritic knee who can do nothing about it; at least Smith can mature and handle himself better. Or, have the discernment to know that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Yes, we had the cap standing to be able to eat the contract if it went bad, but that's another issue entirely. (And I give full marks to Grigson for his cap management.)

 

I'm fine with the free agents he brought in this year, except he should have signed a capable OL. 

 

We can look at individual decisions and micro-analyze each one, or we can look more at the big picture. I think those decisions I mentioned have big picture implications, specifically about Grigson's decision making. I'm not convinced that the next time we suddenly have a big need Grigson won't overspend trying to fix it. I'm not convinced he scouts well enough to avoid first round busts. I'm not convinced he can foresee trouble from damaged players and avoid it.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

Ugh no. No RUSH LB on the Colts ever covers a WR or TE.

No? I guess when Mathis does it, it don't happen. You must be watching a different game than me.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) Richardson was traded for after two weeks, not midseason. But yes, it was a needs-based decision, and I'm fine with that in that context. But I think Grigson should have walked away from the trade if Cleveland wasn't willing to do it for less than a first, and then you figure out Plan B. A fundamental team building principle that I think every GM should operate from is don't use first round picks on RBs. He did. Makes me question his fundamental team building principles, which apply to more than just this one situation.

 

2) Mathis had three years remaining on his contract, but yes, pass rusher was a need. (It's auxiliary, but shortly after the draft, we traded away another pass rusher who has been twice as good as Werner.) However, another fundamental team building principle is don't reach for need, stick to your board. Just as troubling as bad scouting; maybe more, because even good scouting is undermined by needs-based drafting, which Grigson has always decried. So "we needed a pass rusher" isn't an acceptable excuse. If Grigson fell into a needs-based decision that one time, that's less troubling to me than bad scouting, because it's not typical of him. But I really think it was more bad scouting.

 

3) Same as the other two, fundamental principles, which apply to more than just one situation. Don't sign broken players to big money contracts. What happens the next time we need a particular position in free agency, and the best option is a guy with a troubling injury history (microfracture or otherwise)? Again, the discernment to walk away from situations that have great potential to go badly. Vollmer had injury history, but he didn't have microfracture surgery. I'd be okay with giving $15m guaranteed to a RT with an ACL injury, because it has entirely different implications in the short and long term. I'd be okay with giving $5m guaranteed to a guy like Smith who had character issues, because that's even less risky than guy with basically an arthritic knee who can do nothing about it; at least Smith can mature and handle himself better. Or, have the discernment to know that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. Yes, we had the cap standing to be able to eat the contract if it went bad, but that's another issue entirely. (And I give full marks to Grigson for his cap management.)

 

I'm fine with the free agents he brought in this year, except he should have signed a capable OL. 

 

We can look at individual decisions and micro-analyze each one, or we can look more at the big picture. I think those decisions I mentioned have big picture implications, specifically about Grigson's decision making. I'm not convinced that the next time we suddenly have a big need Grigson won't overspend trying to fix it. I'm not convinced he scouts well enough to avoid first round busts. I'm not convinced he can foresee trouble from damaged players and avoid it.

I don't disagree with you about him violating those important principles in those instances, but need and desperation makes someone takes risks they wouldn't normally take.  Those are really the only examples of when he violated those principles you show in italics. 

 

I'm pretty sure the Colts had one healthy RB at the time, (and Donald Brown, who was going to be replaced in the spring anyway) and only one OLB that fit the system (AND, there were questions of whether Mathis could put up the numbers he traditionally put up without Freeny and with him having to play on the right side) and NO RTs rostered when he gave Cherilous his money.  I think it was a calculated risk as to how much service we could get out of Cherilous compared to how much guaranteed money we would still owe. 

 

I guess I'm just comparing his decisions to other GMs who got canned and I just don't see where he fits in with them.  There are a lot of things that went into this season, and the team is still no worse than 7-9.

[Dustin]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

No? I guess when Mathis does it, it don't happen. You must be watching a different game than me.

 

Mathis doesn't do it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Mathis doesn't do it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Mathis covers any player within his area. RB, QB,TE or receiver. He has done it since we went to the 3-4. If you think different that's on you. No more argument with you because that is evidently what you are more interested it.

[Dustin]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Mathis covers any player within his area. RB, QB,TE or receiver. He has done it since we went to the 3-4. If you think different that's on you. No more argument with you because that is evidently what you are more interested it.

 

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't disagree with you about him violating those important principles in those instances, but need and desperation makes someone takes risks they wouldn't normally take.  Those are really the only examples of when he violated those principles you show in italics. 

 

I'm pretty sure the Colts had one healthy RB at the time, (and Donald Brown, who was going to be replaced in the spring anyway) and only one OLB that fit the system (AND, there were questions of whether Mathis could put up the numbers he traditionally put up without Freeny and with him having to play on the right side) and NO RTs rostered when he gave Cherilous his money.  I think it was a calculated risk as to how much service we could get out of Cherilous compared to how much guaranteed money we would still owe. 

 

I guess I'm just comparing his decisions to other GMs who got canned and I just don't see where he fits in with them.  There are a lot of things that went into this season, and the team is still no worse than 7-9.

 

A good GM doesn't let need and desperation influence his decision making, though. My concern is with the next time we have a desperate need, do you make another mistake?

 

Some will paint Grigson out to be a terrible GM who has ruined the team. That's obviously not true, IMO. I reject the headlines and noise and extremes. My question isn't whether he's a bad GM, though. It's whether he's good enough to build and maintain a complete roster that can contend for championships every year. Does he have the vision to foresee situations, and the expertise to navigate them? I'm not convinced that Grigson is the right guy for what we want to do.

 

There are a lot of ways to defend him and his football decisions. At the end of the day, though, none of that convinces me that he's the right guy for the job. It's similar with Pagano. There's a lot about both of them that I like, but every time I think about whether they are right for a perennial contender, I come away shaking my head.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

A good GM doesn't let need and desperation influence his decision making, though. My concern is with the next time we have a desperate need, do you make another mistake?

 

Some will paint Grigson out to be a terrible GM who has ruined the team. That's obviously not true, IMO. I reject the headlines and noise and extremes. My question isn't whether he's a bad GM, though. It's whether he's good enough to build and maintain a complete roster that can contend for championships every year. Does he have the vision to foresee situations, and the expertise to navigate them? I'm not convinced that Grigson is the right guy for what we want to do.

 

There are a lot of ways to defend him and his football decisions. At the end of the day, though, none of that convinces me that he's the right guy for the job. It's similar with Pagano. There's a lot about both of them that I like, but every time I think about whether they are right for a perennial contender, I come away shaking my head.

I think an EXPERIENCED GM doesn't let need influence his decision making.  He was having to build a roster that needed 53 players to fit the systems Irsay wanted when the team barely had any suitable players at all.  And its not like Cherilous was a horrible player...and nobody knew TR and Werner would be...the critics just thought they were overvalued.  Those really aren't team killer deals, not even in total.

 

Frankly, I think the Arians, Pep, and Chud OC situation has never been a good fit for Luck.  I'd criticize him and Irsay for that, and maybe the next HC will remedy that.

 

I'm interested to see how he handles the CB situation this offseason.  We need a good one and there is actually more than 3 FAs that seem to be good fits.

 

I'm interested to see how he handles the OLB situation and finally addresses the C situation.  He handled the DL upgrade needs very well last spring, so now that he has a competent 53 man roster, I'd bet he'll address the needs on the team this spring just as well as well as last spring.  I hope he gets the chance.

[JCPatriot]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Is that why he won GM of the year? Is that why he took a 2-14 team to the playoffs three years in a row? Injuries have played a bigger part of why the Colts fell this year more than any GM or coaching mistake. But, alias, some feel the need to point fingers at someone and I guess he is the one.

 

So you credit Grigson for taking a team that was 2-14 and taking them to the playoffs three years in a row.  Then you claim that injuries have played a bigger part in the Colts' struggles this season than any GM or coaching mistakes.  You're basically giving Grigson a pass for this season because of injuries (which I don't entirely disagree with, but I don't entirely agree with either).  So tell me, just why exactly were the Colts 2-14 the year before Grigson took over?  Are you going to tell me that injuries didn't play a larger role in that dismal season than GM and coaching mistakes?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't give Grigson credit for taking a team that was 2-14 because their star QB missed the entire season and turning them into a playoff team the following season and then, in the very next sentence, give him a pass for this season because the team was hampered by injuries.

[JCPatriot]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Those really aren't team killer deals, not even in total.

 

He isn't saying that they are team killer deals, though.  What I get from his very well-reasoned posts is that he is not concerned that Grigson will drive the team into the ground.  He is concerned that Grigson will not be able to consistently maintain a roster that is capable of contending for a championship.  He has set the bar very high, and he is skeptical that Grigson is capable of clearing that bar.  Yeah, he can manage a roster and field a respectable team, but can he consistently field a championship-caliber team?  That is what is being questioned.  Like he said, he is rejecting the extreme claims that Grigson makes team-killer moves while at the same time expressing concerns that his moves will not be able to support a championship-contending team.  That is how I read it, anyway.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

So you credit Grigson for taking a team that was 2-14 and taking them to the playoffs three years in a row.  Then you claim that injuries have played a bigger part in the Colts' struggles this season than any GM or coaching mistakes.  You're basically giving Grigson a pass for this season because of injuries (which I don't entirely disagree with, but I don't entirely agree with either).  So tell me, just why exactly were the Colts 2-14 the year before Grigson took over?  Are you going to tell me that injuries didn't play a larger role in that dismal season than GM and coaching mistakes?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't give Grigson credit for taking a team that was 2-14 because their star QB missed the entire season and turning them into a playoff team the following season and then, in the very next sentence, give him a pass for this season because the team was hampered by injuries.

Grigson took a team that was in deep cap hades, built pretty much a whole new offense and did it with a rookie QB, rookie head coach all the while being a rookie GM himself. Grigson did have Matt in place when Polian had Painter. If you think back Painter was Polians boy and he though Painter was the savior. Grison first had to deal with bad contracts that were given out to players who were too old or didn't deserve them. That earned him GM of the year. The Colts did something that has never been done in the history of the NFL without a block buster trade. Peoples memory is geared at what have you done for me lately without looking at the bigger picture. Everyone wants immediate results and when they don't get it they want heads to roll. All I can say is be careful of what you wish for.

[JCPatriot]

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

All I can say is be careful of what you wish for.

 

I'm not wishing for anything.  I'm not saying Grigson is a bad GM.  I'm not saying Grigson is a good GM.  I'm kind of luke warm on him.  What I am saying is that you can't give him credit for taking a 2-14 team that was a 2-14 team largely because of injuries and taking them to the playoffs the following season and then, in the very next sentence, give him a pass on a poor season because of injuries.  You can't have it both ways.  You either have to acknowledge that the Colts were a VERY successful team that was hampered by injuries for a season when Grigson took them over, or you have to hold Grigson responsible for the failure to overcome injuries this season.
 

13 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If you think back Painter was Polians boy and he though Painter was the savior.

 

Polian didn't think Painter was the savior.  If he thought Painter was the savior, he wouldn't have brought Kerry Collins in to start as soon as it was clear that Manning wasn't going to start the season.  Polian thought Painter was a serviceable backup.  That's it.  Even then, he was giving him too much credit.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

He isn't saying that they are team killer deals, though.  What I get from his very well-reasoned posts is that he is not concerned that Grigson will drive the team into the ground.  He is concerned that Grigson will not be able to consistently maintain a roster that is capable of contending for a championship.  He has set the bar very high, and he is skeptical that Grigson is capable of clearing that bar.  Yeah, he can manage a roster and field a respectable team, but can he consistently field a championship-caliber team?  That is what is being questioned.  Like he said, he is rejecting the extreme claims that Grigson makes team-killer moves while at the same time expressing concerns that his moves will not be able to support a championship-contending team.  That is how I read it, anyway.

The three examples provided give no evidence about Grigson's ability field a championship team, because during the period those examples were taking place, Grigson was simply trying to field a 53 man roster that was a complete changeover from the system we had before that.  Plugging holes was his first priority, not winning the SB.  If he doesn't pull the trigger on the RB, the OLB, or the RT at the time, he runs the risk of not having much of anything at those positions. That's what NEED is...what you have stinks, (or you have nothing at all) so you need somebody.  And so you have to take what is available. 

 

That history does not predict the future.  They are two different circumstances, with two different immediate priorities. 

 

This year, no position on the roster really stinks..even the backups (we're 7-9).  But we have to take the next step by adding more impact players.  There are CBs on the market, and LBs in the draft.  There are some Cs in both the market and draft, and there are always plenty of guys who played LT in college that can play RT or G in the pros.   I want to see how he does with these priorities.  He did very well with the DL upgrades last year in both the veteran market (Langford, Winn, McGill) and the rookie draft (Parry, Anderson).

 

And...we may need a TE if we don't want to commit to Allen or Fleener for three years, so Grigs might want to pull the trigger to upgrade now.....Idk how many have thought ahead about that.

 

(time to get out of this thread...I've got nothing new to say...)

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

He isn't saying that they are team killer deals, though.  What I get from his very well-reasoned posts is that he is not concerned that Grigson will drive the team into the ground.  He is concerned that Grigson will not be able to consistently maintain a roster that is capable of contending for a championship.  He has set the bar very high, and he is skeptical that Grigson is capable of clearing that bar.  Yeah, he can manage a roster and field a respectable team, but can he consistently field a championship-caliber team?  That is what is being questioned.  Like he said, he is rejecting the extreme claims that Grigson makes team-killer moves while at the same time expressing concerns that his moves will not be able to support a championship-contending team.  That is how I read it, anyway.

 

You read it well.

 

I'll just say, I didn't set the bar high. Irsay did, and everyone he has hired has acknowledged those lofty expectations.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

So you credit Grigson for taking a team that was 2-14 and taking them to the playoffs three years in a row.  Then you claim that injuries have played a bigger part in the Colts' struggles this season than any GM or coaching mistakes.  You're basically giving Grigson a pass for this season because of injuries (which I don't entirely disagree with, but I don't entirely agree with either).  So tell me, just why exactly were the Colts 2-14 the year before Grigson took over?  Are you going to tell me that injuries didn't play a larger role in that dismal season than GM and coaching mistakes?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't give Grigson credit for taking a team that was 2-14 because their star QB missed the entire season and turning them into a playoff team the following season and then, in the very next sentence, give him a pass for this season because the team was hampered by injuries.

 

That roster was pretty bad. Yes, the primary issue was injuries (mainly Manning), but the roster was pitiful. The coaching was also terrible. A better staff probably squeezes out 5-6 wins that year.

[JCPatriot]

Fair enough.  I was just trying to get you past the argument that they weren't team killers to something more substantive.  That was a straw-man argument because he never claimed that they were team killers.  You guys have some fundamental differences in your viewpoints concerning best practices when building a team, so it should fuel some more interesting discussion.

 

On the topic of Hughes, I have been on hiatus from the forum since sometime around 2012.  At that time, bashing the Polians and talking Grigson up was the popular thing to do.  One thing that was routinely used as evidence of Bill/Chris Polian's (nobody could agree who was actually in charge at that point) incompetence as a GM was that he drafted Jerry Hughes.  So I find it comical that people are now bashing Grigson for letting Hughes get away.  I realize that it may not be the same people, but it is comical nonetheless.  Polian was terrible because he drafted Hughes, and Grigson is terrible because he didn't keep Hughes.  It's funny.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think an EXPERIENCED GM doesn't let need influence his decision making.  He was having to build a roster that needed 53 players to fit the systems Irsay wanted when the team barely had any suitable players at all.  And its not like Cherilous was a horrible player...and nobody knew TR and Werner would be...the critics just thought they were overvalued.  Those really aren't team killer deals, not even in total.

 

Frankly, I think the Arians, Pep, and Chud OC situation has never been a good fit for Luck.  I'd criticize him and Irsay for that, and maybe the next HC will remedy that.

 

I'm interested to see how he handles the CB situation this offseason.  We need a good one and there is actually more than 3 FAs that seem to be good fits.

 

I'm interested to see how he handles the OLB situation and finally addresses the C situation.  He handled the DL upgrade needs very well last spring, so now that he has a competent 53 man roster, I'd bet he'll address the needs on the team this spring just as well as well as last spring.  I hope he gets the chance.

 

I know you said you'd leave the thread, but I just want to clarify here:

 

The whole purpose of operating with fundamental principles (in business, in life) is so that you have a basis for making principled decisions. That approach transcends experience, it precludes emotional decision making and recklessness, etc. 

 

If Grigson believed in don't spend a first rounder on a RB (or any other non premium position) in September 2013, then with or without experience, desperate or not, he wouldn't have traded for Richardson. He wouldn't have given $15m guaranteed to a player who had microfracture. And so on... 

 

Like I said, I think it's better than 50/50 that Grigson comes back, so you'll probably get to see how he addresses those positions. And I'll support him as my team's GM, but the bar is super high. Fix the OL, find some playmakers on defense, etc. He's definitely under the gun, same way Pagano was this season.

[VaAllDay757]

10 hours ago, DougDew said:

What is SD paying Freeney?

 

He probably would be here, but like most vets, Freeney was stuck on his past performances and couldn't understand his value relative to what he was paid a year before.  Then he had his come-to-Whitehurst moment and signed with about the only team that would take him.

 

I'm not sure about Hughes.  I think he may have just wanted out of Indy due to his lack of success here that he probably blamed on others.

SD? You mean arizona?

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I know you said you'd leave the thread, but I just want to clarify here:

 

The whole purpose of operating with fundamental principles (in business, in life) is so that you have a basis for making principled decisions. That approach transcends experience, it precludes emotional decision making and recklessness, etc. 

 

If Grigson believed in don't spend a first rounder on a RB (or any other non premium position) in September 2013, then with or without experience, desperate or not, he wouldn't have traded for Richardson. He wouldn't have given $15m guaranteed to a player who had microfracture. And so on... 

 

Like I said, I think it's better than 50/50 that Grigson comes back, so you'll probably get to see how he addresses those positions. And I'll support him as my team's GM, but the bar is super high. Fix the OL, find some playmakers on defense, etc. He's definitely under the gun, same way Pagano was this season.

I share your principles that you've outlined, but I think they apply to normal circumstances, where you have the ability to draft a RB that you want later in the draft.

 

 I think at the time of the Trich trade, we had maybe one healthy RB on the roster, with the bulk of the season left to play...those aren't normal circumstances.  Does he trade a third for a stop gap in Gerhart, sign someone off the street, or try to get the bell cow that was available and solve his RB issue for the next three years? (now that Ballard has an ACL).  Those weren't choices he wanted to make...he HAD to make one of the three.

 

I don't know that he had the ability to stick to his normal principles given that if he did, we'd have Toby Gerhart or a street FA for 10 games.

 

I'm sure if Vick Ballard..his previous draft pick...didn't blow out his knee in TC two months before, we'd never have rostered TRich. 

[DougDew]

17 minutes ago, VaAllDay757 said:

SD? You mean arizona?

LOL, yeah, I think I made three pretty good comments that were all basically nullified by my inability to realize that he now plays for AZ.....

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I share your principles that you've outlined, but I think they apply to normal circumstances, where you have the ability to draft a RB that you want later in the draft.

 

 I think at the time of the Trich trade, we had maybe one healthy RB on the roster, with the bulk of the season left to play...those aren't normal circumstances.  Does he trade a third for a stop gap in Gerhart, sign someone off the street, or try to get the bell cow that was available and solve his RB issue for the next three years? (now that Ballard has an ACL).  Those weren't choices he wanted to make...he HAD to make one of the three.

 

I don't know that he had the ability to stick to his normal principles given that if he did, we'd have Toby Gerhart or a street FA for 10 games.

 

I'm sure if Vick Ballard..his previous draft pick...didn't blow out his knee in TC two months before, we'd never have rostered TRich. 

 

Principles don't change just because circumstances do. Stealing is wrong; doesn't matter that you're broke and hungry. It's easy to do the right thing when things are going well. If you can't stick to your fundamental principles even when things are tough, then there's no point in having principles. 

 

No doubt Grigson doesn't give up a first for Richardson if Ballard doesn't get hurt (he got hurt a couple days before the trade; it was the next year that Ballard got hurt again in camp). But those drastic circumstances don't change the fact that you don't use a first rounder on a RB.

 

Tough situation, but yes, signing a street free agent would have been better. This is hindsight GMing, but anyone could have given us 2.9 ypc that year.

[OffensivelyPC]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

[Cherilus/medical procedure snipped for space. Response is point 1 below]

 

As to the bolded, those flaws are correctable, but that requires a person's viewpoint evolving over time. Just because Richardson didn't work out doesn't mean that Grigson won't spend a first rounder on another RB; more broadly, it doesn't mean he is capable of understanding positional value and maximizing his draft picks accordingly. In fact, the Dorsett pick suggests that he hasn't really come to grasp how to maximize draft picks. Either that or he had Dorsett too high (IMO). 

 

Time reveals all. I'm just concerned that if we give Grigson more time, it will be revealed that he didn't deserve more time, and then we'll have wasted another year with him running the show. Ideally, he'd make the most of his reprieve. 

1. Then I either remember incorrectly or didn't have complete information. I don't have a problem taking your word on it seems you say you had the same surgery. It definitely changes the analysis and not in a good way (i.e. Grigs took a bad risk).

 

To the two bolded parts, we all learn from our mistakes, and natural selection does the rest. All Irsay can do is make the best with the info at hand. Nightmares can always happen, but you eventually wake up...unless you're the Browns or Lions apparently.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, JCPatriot said:

 

I'm not wishing for anything.  I'm not saying Grigson is a bad GM.  I'm not saying Grigson is a good GM.  I'm kind of luke warm on him.  What I am saying is that you can't give him credit for taking a 2-14 team that was a 2-14 team largely because of injuries and taking them to the playoffs the following season and then, in the very next sentence, give him a pass on a poor season because of injuries.  You can't have it both ways.  You either have to acknowledge that the Colts were a VERY successful team that was hampered by injuries for a season when Grigson took them over, or you have to hold Grigson responsible for the failure to overcome injuries this season.
 

 

Polian didn't think Painter was the savior.  If he thought Painter was the savior, he wouldn't have brought Kerry Collins in to start as soon as it was clear that Manning wasn't going to start the season.  Polian thought Painter was a serviceable backup.  That's it.  Even then, he was giving him too much credit.

Bringing in Collins was even worse. Collins got paid 4 millions dollars for what, 2 games? Polian drafted Painter. The 2-14 Colts did not have a bunch of injuries like the Colts this season. You hand pick one injury in Manning and make something out of nothing to try to make your point. The 2-14 Colts were not down their RBs. They were not down in their TEs or their linemen to the extent of what the Colts have had this season.

[theanarchist]

20 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

Both Dwight Freeney and Jerry Hughes are very good at rushing the passer. Why is Grisgson such an *?

Freeney only recently started to show signs of life. As stated before he didnt fit the 3-4 scheme. As for Hughes, he also fit better in a 4-3. Some will argue he never got a true chance here in Indy. I lean toward that he never took advantage of his chances here. He had two nice seasons with Buffalo but this year he's dropped off in sacks again so he cashed in on 20 sacks in two seasons and now he's back to 5.

[DougDew]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Principles don't change just because circumstances do. Stealing is wrong; doesn't matter that you're broke and hungry. It's easy to do the right thing when things are going well. If you can't stick to your fundamental principles even when things are tough, then there's no point in having principles. 

 

No doubt Grigson doesn't give up a first for Richardson if Ballard doesn't get hurt (he got hurt a couple days before the trade; it was the next year that Ballard got hurt again in camp). But those drastic circumstances don't change the fact that you don't use a first rounder on a RB.

 

Tough situation, but yes, signing a street free agent would have been better. This is hindsight GMing, but anyone could have given us 2.9 ypc that year.

 

IMO, I wouldn't necessarily use how a GM handled a one-off circumstance in dealing with a situation that had to be fixed immediately and where the entire NFL, the sellers of RBs,  knows his situation; as a means to judge how he might use resources in the future.  Especially that by all accounts at the time, what we're really dinging him for is overpaying for TRich by about 32 to 64 draft slots.  (In hindsight, he shouldn't have given even that).

 

(Thanks for the correction on the Ballard timeline)

 

To use a different analogy, I don't think people generally negotiate their best deal on a new car, when they have business trips to take over the next few weeks and their current car got trashed two days before, and the salesperson knows it.  But that's not a perfect analogy either.

 

That's why I brought up the comment about "team killing deals".  Because that's why GMs should be terminated, not for doing deals like the one above, IMO, but I wasn't clear enough about that.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

That's why I brought up the comment about "team killing deals".  Because that's why GMs should be terminated, not for doing deals like the one above, IMO, but I wasn't clear enough about that.

 

All good points. I just don't agree with this part. Of course team killing deals are grounds for firing, but if you don't believe the guy you have is good enough to get you where you want to go, that's more than enough reason to move on from him. 

 

I'm not presuming to speak for Irsay, but I'm personally not convinced that Grigson can build the kind of complete, balanced roster that we need, while efficiently managing all of his resources and avoiding bad decisions. There's still plenty of room to defend Grigson against the extremism, but I can't make a case for him being the kind of GM that can build and maintain a championship level roster. And for me, that's good enough reason to move on after four years.

 

You also won't see me out in front of the building with a pitchfork, calling for his head.