Are we that spoiled?

[COLTS449]

11 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Upon reading some of the anti-fixes not contained by what the Colts have laid out, what are the solutions with the now sustained protocol? If the new coaching regime and draft isn't the answer for the future of the team, what is? I haven't seen one plan laid out by anyone for a better fix.

 

So, let's hear it from the naysayers. What exactly is your plan other than the present course of action the organization has chosen? I'm all ears.

 

Well here's what I think would have been best, and a lot of others will agree. We should have cut Dre, Cole, DQ, Werner, and restructured Jones like we did. That would have given us enough cap room to sign some young impact players. I don't know the exact number, but it would have given us in between 40 and 50 million in cap room. So. We should have re-signed Freeman (He would have re-signed if we offered 3/15 instead of the 3/12 he got from Chicago. Then we should have signed Sean Smith 4/40, and Kelechi Osemele 5/58. We would have had enough cap room to make those 2 signings work, and probably even have enough to sign a 2nd tier vet like Weddle too. Those 2 signings would have made our team better than its been since the Luck era begun. Then get our pass rusher and starting Center in the 1st and 2nd round of the draft.

[esmort]

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

So then why is everyone losing their minds when we adopt their strategy towards free agency? 

 

Those teams all use FA at times.  They also have more developmental players in the pipeline and/or more capable FO and coaches.

 

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Also we have made the playoffs more then the Steelers since grigson came here.

 

 

The Steelers are almost always a force to be reckoned with even if they don't make the playoffs.  And do we really need to compare divisions to see why that might have happened?

 

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

We are more successful then one of the teams you want our expectations to be for. And yet we do nothing but complain. Lots of Teams would be pumped to be doing as well as us. I think all the negative comments are a bit if an overreaction. 

 

Comparing us to the average and bottom dwellar teams ... who cares if those teams want to be more like us we shouldn't base our expectations on mediocrity.

[ColtRider]

1 minute ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Well here's what I think would have been best, and a lot of others will agree. We should have cut Dre, Cole, DQ, Werner, and restructured Jones like we did. That would have given us enough cap room to sign some young impact players. I don't know the exact number, but it would have given us in between 40 and 50 million in cap room. So. We should have re-signed Freeman (He would have re-signed if we offered 3/15 instead of the 3/12 he got from Chicago. Then we should have signed Sean Smith 4/40, and Kelechi Osemele 5/58. We would have had enough cap room to make those 2 signings work, and probably even have enough to sign a 2nd tier vet like Weddle too. Those 2 signings would have made our team better than its been since the Luck era begun. Then get our pass rusher and starting Center in the 1st and 2nd round of the draft.

 

That's all fine and dandy except for one thing. It's not the path the Colts chose to start their foundation through draft. I'd like to think that this new regime is relying on their successful past to make changes solely upon that experience. 

 

To me, the choices made so far align themselves with the newly chosen staff. And that's not a negative. It's a switch to acquire their systematic choice of action which includes a totally different direction as Irsay stated. You can't have it both ways. It's a one way street now. There's no point at barking at the directive if we're not totally privy to what that is yet. We're soon going to find out a lot more over the next several months as to what that contains fully. But from what I've gathered to this point is exactly what the upper tiered teams follow as protocol year in & out. That's a plus rather than suspect to failure.

[BOTT]

28 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Upon reading some of the anti-fixes not contained by what the Colts have laid out, what are the solutions with the now sustained protocol? If the new coaching regime and draft isn't the answer for the future of the team, what is? I haven't seen one plan laid out by anyone for a better fix.

 

So, let's hear it from the naysayers. What exactly is your plan other than the present course of action the organization has chosen? I'm all ears.

the present course of action was dictated by the GM's past actions.

[SaturdayAllDay]

Just now, esmort said:

 

Those teams all use FA at times.  They also have more developmental players in the pipeline and/or more capable FO and coaches.

 

 

The Steelers are almost always a force to be reckoned with even if they don't make the playoffs.  And do we really need to compare divisions to see why that might have happened?

 

 

Comparing us to the average and bottom dwellar teams ... who cares if those teams want to be more like us we shouldn't base our expectations on mediocrity.

Sorry how many free agents did the Packers sign so far? Or last year for that matter? 

Yes they all have better prospects coming in the last few years but that's why we signed 11 new staff, to try and fix that. Let them have a shot before calling our brand new staff a failure. 

 

You want the Colts to be successful,  does it matter how we get there? Yah the Steelers have a better division but that doesn't change the facts. We have had 3 solid seasons so far and are second in wins only to the Patriots.  Our division is bad because our rivals can't build their team, not our fault. We also beat a lot of good Teams over the years, including the super bowl Champs this year. We have one bad season and gut our staff because of it. We retain the two top guys for continuity (something all of those successful Teams do) and tell them to change to a proven strategy on building a franchise. What more do you expect from the franchise? 

So far we are a week into the offseason,  and already the fanbase gives up.  That comes across as spoiled. Maybe give our new staff more then a week to prove themselves. 

[oldunclemark]

Yes, we Colts fans are spoiled.

...even in a season where we were shredded by injuries on offense..we went 8-8 and we're whining.

 

//we don't want to see who we get in the draft because its harder to bad mouth management after we acquire decent young players.

///

 

When you look at the last 4 years, we have performed very well when even marginally healthy.

I think there';s a lot of calmer Colts fans who are optimistic.

Optimists don't post

 

 

[ColtRider]

1 minute ago, BOTT said:

the present course of action was dictated by the GM's past actions.

 

I agree. It wasn't working at 100%. But the fact that a lot of that GMs directives, apparently through coaching, is gone. I don't lay claim to why Grigson has been retained. Whatever that is, resides with Irsay and privy others. I only know that Irsay recognized that too, by replacing most of the coaching staff. Whether that totally corrects an argumentitive course of action is yet to be seen.

[ColtRider]

4 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Yes, we Colts fans are spoiled.

...even in a season where we were shredded by injuries on offense..we went 8-8 and we're whining.

 

//we don't want to see who we get in the draft because its harder to bad mouth management after we acquire decent young players.

///

 

When you look at the last 4 years, we have performed very well when even marginally healthy.

I think there';s a lot of calmer Colts fans who are optimistic.

Optimists don't post

 

 

 

Some of us post, OUM.  

[esmort]

18 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Sorry how many free agents did the Packers sign so far? Or last year for that matter? 

Yes they all have better prospects coming in the last few years but that's why we signed 11 new staff, to try and fix that. Let them have a shot before calling our brand new staff a failure.

 

I said at times.  The Packers also have a proven track record so they get the benefit of the doubt, Grigson has no such track record to afford him that benefit.

 

Quote

You want the Colts to be successful,  does it matter how we get there?

 

What matters is if I think Grigson can get them there (I Don't).

 

Quote

Yah the Steelers have a better division but that doesn't change the facts. We have had 3 solid seasons so far and are second in wins only to the Patriots.  

 

Regular season wins, that doesn't mean much especially when it is partially reflective of division.

 

Quote

Our division is bad because our rivals can't build their team, not our fault.

 

Not our fault, but we benefit greatly from it and skews reality on how good of team we often are. 

 

Quote

We also beat a lot of good Teams over the years, including the super bowl Champs this year. We have one bad season and gut our staff because of it.

 

We beat some good teams, but not who mattered and when it mattered.  We gutted the staff for more than one bad season.

 

Quote

 

We retain the two top guys for continuity (something all of those successful Teams do) and tell them to change to a proven strategy on building a franchise.

 

Retaining incompetence is not a good thing, even if it does provide continuity.

 

Quote

What more do you expect from the franchise? 

 

Make competent decisions and quit making the same mistakes.

 

Quote

So far we are a week into the offseason,  and already the fanbase gives up.  That comes across as spoiled. Maybe give our new staff more then a week to prove themselves. 

 

Spoiled in your opinion  ... If having high expectations is considered spoiled, than color me spoiled and proud of it. Grigson has had far more than a week to prove himself.

[Coltfreak]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

But how did those moves improve the team? We still have the same crappy o line and crappy linebackers. No improvement there at all. Also, can't fill every hole with the draft.  Plus what good players we did have, we've let walk....fleener, lowery and freeman

So you are saying if we had kept then we would be in the same shape or even better?

 

Didnt need 2 high paid TE's  Lowery is no big loss and Freeman was offered the same by the Colts but he is butt hurt about last season not getting a big deal 

 

So thanks for helping me make my argument   All three of those moves were good ones too.

 

Come on man.

[BOTT]

13 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

I agree. It wasn't working at 100%. But the fact that a lot of that GMs directives, apparently through coaching, is gone. I don't lay claim to why Grigson has been retained. Whatever that is, resides with Irsay and privy others. I only know that Irsay recognized that too, by replacing most of the coaching staff. Whether that totally corrects an argumentitive course of action is yet to be seen.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.  I see Grigson as the man still with final say in personnel and Pagano needed a better staff.

[NBColtsFanatic]

53 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

 

And if wanted a veteran wide out. Why didn't we try to trade for Brandon Marshall instead of Dre???

COLTS449, PREACH!

[SaturdayAllDay]

12 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

I said at times.  The Packers also have a proven track record so they get the benefit of the doubt, Grigson has no such track record to afford him that benefit.

 

 

What matters is if I think Grigson can get them there (I Don't).

 

 

Regular season wins, that doesn't mean much especially when it is partially reflective of division.

 

 

Not our fault, but we benefit greatly from it and skews reality on how good of team we often are. 

 

 

We beat some good teams, but not who mattered and when it mattered.  We gutted the staff for more than one bad season.

 

 

Retaining incompetence is not a good thing, even if it does provide continuity.

 

 

Make competent decisions and quit making the same mistakes.

 

 

Spoiled in your opinion  ... If having high expectations is considered spoiled, than color me spoiled and proud of it. Grigson has had far more than a week to prove himself

To be honest,  I can't stand grigson. There was a hole in my wall that had to be fixed after finding out he was retained.  But with all of the changes and the understanding that they are moving forward as a group and not making the same decisions,  I just don't think a week is enough time to throw people under the bus. Like I've said If this offseason doesn't improve I will be right with you guys. But with all the good coaches we brought in I'm willing to give them a shot until OTAs start up. 

One week is not indicative of a whole offseason, so why freak out because we did exactly what every other successful team did? I just don't get why we are expected to perform like a top team but be simultaneously flashy in free agency like Teams who never have prolonged success. I wish we would have made a few offers to some players (especially a few that went so low) but I am willing to accept that this new direction has a plan (at least for now). If they weren't planning on doing anything different they wouldn't have been extended in the first place. 

[dgambill]

One thing people have to realize is 2016 isn't the end of free agency forever. The 2017 class actually has the possibility of having some really nice players available at some positions we may still have need to upgrade. We can't be short sighted and blow money when we could very well have better answers to our needs out there next year. We see this in other sports a lot. You free up space or make moves in looking towards the following year. It also happens in the draft too....you may not reach for a DT because the next years class may be two three rds deep in talent at that position. I can't help thinking grigson is looking forward to next year and saving money back to attack some guys that could be on that list. Grigson hasn't been shy in pulling the trigger...he will target and get his man when he wants him....well maybe his men aren't in this class. Nothing wrong with saving cap space to attack free agency next year. He just got a long term extension. He doesn't have the pressure to win now at all cost. I look at who could possibly be on the radar next year and I like some names on that list. Let's be open to the idea that we may be looking more long term this offseason and that we can make upgrades internally by getting some guys healthy and with some coaching changes.

[oldunclemark]

Sometiems not locking yourself into free agents deals sets you up for future years.

And signing your own players is also a kind of free agent deal

 

 I think we are in a good spot.

We're better than an 8-8 team but we're drafting in the spot we got for being 8-8.

We're poised for a rebound this fall....Add an O-lineman and another perimiter defender and we're ready to rumble.

 I think any realistic analysis would conclude that

[ColtRider]

44 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.  I see Grigson as the man still with final say in personnel and Pagano needed a better staff.

 

Well, that might be very true. I just can't see Irsay giving a total revamp without other input besides Grigson as the final call going forward. If I'm wrong, I'd gladly recant.

[BOTT]

Just now, ColtRider said:

 

Well, that might be very true. I just can't see Irsay giving a total revamp without other input besides Grigson as the final call going forward. If I'm wrong, I'd gladly recant.

I'm sure others have input, but he is the GM....for better or worse, and he should have final say.

[ColtRider]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I'm sure others have input, but he is the GM....for better or worse, and he should have final say.

 

Yep. As it should be. I firmly believe more cohesion is to be sought from here on out.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, BOTT said:

I think many people are of the opinion that the Colts have won despite Grigson NOT because of Grigson.  And if you think that is just a fans perspective, you are wrong.

 

Who else has that perspective?

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, esmort said:

 

I said at times.  The Packers also have a proven track record so they get the benefit of the doubt, Grigson has no such track record to afford him that benefit.

 

 

What matters is if I think Grigson can get them there (I Don't).

 

 

Regular season wins, that doesn't mean much especially when it is partially reflective of division.

 

 

Not our fault, but we benefit greatly from it and skews reality on how good of team we often are. 

 

 

We beat some good teams, but not who mattered and when it mattered.  We gutted the staff for more than one bad season.

 

 

Retaining incompetence is not a good thing, even if it does provide continuity.

 

 

Make competent decisions and quit making the same mistakes.

 

 

Spoiled in your opinion  ... If having high expectations is considered spoiled, than color me spoiled and proud of it. Grigson has had far more than a week to prove himself.

 

Grigson has...  "no track record?"

 

You mean other than 11-6, 12-6, and 13-6?     Then going 8 an 8 with 5 different quarterbacks?     Perhaps you didn't notice Dallas going 4-12 when they lost their starting QB?

 

I would've been fine if Grigson had been fired this off-season.    He wasn't.    But to say he has "no track record" is simply ridiculous and false.

 

[BOTT]

49 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Who else has that perspective?

 

There have been knowledgeable pundits, along with some *ic pundits, who have been questioning the colts moves since the first off season.  

When you have ex coaches like Dick Vermeil and Brian Billick stating that Andrew Luck is carrying the team it kinda tells you what they think of the roster.

[SaturdayAllDay]

15 minutes ago, BOTT said:

There have been knowledgeable pundits, along with some *ic pundits, who have been questioning the colts moves since the first off season.  

When you have ex coaches like Dick Vermeil and Brian Billick stating that Andrew Luck is carrying the team it kinda tells you what they think of the roster.

To be fair a qb carrying a team isn't anything new. Can't see the Patriots being a super bowl contender if Brady went down. Same with Packers if Rodgers went down. Hell even the Steelers looked suspect without Ben, as did Cincinnati without Dalton (and Dalton isn't even that good).These are the top Teams we compare our team to. Let's not kid ourselves by saying they don't carry their teams.

[BProland85]

I agree with the original post to an extent, but I also don't wanna see Luck's best years wasted because Grigson didn't surround him with a quality OL or defense. That's my biggest worry. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, BOTT said:

There have been knowledgeable pundits, along with some *ic pundits, who have been questioning the colts moves since the first off season.  

When you have ex coaches like Dick Vermeil and Brian Billick stating that Andrew Luck is carrying the team it kinda tells you what they think of the roster.

 

Fair enough.... 

 

Personally,  I wouldn't give too much weight/credit for the pundits,  dicks or otherwise....

 

But I'd give considerable weight to Vermeil and Bullock.      

 

Grigson lost me this past season, and one of my main arguments is the roster is not where it should be after 4 years.     Not nearly.      Too many misses in FA and the draft.    So,  I can't fight the argument here.......

 

[esmort]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Grigson has...  "no track record?"

 

You mean other than 11-6, 12-6, and 13-6?     Then going 8 an 8 with 5 different quarterbacks?     Perhaps you didn't notice Dallas going 4-12 when they lost their starting QB?

 

I would've been fine if Grigson had been fired this off-season.    He wasn't.    But to say he has "no track record" is simply ridiculous and false.

 

 

Yes, four years is quite a track record and the records those years all are a reflection of Grigson's genius. Remind me again about his track record in the 1st round of the draft (and Luck doesn't count).  How about his outstanding FA track record?  Grigson has a track record on par with the Packers organization as it relates to developing their own talent in house; that's what you are arguing (btw the actual quote was "no such track record" and was in comparison to the Packers)? You really believe that??  Wow! a trait that many would argue the Packers epitomize and Grigson has achieved it in only four short years; how could you ever even consider being fine if he had been fired!!

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

Everybody keeps saying we splurged in FA last year, and won FA. I don't get that. We signed 3 old, over the hill guys, and Langford. Splurging would have been signing 3-4 impact players in their prime. Like what the NY Giants did this year.

 

Who said we won FA?!?     I'm not aware of that?

 

Who made that claim?       That's just one big giant Strawman.     

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, esmort said:

 

Yes, four years is quite a track record and the records those years all are a reflection of Grigson's genius. Remind me again about his track record in the 1st round of the draft (and Luck doesn't count).  How about his outstanding FA track record?  Grigson has a track record on par with the Packers organization as it relates to developing their own talent in house; that's what you are arguing (btw the actual quote was "no such track record" and was in comparison to the Packers)? You really believe that??  Wow! a trait that many would argue the Packers epitomize and Grigson has achieved it in only four short years; how could you ever even consider being fine if he had been fired!!

 

What are we disagreeing about here?

 

You said he had no such track record.      I simply pointed out his success which you don't want to acknowledge.

 

For the record,  I have said repeatedly I was fine if Grigson was fired this off-season.     He lost my support this season.   I've repeatedly said in many posts that the roster is not where it should be after four years.     The result of too many misses in the draft and free agency.       I've said it over and over and over again,  including multiple posts today.

 

But the guy has a track record and it's pretty darn successful.      Just not successful enough.   I still wanted him removed because he's made too many mistakes that were avoidable.    Opportunities squandered.

 

 

[COLTS449]

17 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Who said we won FA?!?     I'm not aware of that?

 

How made that claim?       That's just one big giant Strawman.     

 

 

 

Several people have made very similar comments. Maybe not those exact words, but same difference.

[ColtRider]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What are we disagreeing about here?

 

You said he had no such track record.      I simply pointed out his success which you don't want to acknowledge.

 

For the record,  I have said repeatedly I was fine if Grigson was fired this off-season.     He lost my support this season.   I've repeatedly said in many posts that the roster is not where it should be after four years.     The result of too many misses in the draft and free agency.       I've said it over and over and over again,  including multiple posts today.

 

But the guy has a track record and it's pretty darn successful.      Just not successful enough.   I still wanted him removed because he's made too many mistakes that were avoidable.    Opportunities squandered.

 

 

 

NCF, what's your take on why Grigson has been retained by Irsay? I've given my reasons as to why of sorts in different threads. Curious to get more input from more seasoned members here. And, I think that's a huge question only Irsay, probably Pagano, and several privy others could answer. Throwing darts at an empty board is not my forte, but I digress for some more insight as to why.

[NewColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Several people have made very similar comments. Maybe not those exact words, but same difference.

 

Look....    football is the most popular sport in American by a wide margin.....   and because of that, lots of people cover it.     Not all of them are very smart.     Some don't know up from down.

 

I don't think ANY smart media types would say the Colts "won free agency"....     we've often had a lot of money so we make a big splash,   but we took a LOT of heat last year for signing AJ,  Gore,  Cole and Herremans.   Too old!!    Past their prime!!    Lots of media types killed the Colts for doing that.      

 

Anyone who said we "won free agency" don't know up from down....

 

[NewColtsFan]

23 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

NCF, what's your take on why Grigson has been retained by Irsay? I've given my reasons as to why of sorts in different threads. Curious to get more input from more seasoned members here. And, I think that's a huge question only Irsay, probably Pagano, and several privy others could answer. Throwing darts at an empty board is not my forte, but I digress for some more insight as to why.

 

That's a very good question, CR....      when he made his announcement that Grigson and Pagano were staying, Irsay said Grigson had overseen a team that had won 41 regular season games in their first four years,  better than what we had done with Polian.     And had won 3 playoff games,  again, better than Polian.

 

So, that played a factor.

 

Also,  I think Grigson called around to replace Pagano...    I can't believe we didn't at least call Saban and several other candidates.     My hunch is Irsay didn't like what he heard....    I'd bet he heard that guys like Saban wanted (A) too much money and (B) too much control.     

 

I think Irsay felt firing both would be too much of a shock/blow to the franchise and it was likely better to try and make it work for at least one more year -- if not two.

 

Nothing else makes much sense.

 

I will add this......    the last week of the season and in the Monday/Tuesday right after,  there were stories that said if Irsay fired Pagano,  that Chuck would find no shortage of teams interested in hiring him to be their HC.   That to other owners,  they thought that Pags had done a good job with a team that (A) wasn't very talented,  (B)  the HC didn't have great support from the GM  and (C)  that Irsay was a hard owner to coach for.   Other owners thought Pagano would be a very good coach for their team.     Reportedly,  Irsay heard all that and did a hard look at things and re-thought what he was going to do.      Now, I don't know how much of that is accurate....    but it "feels" accurate to me...    and considering we all thought that Pagano was going to be fired on Monday,  and he got a new contract on Tuesday,  it sure seems to fit the narrative.....  

 

Feels to me that Grigson and Pagano are sort of connected at the hip and Irsay has given them marching orders to do better and play nicely in the sand box.

 

Sorry for the length of this post........

 

[BOTT]

2 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

To be fair a qb carrying a team isn't anything new. Can't see the Patriots being a super bowl contender if Brady went down. Same with Packers if Rodgers went down. Hell even the Steelers looked suspect without Ben, as did Cincinnati without Dalton (and Dalton isn't even that good).These are the top Teams we compare our team to. Let's not kid ourselves by saying they don't carry their teams.

True, but I think it's fair to say those teams have overall rosters that are superior.

[ColtRider]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

That's a very good question, CR....      when he made his announcement that Grigson and Pagano were staying, Irsay said Grigson had overseen a team that had won 41 regular season games in their first four years,  better than what we had done with Polian.     And had won 3 playoff games,  again, better than Polian.

 

So, that played a factor.

 

Also,  I think Grigson called around to replace Pagano...    I can't believe we didn't at least call Saban and several other candidates.     My hunch is Irsay didn't like what he heard....    I'd bet he heard that guys like Saban wanted (A) too much money and (B) too much control.     

 

I think Irsay felt firing both would be too much of a shock/blow to the franchise and it was likely better to try and make it work for at least one more year -- if not two.

 

Nothing else makes much sense.

 

I will add this......    the last week of the season and in the Monday/Tuesday right after,  there were stories that said if Irsay fired Pagano,  that Chuck would find no shortage of teams interested in hiring him to be their HC.   That to other owners,  they thought that Pags had done a good job with a team that (A) wasn't very talented,  (B)  the HC didn't have great support from the GM  and (C)  that Irsay was a hard owner to coach for.   Other owners thought Pagano would be a very good coach for their team.     Reportedly,  Irsay heard all that and did a hard look at things and re-thought what he was going to do.      Now, I don't know how much of that is accurate....    but it "feels" accurate to me...    and considering we all thought that Pagano was going to be fired on Monday,  and he got a new contract on Tuesday,  it sure seems to fit the narrative.....  

 

Feels to me that Grigson and Pagano are sort of connected at the hip and Irsay has given them marching orders to do better and play nicely in the sand box.

 

Sorry for the length of this post........

 

 

Now THAT is one of the best explanations I've heard so far. And, I concur. Especially, with the outlined marching orders doled out by Irsay. There is a lot of weight that's carried by this. And, I also believe the consensual order to clean house goes along with all of that. A new directive for cohesion between the big boys. Like you say, nothing else makes as much sense. Thanks for the input.

[Dark Superman]

Until we put an actual offensive line in front of #12.. this team will be an embarrassment and will never amount do anything.

[SaturdayAllDay]

12 minutes ago, SupermanLuck12 said:

Until we put an actual offensive line in front of #12.. this team will be an embarrassment and will never amount do anything.

An embarrassment?  I wouldn't go that far. We were just short of the playoffs without our QB. Look at Dallas without their QB (4-12) and they had the best o line in the league. I agree we need an o line, and I won't be happy if they Dont do something about it, but to say we are an embarrassment is just the kind of spoiled overreaction I've been talking about. 

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

15 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Guys there has been nothing but OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!  Posts lately. It's getting old. We have missed the playoffs ONCE since Pagano and Grigson took over. How is this an issue? Most teams fans would kill for results like we have been getting. There are only 5 Teams that have been more successful then us over the last four years. We are also tied with another team for making the playoffs, so that means we are better then 25 Teams in the grigson Era. How is this terrible??

Yes I get that grigson had done stupid things, but so has every gm. 

Do we have holes to fill? Absolutely.  But we are going about this the smart way. We only have so much money this offseason, and a TON next year. As far as I can tell the front office is gearing up for a HUGE offseason next year. We will have a lot of our core talent locked up by then, plus we will have 72 million to spend, as well as a few comp picks for what we lost this year. Add in our draft this year and next year,  and we can be set for a long time. Teams like Seattle, NE,  GB and Baltimore have had their success because they run their teams like this every year. You almost never see these teams make big deals in free agency,  especially day one. Teams that make big free agent splashes are perennial losers like Oakland and Dallas.  I'd rather bank on the strategy that NE uses over Dallas. 

 

Am I convinced grigson will make proper decisions when the time comes? Absolutely not. He has not proven he can make good draft picks or good decisions for free agents. BUT I see that the structure of the team is changing. This is a group effort now, and Grigson isn't going to have as much say as he did. 

 

I really think we all need to take a step back and think about how our team is doing in relation to the league and realize that things could be way worse. Calm down, actually wait and see what this new structure is going to do. At least wait til the draft is over before we start claiming we are getting the first pick in next year's draft. For a team this successful, we shouldn't have so much negatively from our fans. 

 

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

You're not serious are you?  The sky has fallen!  History doesn't matter.  I can cite statistics that could get us into the next SB, but that is not where we are TODAY.  This is a bad football team that has a clueless GM and a mediocre coaching staff and more critically a team with players who wouldn't be backups on any of the play-off teams, all  due to Grigson.  Who cares how we are doing against the poor records of other teams.  After Luck, Hilton, Moncrief and maybe a few untested newcomers, this team needs a complete do over and Grigson and the "structure" aren't close to the solution.  Sorry, but I saw one SB win with 13 years of Peyton and now I'm seeing Luck's career going down in flames if we continue on this path of signing over the hill FAs and Werner/T-Rich number one Drafts. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

6 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

You're not serious are you?  The sky has fallen!  History doesn't matter.  I can cite statistics that could get us into the next SB, but that is not where we are TODAY.  This is a bad football team that has a clueless GM and a mediocre coaching staff and more critically a team with players who wouldn't be backups on any of the play-off teams, all  due to Grigson.  Who cares how we are doing against the poor records of other teams.  After Luck, Hilton, Moncrief and maybe a few untested newcomers, this team needs a complete do over and Grigson and the "structure" aren't close to the solution.  Sorry, but I saw one SB win with 13 years of Peyton and now I'm seeing Luck's career going down in flames if we continue on this path of signing over the hill FAs and Werner/T-Rich number one Drafts. 

So we have a mediocre coaching staff? how would you know, they haven't even coached a game yet!? We got 11 new coaches, you can't just say that because we kept Pagano the entire coaching staff is terrible. Several have been good enough to earn head coaching positions in the past. We went 8-8 last year. We didn't even have a losing season and everyone is acting worse then when we went 2-14. That's what I'm talking about.

 

We don't have as many holes as people seem to think. We have lots of young players with lots of promise. We can't just start replacing them without giving them time to develop. We need help on the Oline, as well as cb and olb. After that it's all depth. Also we haven't signed any free agents so as of yet we aren't continuing to sign over the hill free agents.  We are showing signs that we are moving to a more sustainable strategy. Am I convinced that they have changed completely?  No, but I am willing to give them the whole offseason before I condemn them. No I'm not happy with what grigson has done over the last few years,but listen to your own words- HISTORY DOESNT MATTER.

[Myles]

7 hours ago, Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes said:

You're not serious are you?  The sky has fallen!  History doesn't matter.  I can cite statistics that could get us into the next SB, but that is not where we are TODAY.  This is a bad football team that has a clueless GM and a mediocre coaching staff and more critically a team with players who wouldn't be backups on any of the play-off teams, all  due to Grigson.  Who cares how we are doing against the poor records of other teams.  After Luck, Hilton, Moncrief and maybe a few untested newcomers, this team needs a complete do over and Grigson and the "structure" aren't close to the solution.  Sorry, but I saw one SB win with 13 years of Peyton and now I'm seeing Luck's career going down in flames if we continue on this path of signing over the hill FAs and Werner/T-Rich number one Drafts. 

I'm with you in that this organization failed with Manning here.   They failed to add a defense.   That is why Manning was so much better in the regular season.  Without a good defense, it's hard to get through a playoff run.   Too much pressure on the offense.   The offense really was our defense.  Manning would put up enough points so that the other team would give up on their running game (which we knew that anyone could run on a Colts defense).   This also helped the defense look better on paper.  When our defense knew they were passing, Freeney could zero in and we could get more INT's.   This doesn't happen as easy in the playoffs because teams prepare more and the defenses you face are better.

 

Not that we didn't have some good players, but we all know that the defense was mostly overlooked during the Manning years.  

 

Some of us are afraid we are seeing it happen again.     

[Happy2BeHere]

The sky isn't falling, but on the other hand it isn't rising either. I think that's where most Colts fans are at. Am I wrong here?