The Grigson / Pagano saga (merged)

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Gavin said:

I have said multiple occasions he was a bad rb. I hated the stutter step, I hated that he could be ankle tackled often. I hated he did not lower his pads but his oppurtunities were most often limited as a Colt and he did actually get off to good starts in some games. I would not say defending him but looking at it from every perspective

 

Some cases don't need to be argued, my friend.

[grmasterb]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

There are problems with the article that I will probably point out as I get quoted more.....

Well, I'm quoting you. Don't hold back.

[coltsva]

If Grigson was dictating all the things mentioned in the article, then he meddles too much and should be fired. If Pagano put up with it, then let him go and get a coach who is a strong leader. 

[Surge89]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Set aside the Belichick comment. What team has had success with a QB who has shortcomings with gameplanning, in-game adjustments, game management decisions, etc.? Not to mention sustained success.

 

Ron Rivera is the closest example of a guy who goes from struggling with game management to one who excels at it, and he's an anomaly. Usually, a tiger doesn't change his stripes. I like Pagano, I like how guys play for him and rally around him, and I think it kind of sucks that he's been undermined by his GM (if this is true). But when it comes to game day coaching, he can't hang with the best coaches in the league. 

 

See that first paragraph is my issue.  How do you know he had these issues?  Grigson has been reported to force an OC on him.. That is sooo huge.  And that OC if he thinks he is above reproach he is going to show the players and gameplan the players the way he sees fit.  Gameplanning needs a unit of coaches and if there is no unit the plot thickens rapidly... His in game adjustments at one point were outstanding... Wasn't it just last year that we had great 2nd halves after awful firsts?  Game management I'll give you in a heartbeat he frustrates the heck out of me.  But that alone isn't enough to cut him.  In fact I think the willingness to do certain things empowers him (akin to Tomlin).  Plus this year of in-game management can't be taken as an end all be all.  There are so many factors here that could effect every single decision Pagano made on the field when he knew he was going to lose his job because of a GM that refused to let him at least give it his best shot.

 

That is my point.  To say he will never be in the class of Bill B. is absurd when you haven't even seen him fully coach.

[Smonroe]

6 minutes ago, coltsva said:

If Grigson was dictating all the things mentioned in the article, then he meddles too much and should be fired. If Pagano put up with it, then let him go and get a coach who is a strong leader. 

 

Thats a good point.  Let's say it's true that Grigson was making those decisions.

 

What if Chuck ignored him and played the guys he wanted?  As long as they were winning, what could they have done to him?

[adamthyst]

I am fully on the Fire Grigson wagon. I have been before this news came out, and will continue to be.

[Surge89]

Just now, Smonroe said:

 

Thats a good point.  Let's say it's true that Grigson was making those decisions.

 

What if Chuck ignored him and played the guys he wanted?  As long as they were winning, what could they have done to him?

 

Hard to do when the your staff is pushed on you by the GM.  Double hard to do when one coordinator does what he wants and the other will ask why does he and not me?

 

This is literally so far from a black and white issue.  There is tons and tons of gray.  The acts of forcing an OC or exempting a player from punishment literally change football teams. 

[coltsva]

1 minute ago, Smonroe said:

 

Thats a good point.  Let's say it's true that Grigson was making those decisions.

 

What if Chuck ignored him and played the guys he wanted?  As long as they were winning, what could they have done to him?

Exactly. Just say to Grigson "you get the players, I'll make the lineup."

[BOTT]

4 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

See that first paragraph is my issue.  How do you know he had these issues?  Grigson has been reported to force an OC on him.. That is sooo huge.  And that OC if he thinks he is above reproach he is going to show the players and gameplan the players the way he sees fit.  Gameplanning needs a unit of coaches and if there is no unit the plot thickens rapidly... His in game adjustments at one point were outstanding... Wasn't it just last year that we had great 2nd halves after awful firsts?  Game management I'll give you in a heartbeat he frustrates the heck out of me.  But that alone isn't enough to cut him.  In fact I think the willingness to do certain things empowers him (akin to Tomlin).  Plus this year of in-game management can't be taken as an end all be all.  There are so many factors here that could effect every single decision Pagano made on the field when he knew he was going to lose his job because of a GM that refused to let him at least give it his best shot.

 

That is my point.  To say he will never be in the class of Bill B. is absurd when you haven't even seen him fully coach.

JJ Watt has a better chance of being the next Bill Gates

[Surge89]

Just now, coltsva said:

Exactly. Just say to Grigson "you get the players, I'll make the lineup."

 

If you think it is that black and white you apparently never have been in either a corporate environment and/or a sports team environment. 

[BOTT]

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Thats a good point.  Let's say it's true that Grigson was making those decisions.

 

What if Chuck ignored him and played the guys he wanted?  As long as they were winning, what could they have done to him?

If Chuck allowed it to happen, he should grow a pair.

[Surge89]

Just now, BOTT said:

JJ Watt has a better chance of being the next Bill Gates

 

Ok?

 

If you want to ignore the factors around his coaching job that is fine.  I'd at least want to see if Pagano has the ability to coach without Grigson since we wasted 4 years of Luck's career with him.

[peytonmanning18]

1 minute ago, Surge89 said:

 

Hard to do when the your staff is pushed on you by the GM.  Double hard to do when one coordinator does what he wants and the other will ask why does he and not me?

 

This is literally so far from a black and white issue.  There is tons and tons of gray.  The acts of forcing an OC or exempting a player from punishment literally change football teams. 

 

This is true.  If Pep was directly taking orders from Grigson then what could Pagano do about that?  If assistant coaches had to pick who to follow orders from they would all pick the GM because ultimately he has the power to fire them and not the head coach.    

[Superman]

Just now, Surge89 said:

 

See that first paragraph is my issue.  How do you know he had these issues?  Grigson has been reported to force and OC on him.. That is sooo huge.  And that OC if he thinks he is above reproach he is going to show the players and gameplan the players the way he sees fit.  Gameplanning needs a unit of coaches and if there is no unit the plot thickens rapidly... His in game adjustments at one point were outstanding... Wasn't it just last year that we had great 2nd halves after awful firsts?  Game management I'll give you in a heartbeat he frustrates the heck out of me.  But that alone isn't enough to cut him.  In fact I think the willingness to do certain things empowers him (akin to Tomlin).  Plus this year of in-game management can't be taken as an end all be all.  There are so many factors here that could effect every single decision Pagano made on the field when he knew he was going to lose his job because of a GM that refused to let him at least give it his best shot.

 

That is my point.  To say he will never be in the class of Bill B. is absurd when you haven't even seen him fully coach.

 

Grigson isn't making 4th down and challenge decisions. Grigson isn't deciding how to cover the middle of the field. Grigson isn't responsible for telling the coordinator to get some run plays called.

 

You mentioned the second half improvements, but what about the week that's spent installing the gameplan? What about anticipating the other team's gameplan and being ready to handle it? 

 

And as others have said, if Pagano couldn't assert his control over in-game decisions, lineup decisions, discipline, etc., then he's basically just a figurehead, not a real football coach. I agree that the problems would go beyond his coaching, but that doesn't mean his coaching is above reproach.

 

I'll be honest, I think Pagano's in-game coaching gets nitpicked often. I'm not overly critical of him in that regard. But I don't feel confident that he can be one of the best coaches in the league. Never have. I don't think he can hang with Mike Tomlin and Jon Harbaugh, to say nothing of Belichick, who is simply one of the best football coaches of all time. Being literal or not, it's far more absurd to suggest that Pagano could be as good as Belichick than to suggest that he won't be.

 

Being less literal, I agree that Pagano could get better, especially if his hands have been tied by a meddling GM. But I still question his ceiling as a strategist and decision maker.

[Surge89]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

If Chuck allowed it to happen, he should grow a pair.

 

Have none of you worked in a corporate world?  This is so far from being the macho man on the playing field, or a player standing up to a coach.  If the OC wants to do it his way and he is backed by the big boss then there is nothing you can do about it.  And you ESPECIALLY don't walk out on the team because then no one will hire you.  

 

It's astonishing at how simple everyone thinks this is.  The corporate world is full of backstabbers and cowards.  Being a brave one in the mix means you are at a bigger risk of losing everything and that is just how it works.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Ok?

 

If you want to ignore the factors around his coaching job that is fine.  I'd at least want to see if Pagano has the ability to coach without Grigson since we wasted 4 years of Luck's career with him.

 

Nothing has been wasted. This team had a great trajectory prior to this season.

[Smonroe]

4 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Hard to do when the your staff is pushed on you by the GM.  Double hard to do when one coordinator does what he wants and the other will ask why does he and not me?

 

This is literally so far from a black and white issue.  There is tons and tons of gray.  The acts of forcing an OC or exempting a player from punishment literally change football teams. 

 

Oh yeah, I agree it's more complex than we'll ever know.  But it's clear the players love Chuck (doesn't make him a great coach) and seem to respect Chud.  Yes, Pep was a bad hire.

 

[Surge89]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Grigson isn't making 4th down and challenge decisions. Grigson isn't deciding how to cover the middle of the field. Grigson isn't responsible for telling the coordinator to get some run plays called.

 

You mentioned the second half improvements, but what about the week that's spent installing the gameplan? What about anticipating the other team's gameplan and being ready to handle it? 

 

And as others have said, if Pagano couldn't assert his control over in-game decisions, lineup decisions, discipline, etc., then he's basically just a figurehead, not a real football coach. I agree that the problems would go beyond his coaching, but that doesn't mean his coaching is above reproach.

 

I'll be honest, I think Pagano's in-game coaching gets nitpicked often. I'm not overly critical of him in that regard. But I don't feel confident that he can be one of the best coaches in the league. Never have. I don't think he can hang with Mike Tomlin and Jon Harbaugh, to say nothing of Belichick, who is simply one of the best football coaches of all time. Being literal or not, it's far more absurd to suggest that Pagano could be as good as Belichick than to suggest that he won't be.

 

Being less literal, I agree that Pagano could get better, especially if his hands have been tied by a meddling GM. But I still question his ceiling as a strategist and decision maker.

 

Wow...

 

You are underplaying the impact that he literally (and quite possibly) had no working coaching staff.  I don't care what game plan you would like to implement if your coordinator doesn't want to and  there is no repercussion because your boss sides with him you are SOL.  And then guess what?  Since the OC can do whatever the heck he wants it is more than likely that the DC will question everything you do as well.  There isn't a situation in which everyone holds hands and sings.  Everything is effected.  By one decision, by one meddling GM.  

 

That is where I'm saying you have no idea how he coaches because that is literally how he could've been effected.

[coltsva]

3 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

If you think it is that black and white you apparently never have been in either a corporate environment and/or a sports team environment. 

Been in plenty, and yeah, I probably made it too black and white. I assume they would have had discussions o about differences of opinions on who should play over who and such, but as head coach the final say on the field is Chucks. If it wasn't then neither guy should be here next year. 

[DougDew]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not remotely. He's restating info that he claims to have gotten from Colts sources. You can say you don't agree with it, you can say it's not reliable, you can deride it because it's unnamed sources... you can even undermine it because it comes from Kravitz, who has his flaws. But he's clearly differentiating between opinion and reporting.

Kravitz doesn't need to compare Grigson to Polian.  He's trying to make a point...not reporting.   Kravitz wants to be king of the press room when he is in it and tries to tear down anybody who might stand in his way.  That has always been his SOP, take down the highest person he can..when you do that..you are challenged less.  Kravitz is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

He is still working the "meddler" angle from this summer..in fact.. he says the same thing he said back in the "rift" article this summer. 

 

"According to sources, assistant coaches would suggest to Pagano that he try something, only to have Pagano respond, "We can’t do that." He never pointed at Grigson, but everybody knew the score" 

 

Maybe those suggestions weren't taken because Grigson is a meddler...maybe those suggestions weren't taken because they sucked. (Kind of like a corporation having a suggestion box so the little people feel empowered...most of the suggestions placed in the box stink..that's not a character flaw of the executive to reject suggestions that suck)

 

He points out that Grigson made coaching decisions since the day Pagano got here in 2012:

 

Then does Arians deserve Coach of the year, or should it have been Grigson?  Because the team has really been pretty successful with Grigson meddling so much.

 

Dustin listed the three decisions that everybody knows sucked....can't be disputed...fine...did Grigson make 72 other coaching decisions that were good?  Or did Kravitz just point out the bad ones? 

 

And, no, being a meddler in an of itself  is not bad.  When you are leading a team, you don't let someone fail to the detriment of the team.  Again, Kravitz is implying that all of the little people in the organization would do a better job if the boss stayed out of it.  Bull.  Most of the time when an Executive meddles in the doings of their subordinates, its because the subordinates need meddling, until they are replaced.  And the meddler isn't perfect himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have cause for meddling.

 

And the Pep thing still makes no sense.  Grigson hired Chud too right after hiring Pep.  Its the same non criticism criticism.

[deedub75]

Well don't the slow starts and seemingly lack of adjustments still fall on Chuck?  I'm one to believe that Chuck has been handicapped by decisions above him but do we really want to wait 3-4 more years to find out?

[Surge89]

Just now, coltsva said:

Been in plenty, and yeah, I probably made it too black and white. I assume they would have had discussions o about differences of opinions on who should play over who and such, but as head coach the final say on the field is Chucks. If it wasn't then neither guy should be here next year. 

 

It has been reported for quite a while now that it has never been Chuck's decision. And now it is being reported that everyone knew Hamilton reported directly to Grigs.  I mean how can you do anything when you literally have no one behind you?

 

And if you say then he should've just left... How in the heck is he ever gonna get a HC job if he just leaves his players, players that love him?  Cmon man

[Surge89]

Just now, deedub75 said:

Well don't the slow starts and seemingly lack of adjustments still fall on Chuck?  I'm one to believe that Chuck has been handicapped by decisions above him but do we really want to wait 3-4 more years to find out?

 

Now here is a good question.

 

I don't know...  I mean I feel bad for Chuck and I'd love for him to get a chance to prove himself.  But what kind of collateral damage will happen if Chuck or Grigs stays?  Is it worth the tarnish?  I'm leaning no.

[BOTT]

8 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Have none of you worked in a corporate world?  This is so far from being the macho man on the playing field, or a player standing up to a coach.  If the OC wants to do it his way and he is backed by the big boss then there is nothing you can do about it.  And you ESPECIALLY don't walk out on the team because then no one will hire you.  

 

It's astonishing at how simple everyone thinks this is.  The corporate world is full of backstabbers and cowards.  Being a brave one in the mix means you are at a bigger risk of losing everything and that is just how it works.

Oh give me a break.  Name a respected NFL coach who would have stood by and allowed it to happen.  

 

You dont have to walk out. Just refuse to do what he wants and let the chips fall where they may.

[MTC]

I'm not surprised at all.

 

 

[bluebombers87]

In my totally non-important opinion, I feel that if even half of this is true, then Grigson has to go. 

 

You cannot in any way hold a coach responsible if his boss has been undermining him.

 

So far this year we have reports of tension between Pags and Grigs. We've also heard rumors of issues between Grigs and Irsay. What's the common denominator?

 

This forum has been hyper-critical of Pags. It's a trend that probably extends to most teams fanbases but we as Colts fans have been (again in my worthless opinion) overly critical of all our coaches.

[C0lts088]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

It was a good call.  Bad spot by the refs.

Bad spot, but it was still short. 

[Surge89]

Just now, BOTT said:

Oh give me a break.  Name a respected NFL coach who would have stood by and allowed it to happen.  

 

You dont have to walk out. Just refuse to do what he wants and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Who are you speaking of?  You want Chuck to refuse who?

 

How can Chuck refuse someone who is running an offense.  Someone who is being put there by his boss.  How do you refuse that?  Do you tell the players hey we are gonna pretend during practice that the OC is gonna run things and then we will have a secret practice and do how I want even though that isn't what my expertise is in.  But hey I'll just do this and stuff will work out...

 

Lol that is how rediculous your statement sounds.

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

Well, I'm quoting you. Don't hold back.

I only want to respond once, so check out my response to Superman.  I have more but I'll wait until I organize my thoughts.

[Surge89]

11 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Oh yeah, I agree it's more complex than we'll ever know.  But it's clear the players love Chuck (doesn't make him a great coach) and seem to respect Chud.  Yes, Pep was a bad hire.

 

 

I understand that his players loving him doesn't make him a great coach.  My point from the very beginning was that he has not been given a chance to show what he can do.  The acts of putting an OC in and exempting a player from punishment undermine the very existence of Pagano's role.  How can you judge him when he literally was nothing?  And he literally had no say in it...

 

But this is all moot because just as another poster brought up...  How can you keep either?  No matter what there will be collateral damage of integrity of the organization that you can't avoid.

[coltsva]

2 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

It has been reported for quite a while now that it has never been Chuck's decision. And now it is being reported that everyone knew Hamilton reported directly to Grigs.  I mean how can you do anything when you literally have no one behind you?

 

And if you say then he should've just left... How in the heck is he ever gonna get a HC job if he just leaves his players, players that love him?  Cmon man

Too many unknowns here. Was it like this from year one? Did it start with Trent? Just this year? Was the understanding from the start that both player acquisition, coaching staff and game day lineups would be joint decisions? We really need a lot more information to make accurate assessments. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Wow...

 

You are underplaying the impact that he literally (and quite possibly) had no working coaching staff.  I don't care what game plan you would like to implement if your coordinator doesn't want to and  there is no repercussion because your boss sides with him you are SOL.  And then guess what?  Since the OC can do whatever the heck he wants it is more than likely that the DC will question everything you do as well.  There isn't a situation in which everyone holds hands and sings.  Everything is effected.  By one decision, by one meddling GM.  

 

That is where I'm saying you have no idea how he coaches because that is literally how he could've been effected.

 

Yeah, that's a very convenient way to dismiss questionable coaching decisions, of which there have been a few. And honestly, if Pagano spent two plus years coaching this team without being able to implement the gameplans he wanted, then I question his ability to lead a team even more. If he allowed a situation to persist in which he was undermined by his GM, and then his OC, and that led to his team being ill-prepared against good teams, then he deserves some blame as well.

 

I'm personally not convinced that his legs were cut out from under him to the degree that you're describing. It could be, but I don't know that to be the case.

 

Even so, if Pagano couldn't get Grigson to trust his decision making, and if, in the light of being neutered by Grigson's meddling to the degree you're describing, especially against teams like New England and Pittsburgh, he couldn't sit down with Irsay and get back control of his staff, then I don't see room to excuse him for the way things have happened. He can't wash his hands of the situation just because Grigson has meddled. It's a reflection on him also.

[ricker182]

Pagano doesn't want to stay. I can't blame him.... 

 

Wake up Irsay. 

There's a cancer in your front office. 

 

Grigson better be gone. 

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

Well don't the slow starts and seemingly lack of adjustments still fall on Chuck?  I'm one to believe that Chuck has been handicapped by decisions above him but do we really want to wait 3-4 more years to find out?

 

Not I.

[Surge89]

Just now, coltsva said:

Too many unknowns here. Was it like this from year one? Did it start with Trent? Just this year? Was the understanding from the start that both player acquisition, coaching staff and game day lineups would be joint decisions? We really need a lot more information to make accurate assessments. 

 

Ok I can dig that.

 

But either way you can't keep either.  This thread has shown me there will be too much collateral damage.

[BOTT]

Just now, Surge89 said:

 

Who are you speaking of?  You want Chuck to refuse who?

 

How can Chuck refuse someone who is running an offense.  Someone who is being put there by his boss.  How do you refuse that?  Do you tell the players hey we are gonna pretend during practice that the OC is gonna run things and then we will have a secret practice and do how I want even though that isn't what my expertise is in.  But hey I'll just do this and stuff will work out...

 

Lol that is how rediculous your statement sounds.

you refuse to play Richardson 

 

you refuse to play harrison

 

you inform Pep that Chud is now running the offense.  Or is Grigson going to run down to the practice field and take over?

 

but maybe you are a pastry like Chuck and need to grow a pair.

 

and if you are going to call someone ridiculous, you might want to learn how to spell it.

 

[ricker182]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

you refuse to play Richardson 

 

you refuse to play harrison

 

you inform Pep that Chud is now running the offense.  Or is Grigson going to run down to the practice field and take over?

 

but maybe you are a pastry like Chuck and need to grow a pair.

 

and if you are going to call someone ridiculous, you might want to learn how to spell it.

 

If he ever wanted another coaching job he cannot undermine the GM. 

 

It makes Pagano look bad if he does. 

 

He played this right. Grigson is the villain. 

 

He'll get a head coaching job somewhere else now. 

[Surge89]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, that's a very convenient way to dismiss questionable coaching decisions, of which there have been a few. And honestly, if Pagano spent two plus years coaching this team without being able to implement the gameplans he wanted, then I question his ability to lead a team even more. If he allowed a situation to persist in which he was undermined by his GM, and then his OC, and that led to his team being ill-prepared against good teams, then he deserves some blame as well.

 

I'm personally not convinced that his legs were cut out from under him to the degree that you're describing. It could be, but I don't know that to be the case.

 

Even so, if Pagano couldn't get Grigson to trust his decision making, and if, in the light of being neutered by Grigson's meddling to the degree you're describing, especially against teams like New England and Pittsburgh, he couldn't sit down with Irsay and get back control of his staff, then I don't see room to excuse him for the way things have happened. He can't wash his hands of the situation just because Grigson has meddled. It's a reflection on him also.

 

I agree with you that Pagano shouldn't return.

 

I don't agree that it is so simple to fix a situation like this.  It isn't like you can just take the owner and say look.  The guy you trusted that won GM of the year couple years back isn't letting anything work.  Why? because the minute you do that the whole staff turns against you and force you out anyways.  When that happens you aren't like and most likely not gonna coach elsewhere.  There are so many factors.  

 

Convenient?  If you'd like to call it that.  But it is real life.  People are cut throat and will do anything.  I've learned that first hand. Especially in corporate worlds.  If you aren't smart people can ruin you from ever coaching again.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, ricker182 said:

Pagano doesn't want to stay.

 

What's that based on?

[Surge89]

8 minutes ago, BOTT said:

you refuse to play Richardson 

 

you refuse to play harrison

 

you inform Pep that Chud is now running the offense.  Or is Grigson going to run down to the practice field and take over?

 

but maybe you are a pastry like Chuck and need to grow a pair.

 

and if you are going to call someone ridiculous, you might want to learn how to spell it.

 

 

Lol are you naive enough to not think that undermining a GM would lead to him maybe not ever getting another coaching position? Ok whatever I need to grow a pair I guess.

 

Also apologies I was typing fast and ridiculous came out as rediculous.  Which btw I didn't call you ridiculous.  I said your post sounds that way.  If you can't take the criticism of your post and have to take it personally why do you post on message boards?