ESPN looks at Luck's Contract and the Opportunity Lost....

[NewColtsFan]

 

ESPN's lead story this morning is on the pending Andrew Luck contract.     It talks about how it might be structured...   bonus and guarantees and such....

 

And it talks about the opportunities lost the past few years with bad free agent signings and poor draft picks.....

 

If this interests you,  then click and read.....

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15082094/just-how-much-indianapolis-colts-qb-andrew-luck-going-get-paid-nfl

[twfish]

To bad it's by ESPN or it'd be worth the read

[Smonroe]

It's full of the popular, but not necessarily true, opinions.  Like Gore 'failed to impress'.  I don't know about you, but I was impressed.  And although he does mention Adams as a successful FA, he doesn't remember Lowery, Walden, or even Doyle.

 

These writers get so wrapped up in the QB costs.  The cap will go up every year and they'll re-work the contracts to make them palatable. 

 

Irsay said it should be done by 7/4, but I really doubt that it's any concern or distraction to Luck or the team.  Let the agents and accountants deal with it.

[Superman]

Meh. The whole article can be summed up by saying that the Colts have made some bad personnel decisions in the last four years. The whole 'wasted opportunity' angle doesn't make sense to me, and never has. The Colts actually got closer to a Super Bowl than I expected them to, despite not having a great roster. And the missed draft picks would be coming into their most valuable period right now, when they would be outproducing their rookie contracts, not within the past 2-3 years.

 

The Colts front office could have done better building a more talented roster around Luck, but approaching this from the angle that it's some travesty that the Colts didn't achieve more while Luck was on his rookie deal is a big contortion that I can't get with. The Colts are in good shape moving forward; they just have to draft better, which has nothing to do with Luck's contract status.

[Colttodd18]

Yes the front office could have done a better job putting a better team around Luck. But how many QB's make it to the Super Bowl in their rookie contract? I can only think of two and that was Roethlisberger and Flacco. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Colttodd18 said:

Yes the front office could have done a better job putting a better team around Luck. But how many QB's make it to the Super Bowl in their rookie contract? I can only think of two and that was Roethlisberger and Flacco. 

 

Wilson (twice) and Kaepernick, most notably. Both of those teams were under construction a couple years before the QB got there, though.

[loudnproudcolt]

This article does not say it, but what Seattle did with Wilson, and the success he had during his initial contract. Because of that, we should have doe the same. They did not mention we were 2-14, and in three years we were in the AFC championship game. Seattle drafts incredibly well or did to get the defense they have, but it was not like they did it over night, which it seems is the meme about Luck and his contract.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, loudnproudcolt said:

This article does not say it, but what Seattle did with Wilson, and the success he had during his initial contract. Because of that, we should have doe the same. They did not mention we were 2-14, and in three years we were in the AFC championship game. Seattle drafts incredibly well or did to get the defense they have, but it was not like they did it over night, which it seems is the meme about Luck and his contract.

 

Seattle's best players were all there before Wilson. The Colts had only one notable starter under 30 when Luck was drafted -- Castonzo. They drafted better than the Colts, but they were drafting better than the Colts for two years already. It's not a perfect comparison.

[loudnproudcolt]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Seattle's best players were all there before Wilson. The Colts had only one notable starter under 30 when Luck was drafted -- Castonzo. They drafted better than the Colts, but they were drafting better than the Colts for two years already. It's not a perfect comparison.

My point exactly, even if I did not make it clearly. They had a base to build on, all they needed was Wilson to make it go basically. We had to build in the three years, and we rushed a bit on FA and lost.

[Superman]

Just now, loudnproudcolt said:

My point exactly, even if I did not make it clearly. They had a base to build on, all they needed was Wilson to make it go basically. We had to build in the three years, and we rushed a bit on FA and lost.

 

The Colts tried to avoid risk in free agency, and it didn't work very well. They signed some decent players, but no one proved to be a difference maker. They'd have been better off breaking the bank for a couple of top level guys over the past few years than adding a dozen mid level guys on team friendly deals. The problem is that a lot of those big money guys wound up being not very good -- Levitre, Byrd, Goldson, etc. 

 

The real failure has been in the draft, especially in 2013, which includes trading a 2014 pick for Richardson. Those are the players that could/should be starters and potentially Pro Bowl caliber players right now, outplaying their rookie contracts. We don't have any of those from 2013, and that includes both first rounders we invested that year.

 

Mewhort and Moncrief are starting caliber players with upside. They might be coming into that part of their early careers where they outperform their rookie deals.

 

Long and short, I don't think free agency set the Colts back at all, even if it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. If the Colts have been set back, it's because of a bad 2013.

[crazycolt1]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Seattle's best players were all there before Wilson. The Colts had only one notable starter under 30 when Luck was drafted -- Castonzo. They drafted better than the Colts, but they were drafting better than the Colts for two years already. It's not a perfect comparison.

If Luck would have stepped on to a team that was as talented as Seattle was when Wilson stepped in I think the Colts would have won a championship. Just my opinion but the odds would have been much higher. The Seahawks were not down 39 million in dead cap space either.

[ColtRider]

 

The past is the past. Leave it there. The new change & direction of the Colts organization focuses on the betterment of the team. And that is, to surround Luck with a newly appointed goal of excellence which includes, coaches, players, drafts, selective FAs, playbook, and an overall schematic system of play to fit all of his abilities from the offensive side of the ball. The same targeted goal for the defense will also affect Luck, which has been IMO, sorely missed for quite some time. 

 

As far as the contract? I'm quite sure the Colts & Luck will be able to work out something that benefits both the organization & himself without damaging what I've stated above.

[Gavin]

Nothing we have not been hearing about for the last couple years when it comes to Lucks future and the Colts inability to hit on draft picks beyond year 1.

[azcolt]

Needless to say, the author of this piece would not have extended Grigson for four more years. It seems like a pretty decent recap except the writer neglected to mention that Luck was missing most of the 8-8 year. But it is true we got Luck on the cheap for four years in an awful division, neither of which seems likely again in the near future. Houston should be the favorite this year.

[DougDew]

Yes, yes, yes, we know.  Everything about the Colts is just not NFL caliber, not worthy of its elite QBs.  Manning and now Luck have had to struggle with the burden of carrying a backwards fan base and inept football environment on their shoulders.   I've read about 25 articles and heard 250 opinions from talking heads on the matter for about the past 15 years.

[jbaron04]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

It's full of the popular, but not necessarily true, opinions.  Like Gore 'failed to impress'.  I don't know about you, but I was impressed.  And although he does mention Adams as a successful FA, he doesn't remember Lowery, Walden, or even Doyle.

 

These writers get so wrapped up in the QB costs.  The cap will go up every year and they'll re-work the contracts to make them palatable. 

 

Irsay said it should be done by 7/4, but I really doubt that it's any concern or distraction to Luck or the team.  Let the agents and accountants deal with it.

I know why does espn care what luck get paid it's not Thier money so I don't care , cap gonna raise each year ....... you member when Peyton was making 16m a year and they was like it was alot. Now 18m per is starting qb $$$ so it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.  Only thing that matter is how it is structured to count again the cap 

[bababooey]

I mean if you beat one team that you still can't beat then you possibly make the Super Bowl in 2013 and definitely in 2014, in addition to beating the eventual SB champs for half of his career it changes the narrative drastically

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts tried to avoid risk in free agency, and it didn't work very well. They signed some decent players, but no one proved to be a difference maker. They'd have been better off breaking the bank for a couple of top level guys over the past few years than adding a dozen mid level guys on team friendly deals. The problem is that a lot of those big money guys wound up being not very good -- Levitre, Byrd, Goldson, etc. 

 

The real failure has been in the draft, especially in 2013, which includes trading a 2014 pick for Richardson. Those are the players that could/should be starters and potentially Pro Bowl caliber players right now, outplaying their rookie contracts. We don't have any of those from 2013, and that includes both first rounders we invested that year.

 

Mewhort and Moncrief are starting caliber players with upside. They might be coming into that part of their early careers where they outperform their rookie deals.

 

Long and short, I don't think free agency set the Colts back at all, even if it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. If the Colts have been set back, it's because of a bad 2013.

 

A rare disagreement for you and I.....

 

I think Free Agency (Aside from 2012 and all our restrictions)  has mostly been terrible for the Colts.   We have very little to show for all the money we spent....    so our efforts in 13, 14 and 15 have set us back, and therefor hurt us....

 

And the draft?

 

'12 was once referred to as the 9th best draft of all-time by ESPN or NFL.com. 

 

Now, all we have is three players left.     So much for the great draft.

 

And we just don't have all that much from '13,  and '14....      '15 is up in the air since our 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks were all hurt to one degree or another.      But even if that draft pans out well,   getting very little for two years in a row has ripped our guts out.      That's a huge setback.

 

So, way too many misses in both free agency and the draft has left the roster seriously depleted.

 

I've been caught off guard with our approach to FA this year.    But I haven't complained.     But I think it's pretty obvious we're not going to fix all of our problems from the '16 draft alone.    Even if we hit on picks 1-5.

Just too many holes to fill.

 

I think the '16 schedule is easily the hardest we've faced in the last 5 years,  so my expectations are modest.

Win the AFC South and hopefully win a playoff game.      One.     Beyond that,  I'm just hoping for the best....

 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, azcolt said:

Needless to say, the author of this piece would not have extended Grigson for four more years. It seems like a pretty decent recap except the writer neglected to mention that Luck was missing most of the 8-8 year. But it is true we got Luck on the cheap for four years in an awful division, neither of which seems likely again in the near future. Houston should be the favorite this year.

 

Good post.

 

I think Houston is only the favorite IF you think Osweiller is going to pay off for them.    If you think he's the real deal.       So, personally,  I think the Colts remain the favorite as long as they have Luck.

 

But if Osweiller proves himself to be very good this year,  then I would not be surprised if Houston wins the South...       But he's got to do it before I believe it....

 

 

[Superman]

46 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

A rare disagreement for you and I.....

 

I think Free Agency (Aside from 2012 and all our restrictions)  has mostly been terrible for the Colts.   We have very little to show for all the money we spent....    so our efforts in 13, 14 and 15 have set us back, and therefor hurt us....

 

And the draft?

 

'12 was once referred to as the 9th best draft of all-time by ESPN or NFL.com. 

 

Now, all we have is three players left.     So much for the great draft.

 

And we just don't have all that much from '13,  and '14....      '15 is up in the air since our 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks were all hurt to one degree or another.      But even if that draft pans out well,   getting very little for two years in a row has ripped our guts out.      That's a huge setback.

 

So, way too many misses in both free agency and the draft has left the roster seriously depleted.

 

I've been caught off guard with our approach to FA this year.    But I haven't complained.     But I think it's pretty obvious we're not going to fix all of our problems from the '16 draft alone.    Even if we hit on picks 1-5.

Just too many holes to fill.

 

I think the '16 schedule is easily the hardest we've faced in the last 5 years,  so my expectations are modest.

Win the AFC South and hopefully win a playoff game.      One.     Beyond that,  I'm just hoping for the best....

 

 

I don't think anything they've done in free agency has set the team back. The setbacks have come from poor drafting.

 

The 2013 free agency class is widely panned, and they're almost all gone now, but without Cherilus, RJF, and even Aubrayo Franklin, the Colts probably don't win 11 games that year. Hasselbeck was 5-3 as a starter. Walden was the most hated signing, and he's been the best one; not a difference maker, but a solid piece on a reasonable contract. Toler was disappointing, but contributed, and even Landry had a couple of plays, despite being a scumbag. None of those signings set the team back, and even the ones that didn't wind up helping, like Thomas, didn't hurt the team at all. I think that's true of all of the free agent signings, including the most disappointing ones.

 

And then there are the good signings: Redding, Adams, Jackson, Lowery, Bradshaw, Langford, Gore, and others. No question, these players contributed significantly, and while they might not be Pro Bowl caliber, they've helped the team without breaking the bank. 

 

If you look at it from the perspective of 'they signed X instead of Y, and Y is better than X,' then I somewhat understand feeling that certain moves have set the team back. But this team was competitive in the division every year, made advancement in the playoffs, and only had a setback when the starting QB missed 9 games. Not to mention that even though Y was better on another team, that doesn't mean he would have been as good for the Colts. Roster building in general is an inexact science, and that includes free agent acquisitions, both in terms of money and impact. Sure, making perfect moves in free agency would have yielded a better team, but that's not realistic, and it's hard to see the Colts achieving much more success than they did, especially through 2014. 

 

As for the 2012 draft, people proclaiming it to be great right away were obviously premature. Just look at the first ten picks. And even though the Colts only have 3 players remaining from that class, those are three starters on notable second contracts (pending Luck, but we know how that's going down). Fleener got paid also, so the draft turned out pretty good, even though we let him walk. 

 

That said, I agree that the drafts haven't been great. I have no issues with 2012, but 2013 was very bad, and not having a first in 2014 undermines the quality of that class. Having anything to say about 2015 at this point is premature. But that's all separate from the impact of free agency. Missing in the draft has hurt the team and is the primary reason there are so many holes.

 

Not finding greatness in free agency isn't that big of a deal, IMO, because they weren't searching for greatness in free agency, as evidenced by the contracts they were willing to give. They were looking for starting caliber players who would hold down the fort while the young guys got ready; they found some, and missed on others. The real failure is that the young guys they were waiting on haven't come around, not that the free agents didn't all stick. Free agency is always a stacked deck anyways.

[Superman]

50 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I've been caught off guard with our approach to FA this year.    But I haven't complained.     But I think it's pretty obvious we're not going to fix all of our problems from the '16 draft alone.    Even if we hit on picks 1-5.

Just too many holes to fill.

 

Just want to say about this, the roster has some serious needs, and like you, I don't think they can all be satisfactorily addressed this year. Especially not with this reserved approach to free agency. I wasn't really expecting it either, but Grigson pretty much signaled it at the Combine, and once the first couple of days went by, it was pretty obvious what they were going to do. He said they'd focus on their own guys at the right price, and if they lost someone, maybe they'd add a new guy with that money (which is basically exactly what happened with Freeman, which made room for Robinson). 

 

I think it's a reasonable approach, given the previously discussed ineffectiveness of free agency, especially in 2015. The core of the team was basically the same as 2014, but some silly coaching and Luck being hurt means no playoffs in a weak division for a team that went to the AFCCG a year earlier. So first off, Luck has to be healthy or nothing else matters, despite having a serviceable backup, and secondly, the coaching has to be better when he is healthy. Hopefully the staff/scheme changes help with both of those things.

 

If so, being optimistic, I can see the Colts being able to challenge in the AFC. The roster isn't as good as the Broncos (outside of QB, but it might not matter), Patriots, Bengals, Steelers... but that doesn't mean they can't get some favorable matchups in January and make some noise like they did two years ago. 

 

And most importantly, if they draft well, they can get things back pointed in the right direction.

[Restored]

I've not been the biggest fan of Grigson but to call Luck's 1st four years a waste is a bit misleading IMO. Comparing Wilson, though while he is Andrew's peer, is not an accurate telling either. Wilson walked onto a team that was already largely built (especially defensively) prior to his arrival. Same with Kapernick as well.

 

Could the team have achieved more the past four years? That's certainly plausible and I've been a big proponent that more should've been done but they weren't a wasted opportunity either. However, Grigson's failures in the draft and free agency are not ignorable.

 

I'm thinking the coaching shifts should help this team get back on the right track this season.

[Valpo2004]

22 hours ago, Smonroe said:

It's full of the popular, but not necessarily true, opinions.  Like Gore 'failed to impress'.  I don't know about you, but I was impressed.  And although he does mention Adams as a successful FA, he doesn't remember Lowery, Walden, or even Doyle.

 

These writers get so wrapped up in the QB costs.  The cap will go up every year and they'll re-work the contracts to make them palatable. 

 

Irsay said it should be done by 7/4, but I really doubt that it's any concern or distraction to Luck or the team.  Let the agents and accountants deal with it.

 

Gore didn't average 4 yards per carry.  

 

His play has been slightly overrated on here.  

[Smonroe]

2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Gore didn't average 4 yards per carry.  

 

His play has been slightly overrated on here.  

 

I disagree.  His play was exceptional considering what was blocking for him.  

[Valpo2004]

57 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

I disagree.  His play was exceptional considering what was blocking for him.  

 

The problems with our offensive line have also been overrated on here as well.  Not saying that the O-line couldn't stand some improvement.  It's just not the disaster that people attribute it to be.

[Smonroe]

 

I disagree.  His play was exceptional considering what was blocking for him.  

 

The problems with our offensive line have also been overrated on here as well.  Not saying that the O-line couldn't stand some improvement.  It's just not the disaster that people attribute it to be.

From L to R - B B D C U

RG and RT potentially could be decent if they continue to stay healthy and develop. C is a disaster, and a line that has to make up for a weak link is dragged down.

But you have to admit Gore made gains where most RBs would have been stuffed many times.

[dgambill]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 1:46 PM, Superman said:

Meh. The whole article can be summed up by saying that the Colts have made some bad personnel decisions in the last four years. The whole 'wasted opportunity' angle doesn't make sense to me, and never has. The Colts actually got closer to a Super Bowl than I expected them to, despite not having a great roster. And the missed draft picks would be coming into their most valuable period right now, when they would be outproducing their rookie contracts, not within the past 2-3 years.

 

The Colts front office could have done better building a more talented roster around Luck, but approaching this from the angle that it's some travesty that the Colts didn't achieve more while Luck was on his rookie deal is a big contortion that I can't get with. The Colts are in good shape moving forward; they just have to draft better, which has nothing to do with Luck's contract status.

Yep...a bunch of crap in my opinion. This team was rebuilt from the ground up. This wasn't a playoff quality team that Andrew just stepped into and was built to win now. This wasn't a Russell Wilson scenario. Look at top 10 drafted qbs and tell me how many of them turned their team around and led them to 3 consecutive playoffs and an AFC championship team. Blake Bortles hasn't sniffed the playoffs...neither has Derek Carr. It isn't the norm for a first pick in the draft to turn a whole franchise around and lead them to a SB. Sure every once in a while you get a Ben Rothlisburger rookie qb taking a team to the SB or a later round qb like Russell Wilson who goes to a loaded team but more often then not first picks in the draft struggle their first few years while the team gets better....I mean we had the first pick in the draft for a reason...we had an awful roster. I think we overachieved and that got us thinking we should go all in and make a run at it with AJ, Gore, Trent etc and we rushed our process....instead of staying the course...not trying to speed things up with trades for risky running backs and signing big name guys. Had we invested in the draft and younger guys we would probably be better off right now (we certainly made some mistakes) but it doesn't help that we are drafting at the end of the first rd every year because our QB carries us to the playoffs (ala Peyton) and thus we don't get those high draft picks that most teams use to team build (like SF, Minn, and STL have done). If anything overachieving slowed our growth as much as anything...not bad management. Had we been able to have a few years of top 10 picks leading up to Andrew or after him then we would likely be in a lot different state of growth. Honestly the playoff wins we had we catching teams injured (KC lost almost their whole team in that comeback and CIN was missing a big part of their offense)or not ready to play (Den injured Peyton and unmotivated coaching staff) just as much as us being a team ready to compete for a SB (thus we get waxed by NE both years). It would be nice to luck into a franchise qb in a later rd or build slowly to a peak as Oak seems to be doing but more often than not...bad teams take much longer to turn around then we did.

[dgambill]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 9:05 AM, Restored said:

I've not been the biggest fan of Grigson but to call Luck's 1st four years a waste is a bit misleading IMO. Comparing Wilson, though while he is Andrew's peer, is not an accurate telling either. Wilson walked onto a team that was already largely built (especially defensively) prior to his arrival. Same with Kapernick as well.

 

Could the team have achieved more the past four years? That's certainly plausible and I've been a big proponent that more should've been done but they weren't a wasted opportunity either. However, Grigson's failures in the draft and free agency are not ignorable.

 

I'm thinking the coaching shifts should help this team get back on the right track this season.

Indeed....Seattle and SF played in the worst division in football for several years...built up draft picks early in the draft and built monster defenses/OLs....they just were missing the last element to win (good qb play). We had 1 down year and basically been drafting in the late first rd every year for the past two decades with exception of the year we got Andrew. Great for fans but its hard to sustain that infux of play makers/talent when your basically picking second rd guys at the end of the first rd every year. So those teams are the exception...and even they picked their qbs in the 2nd and 3rd rd...not 1st pick in the draft. Comparing teams is tough...no two teams started with the same cap space the same players etc. Completely different scenerios...just like playing Sim City or something..no two people are going to start level 20 with the same buildings, funds, etc. To say we've done a poor job as something things...sure...but we've done a great job at other things too. Would I have preferred us going 4-12 then 6-10 then 8-8 and then 10-6 slowly building a better team and accumulating higher draft picks as we improved...sure...but then again we wouldn't have witnessed the comeback at Lucas in the playoffs....or deflate-gate....ok maybe that would have been better not to witness. Honestly as far as talent goes...we were at best an 8-8 team but because of some great qb play and some great leadership we overachieved. We came back down to earth a bit...and maybe that's for the good as we take a more long term outlook on building this team instead of being fooled into going for broke when we really lacked the depth and quality to load up in FA short term.

[Gavin]

If anything the FA acquisitions we made over the last couple years set a couple of our rookies (at the time) back in a clear attempt to win now.

 

Herremans in for Thornton at RG before Herremans flopped

Trent Cole replacing Werner/Jonathan Newsome

Josh Robinson 17 carries in 5 games before benched and then let go

 

 

 

[ColtRider]

5 minutes ago, Gavin said:

If anything the FA acquisitions we made over the last couple years set a couple of our rookies (at the time) back in a clear attempt to win now.

 

Herremans in for Thornton at RG before Herremans flopped

Trent Cole replacing Werner/Jonathan Newsome

Josh Robinson 17 carries in 5 games before benched and then let go

 

 

 

 

I agree. To me, that's been a major factor that disrupts long term goals. With the addition of the new blooded coaches and draft direction from Irsay, I'd like to think they've turned down the road of success again, instead of band-aiding what we saw from FA last year. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

If anything the FA acquisitions we made over the last couple years set a couple of our rookies (at the time) back in a clear attempt to win now.

 

Herremans in for Thornton at RG before Herremans flopped

Trent Cole replacing Werner/Jonathan Newsome

Josh Robinson 17 carries in 5 games before benched and then let go

 

I agree about Thornton, but he got hurt along the way.

 

The rest, not really. Newsome got his chances last year and didn't play well. Werner was a healthy scratch for the AFCCG, indicating that he was on his way out. Robinson had a fumble problem, and hasn't done anything anywhere else. You're mostly talking about average or worse players who the staff didn't have a lot of confidence in to begin with. 

[wig]

On 3/29/2016 at 9:24 AM, Valpo2004 said:

 

Gore didn't average 4 yards per carry.  

 

His play has been slightly overrated on here.  

 

There was also a holding call way to often when he did pick up chunk yards. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

instead of staying the course...not trying to speed things up with trades for risky running backs and signing big name guys. Had we invested in the draft and younger guys we would probably be better off right now (we certainly made some mistakes) 

 

I mostly agree with your post, but I wanted to respond to this part. 

 

First, Richardson wasn't risky. I don't like using a first to get him, but he was supposed to be thr next big thing. And he was a second year player; that's the kind of guy you should be okay with trading a pick for. Vontae was older,  but that move illustrates what you're hoping for when you trade a high pick.

 

And the team did invest in the draft. They just didn't scout very well and their players haven't worked out like we all hoped. It's not like they abandoned the draft because they thought they could build the team in free agency. The players they've signed were primarily meant to be stopgaps while the young guys were groomed behind them. Too many of those young guys didn't work out: signed Landry, but drafted Boyett that same year, who turned out to have an alcohol problem; kept guys like Satele and McGlynn, but the hope was for Thornton and Holmes to eventually take over; signed Franklin, but gavr way to Chapman quickly, etc. It's not that they didn't rely on the draft, it's that they didn't draft well. And those aren't even the biggest misses.

 

They have to draft better, period. Free agency is meant to be a bandaid while the real cure, young players from the draft, takes effect. If I were in charge and chose to get rid of Grigson, it would be because of his scouting and drafting, not because of his free agent moves.

[Gavin]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree about Thornton, but he got hurt along the way.

 

The rest, not really. Newsome got his chances last year and didn't play well. Werner was a healthy scratch for the AFCCG, indicating that he was on his way out. Robinson had a fumble problem, and hasn't done anything anywhere else. You're mostly talking about average or worse players who the staff didn't have a lot of confidence in to begin with. 

Newsome I could understand given his off field issues(Its likely Grigson and Pagano saw a lack of dedication in my opinion given the release so Newsome made his bed and had to lay in it) he had 6.5 sacks as a rookie...And he did play in roughly 345 defensive snaps last year but that's 57 less then he had the year before for a guy that produced 6.5 sacks and forced 3 fumbles.

 

Werner played 153 defensive snaps (2015) following a year he had 4 sacks his first year as a starter(2014)

 

All snap counts according to Pro Football Reference, In my opinion there's  been a lack of dedication to developing some of these former rookies....Not by the position coaches but from higher up. I went back a few days ago (maybe a week now) and looked at the top 20 sack leaders all time and most of them did not produce very much there first year starting http://espn.go.com/nfl/history/leaders/_/stat/sacks . The majority of pass rushers just don't, They just don't have the technique in many cases...Now in other cases obviously some don't have the traits and technique

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

Werner played 153 defensive snaps (2015) following a year he had 4 sacks his first year as a starter(2014)

 

He was a healthy scratch in the biggest game of the Grigson/Pagano era. They were done with Werner already, probably the only reason he made the final 53 is that his salary was guaranteed. 

 

I think the rookies have maybe gotten some quick hooks, but it's not like they haven't gotten chances. This staff has played lots of first and second year guys, from Day 1. Freeman is the best example. I don't like how they've handled Holmes, but they've given his reps to a UDFA who's a year newer. I don't think they have an aversion to playing young guys.

 

Maybe they haven't done a good job developing young guys, but there are plenty of examples of young players with and without pedigree getting lots of burn.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Gavin said:

Newsome I could understand given his off field issues(Its likely Grigson and Pagano saw a lack of dedication in my opinion given the release so Newsome made his bed and had to lay in it) he had 6.5 sacks as a rookie...And he did play in roughly 345 defensive snaps last year but that's 57 less then he had the year before for a guy that produced 6.5 sacks and forced 3 fumbles.

 

Werner played 153 defensive snaps (2015) following a year he had 4 sacks his first year as a starter(2014)

 

All snap counts according to Pro Football Reference, In my opinion there's  been a lack of dedication to developing some of these former rookies....Not by the position coaches but from higher up. I went back a few days ago (maybe a week now) and looked at the top 20 sack leaders all time and most of them did not produce very much there first year starting http://espn.go.com/nfl/history/leaders/_/stat/sacks . The majority of pass rushers just don't, They just don't have the technique in many cases...Now in other cases obviously some don't have the traits and technique

 

For whatever it's worth,  Grigson has said on a number of occasions over the years that if the Colts are using a draft pick on a player they view that player as a candidate to someday start.

 

Those aren't my words --- those are his.

 

So, my instincts say if they're releasing young guys it's because they've shown enough that the coaches and front office no longer have faith that they can contribute -- either as a starter or a back-up.    Werner, Chapman and Hughes are examples.

 

Or, they've done something wrong,   Newsome or Brazill are examples.

 

But I don't think it's a thing about not wanting to develop young talent.     I don't think that's the issue at all.....

 

 

[dgambill]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I mostly agree with your post, but I wanted to respond to this part. 

 

First, Richardson wasn't risky. I don't like using a first to get him, but he was supposed to be thr next big thing. And he was a second year player; that's the kind of guy you should be okay with trading a pick for. Vontae was older,  but that move illustrates what you're hoping for when you trade a high pick.

 

And the team did invest in the draft. They just didn't scout very well and their players haven't worked out like we all hoped. It's not like they abandoned the draft because they thought they could build the team in free agency. The players they've signed were primarily meant to be stopgaps while the young guys were groomed behind them. Too many of those young guys didn't work out: signed Landry, but drafted Boyett that same year, who turned out to have an alcohol problem; kept guys like Satele and McGlynn, but the hope was for Thornton and Holmes to eventually take over; signed Franklin, but gavr way to Chapman quickly, etc. It's not that they didn't rely on the draft, it's that they didn't draft well. And those aren't even the biggest misses.

 

They have to draft better, period. Free agency is meant to be a bandaid while the real cure, young players from the draft, takes effect. If I were in charge and chose to get rid of Grigson, it would be because of his scouting and drafting, not because of his free agent moves.

Yes...we've been too inconsistent in the draft for sure. We've hit on some great players later in the draft but its hard to say we've done well early in the draft where we would likely have a shot to hit on a star. I worded my sentence wrong. I meant to say risky trades not really just a risky running back. To me trading a first rd pick you better be getting a known commodity. I can't lie and act like I didn't think the trade had its merits because I thought it did...he was the power runner that we were looking for...thought he would be more explosive..we didn't have to pay his signing bonus so that was cut out of what he would be owed...he definitely was a big name...but any time you trade your first rd pick for a guy that hadn't proven himself yet that's kinda risky imo. I'm not going to say I told them so but looking back it was a mistake just like some other picks we made. I also wonder how much we knew about the guy other than game tape....because I can't imagine we spent a ton of time interviewing him since he came out the same year that Luck done and did we know about his work ethic (the get lazy) stuff...or did Cleveland figure it out and dump him on us? We kinda rushed our process I think...because we had some success and fooled ourselves into thinking we were further along then we were. Drafting better is always the key...and supplementing with good FAs...but overall Grigson has been avg at best...some hits some misses...better than some teams not as good as others. Hopefully we just do a better job drafting and avoid this issue all together.

[Restored]

On 3/30/2016 at 6:59 PM, dgambill said:

Indeed....Seattle and SF played in the worst division in football for several years...built up draft picks early in the draft and built monster defenses/OLs....they just were missing the last element to win (good qb play). We had 1 down year and basically been drafting in the late first rd every year for the past two decades with exception of the year we got Andrew. Great for fans but its hard to sustain that infux of play makers/talent when your basically picking second rd guys at the end of the first rd every year. So those teams are the exception...and even they picked their qbs in the 2nd and 3rd rd...not 1st pick in the draft. Comparing teams is tough...no two teams started with the same cap space the same players etc. Completely different scenerios...just like playing Sim City or something..no two people are going to start level 20 with the same buildings, funds, etc. To say we've done a poor job as something things...sure...but we've done a great job at other things too. Would I have preferred us going 4-12 then 6-10 then 8-8 and then 10-6 slowly building a better team and accumulating higher draft picks as we improved...sure...but then again we wouldn't have witnessed the comeback at Lucas in the playoffs....or deflate-gate....ok maybe that would have been better not to witness. Honestly as far as talent goes...we were at best an 8-8 team but because of some great qb play and some great leadership we overachieved. We came back down to earth a bit...and maybe that's for the good as we take a more long term outlook on building this team instead of being fooled into going for broke when we really lacked the depth and quality to load up in FA short term.

 

To the bolded part: I think that was probably what Grigson/Pagano were looking at when they got started. They saw how much success they had their first year and maybe thought they were a lot closer than they were so the team started going all in (a little like how Denver did but maybe not to the same degree). Now that we've seen how that won't work, the team is taking a build first approach that maybe should've been adopted from the very beginning.

[crazycolt1]

13 hours ago, dgambill said:

Yes...we've been too inconsistent in the draft for sure. We've hit on some great players later in the draft but its hard to say we've done well early in the draft where we would likely have a shot to hit on a star. I worded my sentence wrong. I meant to say risky trades not really just a risky running back. To me trading a first rd pick you better be getting a known commodity. I can't lie and act like I didn't think the trade had its merits because I thought it did...he was the power runner that we were looking for...thought he would be more explosive..we didn't have to pay his signing bonus so that was cut out of what he would be owed...he definitely was a big name...but any time you trade your first rd pick for a guy that hadn't proven himself yet that's kinda risky imo. I'm not going to say I told them so but looking back it was a mistake just like some other picks we made. I also wonder how much we knew about the guy other than game tape....because I can't imagine we spent a ton of time interviewing him since he came out the same year that Luck done and did we know about his work ethic (the get lazy) stuff...or did Cleveland figure it out and dump him on us? We kinda rushed our process I think...because we had some success and fooled ourselves into thinking we were further along then we were. Drafting better is always the key...and supplementing with good FAs...but overall Grigson has been avg at best...some hits some misses...better than some teams not as good as others. Hopefully we just do a better job drafting and avoid this issue all together.

It would be nice to avoid these issue as you stated but there is still going to be some hit and misses as usual. The whole draft is one big gamble as we have witnessed over time. Not finding a starter in the draft is not all that unusual. Most picks start as depth picks with a hope of finding a starter. A player can look all pro in college but the difference between college and pros is a huge step and sometimes it just takes time to develop. A rookie will get fooled by veterans with their knowledge and speed. Younger players also get what I call big eyes when stepping in front of the lights of the NFL and it can go either way till they get settled in. It could turn out last years draft wasn't near as bad as some think. Some are still upset with the Dorsett pick but at pick 29 it could very well be a great pick in the long run.  Hindsight looks good at times.

[Iancolts]

I didn't reAd the article but it's spot on.  Luck after his tookie year showed he can take this team to the promise land with a rookie salary.  Mr Grigson and his pay high for medium or below average talent didn't work out.  And drafting WR in the first round because Houston was interested in him was even better.  But yeah thanks Grigson for building the dream team again but for the colts this time around!