Rotoworld Ranks NFL GMs

[Dustin]

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/61907/57/nfls-best-gms-2016?pg=3

 

25. Ryan Grigson, Colts

Last Year’s Ranking: 11  

 

Ryan Grigson is destined to end up the story of one player. The question is whether it will be Andrew Luck or Trent Richardson. Grigson began his career with the safest pick since Peyton Manning. Ever since, it’s been a long, strange trip. Three straight 11-5 seasons helped Grigson mask missteps like Richardson and Bjoern Werner, but the benefit of the doubt vanished with last year’s 8-8 campaign. You could argue it’s a miracle the Colts were as good as they were with Luck missing nine games, but an injured and absent Luck exposed Grigson’s roster for what it is: A top-heavy collection of players either much older or much worse than their quarterback. Grigson has struggled for impactful draft picks since a rookie class that included Luck, Dwayne Allen, T.Y. Hilton and Coby Fleener, and too often filled out his roster with veterans other teams were glad to get rid of. From T-Rich to Werner to Andre Johnson, he’s gotten far too many of his big decisions wrong. Luck got Grigson off to the best possible start, but the finish line is much further away than it should be four years into his golden goose’s career.

 

Way too high imo

[Ehrman.Dutton.Cook.Barnes]

Right on, spot on Dustin.  What about Irsay's decision to re-up him?

[lester]

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

... What about Irsay's decision to re-up him?

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

[BProland85]

Without reading this yet I bet Jon Robinson from the Titans is already ranked higher than Grigson and Robinson is 4 months into the job. 

[throwing BBZ]

57 minutes ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

 

chuckle at #1.  And maybe some guys Got It, and some guys never will!!
Or how about - Either our new coaching staff excels at their jobs or we in Deep Kimchi!!

[BOTT]

3 hours ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

What's he has to learn as a GM shouldnt have anything to do with player evaluation.

[Superman]

Quote

You could argue it’s a miracle the Colts were as good as they were with Luck missing nine games, but an injured and absent Luck exposed Grigson’s roster for what it is

 

What?

 

The blurb says Grigson's entire existence is about Andrew Luck, then ignores the fact that the actually did better than anyone would have guessed without him. 

 

The roster isn't very good. Grigson can be blamed for a lot of stuff. But this makes zero sense.

[BOTT]

3 hours ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

Yes, let's keep the ineptitude for another few years.

[crazycolt1]

Some act like Grigson has been so bad he don't deserve a chance to do a better job. Narrow minded as far as looking a the bigger picture is what that is IMO. With what Grigson has done positive shows he can do the job. He has already surpassed expectations of him when he took the job. How long was Polian here before the Colts reached the AFC championship game? Firing him would have been a huge mistake. Agree or not, it is the way it is and there is nothing you can do about it but whine and cry.

[zibby43]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What?

 

The blurb says Grigson's entire existence is about Andrew Luck, then ignores the fact that the actually did better than anyone would have guessed without him. 

 

The roster isn't very good. Grigson can be blamed for a lot of stuff. But this makes zero sense.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  Not many NFL teams can go .500 without their franchise QB.

 

What's more impressive is that the Colts achieved their 8-8 record after being forced to play with 5 QBs.

[NewColtsFan]

11 hours ago, Dustin said:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/61907/57/nfls-best-gms-2016?pg=3

 

25. Ryan Grigson, Colts

Last Year’s Ranking: 11  

 

Ryan Grigson is destined to end up the story of one player. The question is whether it will be Andrew Luck or Trent Richardson. Grigson began his career with the safest pick since Peyton Manning. Ever since, it’s been a long, strange trip. Three straight 11-5 seasons helped Grigson mask missteps like Richardson and Bjoern Werner, but the benefit of the doubt vanished with last year’s 8-8 campaign. You could argue it’s a miracle the Colts were as good as they were with Luck missing nine games, but an injured and absent Luck exposed Grigson’s roster for what it is: A top-heavy collection of players either much older or much worse than their quarterback. Grigson has struggled for impactful draft picks since a rookie class that included Luck, Dwayne Allen, T.Y. Hilton and Coby Fleener, and too often filled out his roster with veterans other teams were glad to get rid of. From T-Rich to Werner to Andre Johnson, he’s gotten far too many of his big decisions wrong. Luck got Grigson off to the best possible start, but the finish line is much further away than it should be four years into his golden goose’s career.

 

Way too high imo

 

As soon as I saw the thread and the who the poster was who started it,   I knew how this thread would read........

 

And now 25 out of 32 is too high..............

 

Hey,  I've done a 180 on Grigson,  but let's not lose perspective completely......

 

[BlueShoe]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

As soon as I saw the thread and the who the poster was who started it,   I knew how this thread would read........

 

And now 25 out of 32 is too high..............

 

Hey,  I've done a 180 on Grigson,  but let's not lose perspective completely......

 

 

Grigson has made a lot of rookie mistakes. 

 

He could very well turn it around. That said - right now, as of today; it is tough to argue on Grigson's behalf. 

 

I hope that changes and Grigson turns the corner to become a great GM. Anyone thinking Grigson is the lower tier of GM's doesn't imply that people have lost perspective completely though. Those thoughts can be justified. 

 

Sensational words you like to choose.

[crazycolt1]

16 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Grigson has made a lot of rookie mistakes. 

 

He could very well turn it around. That said - right now, as of today; it is tough to argue on Grigson's behalf. 

 

I hope that changes and Grigson turns the corner to become a great GM. Anyone thinking Grigson is the lower tier of GM's doesn't imply that people have lost perspective completely though. Those thoughts can be justified. 

 

Sensational words you like to choose.

Is sensational words hard for you to comprehend?

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Grigson has made a lot of rookie mistakes. 

 

He could very well turn it around. That said - right now, as of today; it is tough to argue on Grigson's behalf. 

 

I hope that changes and Grigson turns the corner to become a great GM. Anyone thinking Grigson is the lower tier of GM's doesn't imply that people have lost perspective completely though. Those thoughts can be justified. 

 

Sensational words you like to choose.

 

 

Apparently,  according to you,  we know each other.    So, I'm guessing that you're operating under another handle.      Were you banned under your last handle?      Are you trying for two for two?

 

I don't care if you don't like me or my opinions,  but I'd prefer not to be staled by you.....   If, as you say you are,  you've been a Colts fan since 1984,  then you're old enough to act your age and not like a juvenile teenager.

 

Sooner or later a moderator is going to see this graffiti that you've sprayed around here....    I don't see this ending well for you.      Then again,  you don't agree with anything I say.....    so,  carry on!!

 

[BlueShoe]

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Apparently,  according to you,  we know each other.    So, I'm guessing that you're operating under another handle.      Were you banned under your last handle?      Are you trying for two for two?

 

I don't care if you don't like me or my opinions,  but I'd prefer not to be staled by you.....   If, as you say you are,  you've been a Colts fan since 1984,  then you're old enough to act your age and not like a juvenile teenager.

 

Sooner or later a moderator is going to see this graffiti that you've sprayed around here....    I don't see this ending well for you.      Then again,  you don't agree with anything I say.....    so,  carry on!!

 

 

I have used BlueShoe for quite a few years. I can't remember when I first switched to it.

 

When Colts.com first opened a message board. I want to say maybe 2003 or 04 (Just guessing), I went by the name Doss. The board has went through several changes since then.

 

I have been around long enough to see all tied. You're one of those people who start picking at others and then turn to the mods for help.

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I have used BlueShoe for quite a few years. I can't remember when I first switched to it.

 

When Colts.com first opened a message board. I want to say maybe 2003 or 04 (Just guessing), I went by the name Doss. The board had sent through several changes since then.

 

I have been around long enough to see all tied. You're one of those people who start picking at others and then turn to the mods for help.

 

I've never blocked anyone and have rarely gone to the mods for help.     I won't say never.

 

If I have to go to the mods for help,  then whoever that person is has really earned it.     But sometimes the mods step in because they can see trouble coming and they try to stop it before it happens.

 

There are lessons to be learned here if you're interested.   Again, entirely up to you.   But I didn't star this.

 

 

[Colts_Fan12]

14 hours ago, Dustin said:

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/61907/57/nfls-best-gms-2016?pg=3

 

25. Ryan Grigson, Colts

Last Year’s Ranking: 11  

 

Ryan Grigson is destined to end up the story of one player. The question is whether it will be Andrew Luck or Trent Richardson. Grigson began his career with the safest pick since Peyton Manning. Ever since, it’s been a long, strange trip. Three straight 11-5 seasons helped Grigson mask missteps like Richardson and Bjoern Werner, but the benefit of the doubt vanished with last year’s 8-8 campaign. You could argue it’s a miracle the Colts were as good as they were with Luck missing nine games, but an injured and absent Luck exposed Grigson’s roster for what it is: A top-heavy collection of players either much older or much worse than their quarterback. Grigson has struggled for impactful draft picks since a rookie class that included Luck, Dwayne Allen, T.Y. Hilton and Coby Fleener, and too often filled out his roster with veterans other teams were glad to get rid of. From T-Rich to Werner to Andre Johnson, he’s gotten far too many of his big decisions wrong. Luck got Grigson off to the best possible start, but the finish line is much further away than it should be four years into his golden goose’s career.

 

Way too high imo

Damn right it's way to high! there is all 31 other GMs then then there is like 500,000 feet of feces then Grigson 

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  Not many NFL teams can go .500 without their franchise QB.

 

What's more impressive is that the Colts achieved their 8-8 record after being forced to play with 5 QBs.

Watching the games, it wasn't impressive to anyone outside this forum.

[Jdubu]

My two cents on this Grigson deal is, he won GM of the year his first season and made almost all the right steps. He made an error in drafting the German kid and that was a blunder but those things happen to every GM in the league. He has had 3 of 4 drafts that he has picked up some quality talent starting with 2012 and his last draft was a really nice draft even if I'm not too pleased he took that wr over many better options, but Dorsett has talent so if he shows it this year, it's a playmaker. 

 

The one huge mistake he made was Richardson. That was a bust that I don't think many around the league seen coming. Still, giving up a first round pick was too high for any RB not already established as hof material. He also hasn't fixed an oline that has been awful for his entire time and he was an olineman so you would think that would have been his strong suit. My guess is he put together a bunch of individually talented kids that didn't match the system and didn't work together as an oline should. Aka, picking zbs for power scheme and vise versa. Coaching also left a lot to be desired. I feel like we have about as talented of a coaching staff as possible now and if we can't succeed from them, we probably have the wrong guy picking at the top now. I have high hopes that Griggs will get this right and Luck will pick up a few rings along the way. 25 is too far off and very short sighted in the whole body of work but I understand. It is a what have you done for me lately league. 

[SteelDragon]

Where can I find the rankings for the GMs on this forum? 

[Two_pound]

I personally think Mr. Irsay made a mistake bringing back Ryan. He should have hired a car dealer with absolutely no nfl experience in scouting or any level of administrative experience in the nfl. It worked magically for Denver- two sb appearences in the past 4 seasons. WOW! Mr. Polian, with the advantage of having Peyton Manning in his prime could only muster two sb appearences in 14 seasons, go figure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lollygagger8]

I'm not a huge Grigson fan, but would you rather have Tom Telesco? 

[MSColtsFan]

8 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  Not many NFL teams can go .500 without their franchise QB.

 

What's more impressive is that the Colts achieved their 8-8 record after being forced to play with 5 QBs.

 

I'm not sure what to make of last year.  10 of 16 opponents were just as bad as the Colts, .500 or under.  the AFC South is a mess (albeit turning the corner quickly, I believe - the days of being the worst division in football I think ended last year).  They drew the NFC South too, three of four teams there .500 or worse.  They played a lot of really bad teams last season.  That said, they found a way to win 8, and could have sunk into another 3 or 4 win season fairly easily.  But was that a result of Grigson's roster, the players talent and will, the coaching staff pulling rabbits out of hats, or the schedule?  A little of all of that I'd say.  I think the ranking for Grigson by Rotoworld is fair for now. 

[TheRustonRifle#7]

2 hours ago, SteelDragon said:

Where can I find the rankings for the GMs on this forum? 

;)

 

[theanarchist]

17 hours ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think that Irsay had a lot of choices that he thought were better. I thought Grigson looked a bit sheepish at the press conference and I wouldn't doubt that Irsay basically laid it out to him that if he couldn't get along with Chuck he was out. I think Irsay knocked him down a few pegs and rightly so.

[BrentMc11]

7 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

 

Grigson has made a lot of rookie mistakes. 

 

He could very well turn it around. That said - right now, as of today; it is tough to argue on Grigson's behalf. 

 

I hope that changes and Grigson turns the corner to become a great GM. Anyone thinking Grigson is the lower tier of GM's doesn't imply that people have lost perspective completely though. Those thoughts can be justified. 

 

Sensational words you like to choose.

C'Mon BlueShoe!!!!  Why bother to choose words to be this or that.

 

I have learned myself to not bite at a certain person (or the entire forum):)  You have some really good thoughts and posts.  Lets not get nit-picky OK?  

 

My feeling is if your star QB is injured most of the year....ya look horrible as a GM because there is decline....Just my opinion.

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, theanarchist said:

I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think that Irsay had a lot of choices that he thought were better. I thought Grigson looked a bit sheepish at the press conference and I wouldn't doubt that Irsay basically laid it out to him that if he couldn't get along with Chuck he was out. I think Irsay knocked him down a few pegs and rightly so.

It's nice to have a forum member who knows Grigson good enough to know what Irsay said and told him by the look on his face.

[Surge89]

18 hours ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

 

Let me start this with stating I am not a fan of Grigson. And I'm much more willing to give Pagano a chance than Grigs.

 

But I think this situation was forced upon Irsay.  It would have been impossible to keep one without the other because of the feuding they had the past season.  So Irsay's options were

 

A. cut both and start completely over or

B. keep both and hope they get it together.

 

He decided with B, and we will see if that was the correct decision.  But for sure Pagano will not have an excuse this time.  He can't say that Grigs is meddling and Grigs will also have no excuse your first 4 years are done its make or break time. 

[Valpo2004]

20 hours ago, lester said:

 

You can make 2 arguments in favor of Irsay's decision to keep Ryan Grigson:

 

Argument #1. Irsay didn't like any of the choices he had who were available. Grigson may be ideal to Irsay, or maybe he's not. But if Irsay didn't like his choices to replace him with, the smart decision is to retain him with enough assurances of future support (a 4 years deal) that he is working smart and not running scared all season.

 

Argument #2: Irsay might understand that since Ryan Grigson is a first time GM, he was going to have a learning curve. Irsay knows he has invested already in that learning curve and expects to profit from that investment over the next four years instead of some other owner benefiting from the experience Irsay paid for.

 

I personally think its a little bit of both and was the wisest decision Irsay could have made. It was actually a little bit refreshing because a splashy overreaction would have been gratifying for some who were ready to see Grigson go, but starting over in year 5 of Andrew Luck would not have been any wiser.

 

I'm honestly getting tired of the learning curve excuse for Grigson.  

[southwest1]

17 hours ago, zibby43 said:

 

Exactly what I was thinking.  Not many NFL teams can go .500 without their franchise QB.

 

What's more impressive is that the Colts achieved their 8-8 record after being forced to play with 5 QBs.

Your last 7 words speak volumes z-43. I or 2 QBs getting injured is the cost of doing business in the NFL meaning putting players on IR is commonplace. However, adding 3 more field generals to that IR list tells me that the current GM in charge & to a lesser extent the HC, struggles with protecting the most important person on the field & has made so questionable draft decisions. 

 

Hopefully, Luck will remain healthy all year. The GM doesn't get a mulligan on starting 5 QBs in 1 season. Ryan must take his lumps there. 

[Superman]

9 hours ago, MSColtsFan said:

 

I'm not sure what to make of last year.  10 of 16 opponents were just as bad as the Colts, .500 or under.  the AFC South is a mess (albeit turning the corner quickly, I believe - the days of being the worst division in football I think ended last year).  They drew the NFC South too, three of four teams there .500 or worse.  They played a lot of really bad teams last season.  That said, they found a way to win 8, and could have sunk into another 3 or 4 win season fairly easily.  But was that a result of Grigson's roster, the players talent and will, the coaching staff pulling rabbits out of hats, or the schedule?  A little of all of that I'd say.  I think the ranking for Grigson by Rotoworld is fair for now. 

 

The Cowboys went 1-11 without Romo last year. That includes losses to the Falcons and Bucs, whom we beat. 

 

They have a better roster, but it's typical of teams with good QBs to fall off when they lose their QB. The Colts went 6-3.

 

None of this means Grigson is great. But for the writer to make the statement he did, it's kind of dumb. That old and weak roster had a better winning percentage without Luck than with him. Big part of that is the schedule, but everyone always expected the Colts to roll over and die of Luck was hurt. They did anything but. More than a shot at Grigson, it's a shot at that team that mostly played their butts off despite the odds.

[Tsarquise]

23 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What?

 

The blurb says Grigson's entire existence is about Andrew Luck, then ignores the fact that the actually did better than anyone would have guessed without him. 

 

The roster isn't very good. Grigson can be blamed for a lot of stuff. But this makes zero sense.

I was about to say the same thing... He acts like they went 1-15.

[BOTT]

10 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

I'm not a huge Grigson fan, but would you rather have Tom Telesco? 

It's a wash.  Both were dumb enough to spend a first rounder on a RB.

[loudnproudcolt]

I am not even looking at the posts. How much do you think the writers on Rotoworld really know. I bet many of us are better informed on our team and what we have and don't thanks to Grigson. Way too many content providers who know very little, especially about Indy. Werner and Richardson were terrible busts, and that is all they know!

[Gavin]

 

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 8:20 PM, Superman said:

 

What?

 

The blurb says Grigson's entire existence is about Andrew Luck, then ignores the fact that the actually did better than anyone would have guessed without him. 

 

The roster isn't very good. Grigson can be blamed for a lot of stuff. But this makes zero sense.

They certainly did but the OC changed from a intermediate to long passing attack to a much more get the ball out quick dink and dunk passing attack. Matt would have never had the consistent accuracy and arm to run the regular offense. I mean Grigson certainly gets credit for bringing Hasselbeck in no doubt but had he ran the offense Luck was running I think 8-8 would have been unrealistic. Given we had an inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent pass rush, a liability as our #2 Corner and an O Line that could not do what they were paid to do. I actually think Hasselbeck would not have lasted as long as he did running the offense Luck ran and that speaks to the ability and willingness to adjust to what his QB is capable(Chuds ability) of more then it does to the overall quality of last years roster.......None of this is to say we don't have a few good pieces....Langford....Anderson if he returns to form at some point. Mewhort, Vontae. Adams, Moncrief, Hilton. Allen. But more unknowns and players that have not lived up to expectations right now

[weslo1812]

On 4/15/2016 at 6:22 PM, BOTT said:

Yes, let's keep the ineptitude for another few years.

You say that like it'd have just been easy for us to automatically find a new GM who would be better than Grigs and as if Grigs has been horrible which is not true at all. It'd been just as much of a risk letting Grigs go. Then finding and hoping that the new GM would be as successful to the standard some fans want. The job is not just as simple and easy as alot of people think.  And it's faaar from a guarentee that just because we would have brought a "new face" in that things would change and all of the sudden our roster would be full of pro bowlers at basically every position  like I think alot of fans expect. Or that our O line would automatically go from worst to best. Grigson has made his mistakes no doubt, he's not been the best by any means, but he's definitely not been the worst either. Some people just wanna look at every mistake and sit on it forever and not bother to look at and consider any of the positives. And those are the people that will generally never be happy either.

[BOTT]

5 hours ago, weslo1812 said:

You say that like it'd have just been easy for us to automatically find a new GM who would be better than Grigs and as if Grigs has been horrible which is not true at all. It'd been just as much of a risk letting Grigs go. Then finding and hoping that the new GM would be as successful to the standard some fans want. The job is not just as simple and easy as alot of people think.  And it's faaar from a guarentee that just because we would have brought a "new face" in that things would change and all of the sudden our roster would be full of pro bowlers at basically every position  like I think alot of fans expect. Or that our O line would automatically go from worst to best. Grigson has made his mistakes no doubt, he's not been the best by any means, but he's definitely not been the worst either. Some people just wanna look at every mistake and sit on it forever and not bother to look at and consider any of the positives. And those are the people that will generally never be happy either.

So basically you are scared to make a change?

 

and that last sentence is not true....at all.

[Coltsman1788]

Ranking is spot on. Griggs is a lower tier GM in the league and that is essentially what the ranking (25/32) reflects.  I'm good with it.

[Superman]

9 hours ago, Gavin said:

had he ran the offense Luck was running I think 8-8 would have been unrealistic

 

I don't disagree with your point, I just don't find it relevant. 

[Gavin]

Somewhere in the 20's sounds right for the time being