Why did Grigson get rid of 2 good pass rushers?

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

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.

I think Irsay should have a good idea who would be better and maybe even a get soft commitment before he moves on.  This isn't a Matt Millen situation where there is a huge universe of replacements that would be better.

[Freenyfan102]

On 12/30/2015 at 0:03 PM, MTC said:

 

Dwight Freeney was still a decent pass rusher. He didn't "suck".

 

Jerry Hughes just didn't have enough opportunities/snaps to develop in our defense. 

 

 

Sounds like Werner  doesn't it

[UKColt13]

Freeney was losing his effectiveness after (I believe) an injury and didnt fit the hybrid 3-4. 

 

Jerry Hughes was garbage here. He was Bjoern Werner. It wasn't until Jerry Hughes got a change of scheme and a change of scenery that he exploded. 

 

As as much as I'd like to, you can't put that on Grigson. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Gavin]

41 minutes ago, UKColt13 said:

Freeney was losing his effectiveness after (I believe) an injury and didnt fit the hybrid 3-4. 

 

Jerry Hughes was garbage here. He was Bjoern Werner. It wasn't until Jerry Hughes got a change of scheme and a change of scenery that he exploded. 

 

As as much as I'd like to, you can't put that on Grigson. Hindsight is 20/20.

The scheme Hughes exploded in wasn't much of a change at all. He also had 4 sacks while starting 6 games,,,He played 595 defensive snaps in his last season in 2012...He played in all 16 games but 37.1 sporadic snaps a game...While also being asked to drop back in coverage some. Cardinals also play a 3-4 mostly., He could fit with the Colts scheme...He just got old and broken down, He still can be that Freeney that he once was but just not every snap

 

Anyway all done and over with

[Kyle]

On 12/30/2015 at 11:39 AM, csmopar said:

Actually, both sucked in our 3-4 hybrid scheme. Especially Hughes. Freeney was decent but playing out of position for his talents. That and he wanted a TON of money to come back to Indy. 

 

Hughes seriously sucked in the scheme and when he went to the Bills, in a 4 -3, he excelled. Nothing wrong with losing players that don't fit your scheme. 

i disagree.  Hughes was never given an opportunity for the Colts.  He played behind Mathis and Freeney the whole time he was in Indy.  Also, Bills basically use Hughes as a 3-4 outside linebacker. 

[JPFolks]

On 12/30/2015 at 0:02 PM, csmopar said:

For a few reasons.

 

A: Irsay hired Pagano, Grigs and Co. To move us away from the 4-3 that was getting us destroyed to a 3-4. 

B: while you can scheme around players, we were committed to the 3-4 and had far more 3-4 skill set players than 4-3 at that point. 

 

Also, Hughes hadn't shown anything in the 4 -3 prior either. Plus he was unhappy as heck. 

Yes, they got us away from that awful 4-3 so we could get even MORE destroyed and humiliated by the likes of Jax etc. giving up multiple 50 point romps... Didn't Irsay hire Grigson and then together they hired Pagano? I put more blame on Grigson... if he wanted to coach AND be GM, Irsay should have hired him to do so.  In truth aren't we more of a hybrid over the past 4 years where we, for example, had Mathis essentially playing like a 4-3 end? 

[Rally5]

On 12/30/2015 at 11:39 AM, SteelCityColt said:

To get to the other side...

 

Sorry I thought this was like a "Why did the chicken cross the road?" setup.

 

 

You don't have to explain your jokes.....I think we get it.