Rookie Class....Wow!

[lennymoore24]

I know it is still early, but I can see great potential from this rookie class, including UDFA.  Rogers looks very good at WR.  I think the drafted OLineman have looked good.  I think Clark needs some work but that was known going in.  Green really can get to the ball.  Ridgeway shows real good power and penetration.  I though Bailey and Simmons showed flashes at DLine.  And the young rush LBs have flashes.  Ferguson hasn't shown yet at RB but you can tell the speed and moves are there.  Yesterday I was impressed because I don't remember seeing so many rookies showing up in a game and making plays.

 

On another note. TY McGill looks dominant at times.  Hope that can carry over to regular season against starters.

[MacDee1975]

I hear this every year.  I'll believe it when I see actual production in regular season games.

[twfish]

2 minutes ago, MacDee1975 said:

I hear this every year.  I'll believe it when I see actual production in regular season games.

The past 2 years have been very good and the year before developed some studs too like Mewhort and Moncreif 

[RockThatBlue]

This could end up Grigs best offseason since 2012.

[crazycolt1]

You mean Grigson might actually know what he is doing? To hear what most in this forum have to say is that he is one of the worst in the league.

Has he made a few mistakes?  Yes.

Has he made some good choices?  Yes.

Is he rated in the bottom of the GM chain? No.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Kelly and TJ Green both could end up being Great. Only time will tell. I liked what Grigs was doing in this Draft drafting O.Lineman and the TJ pick could be the steal of the Draft. In next years Draft I am sure he will focus on a couple of Pass Rushers. - If Mathis is even 80% of what he was 2 years ago we should be able to get pressure on QB's. Our D.Line actually doesn't look that bad.

[JPFolks]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

You mean Grigson might actually know what he is doing? To hear what most in this forum have to say is that he is one of the worst in the league.

Has he made a few mistakes?  Yes.

Has he made some good choices?  Yes.

Is he rated in the bottom of the GM chain? No.

 

Your first two questions apply to pretty much any and everyone who holds a job. The third is a question mark.  Is he rated at the top of the GM chain?  No.  So where is he? Before this year (which I said last week may turn out to be his best class since Luck's year but we just don't know yet) I doubt he'd be in the top half.  

[Smonroe]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Your first two questions apply to pretty much any and everyone who holds a job. The third is a question mark.  Is he rated at the top of the GM chain?  No.  So where is he? Before this year (which I said last week may turn out to be his best class since Luck's year but we just don't know yet) I doubt he'd be in the top half.  

 

There are a lot of variables when it comes to ranking GMs.  Freak injuries, coaching changes, etc., all come into play.

 

The guys on the Sirius NFL channel did an interesting evaluation a few months ago.  They looked at a past draft class for each team, it may have been 2011.  Then they listed what those guys were getting on their current contracts.  Some were out of the league and some were with other teams.

 

So, if a guy was no longer with the team but he was still in the league, it was considered a good pick.  The size of his contract relative to his position and draft round determined how good.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Your first two questions apply to pretty much any and everyone who holds a job. The third is a question mark.  Is he rated at the top of the GM chain?  No.  So where is he? Before this year (which I said last week may turn out to be his best class since Luck's year but we just don't know yet) I doubt he'd be in the top half.  

If Irsay fired Grigson he would have a GM job in 5 minutes.

[lollygagger8]

Quite the pleasant departure from the 2013 class! 

[JPFolks]

58 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

If Irsay fired Grigson he would have a GM job in 5 minutes.

Who would hire him in 5 minutes?

[crazycolt1]

14 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Who would hire him in 5 minutes?

Any team that was unhappy with their GM and or needed a new one. You seem to overlook that Grigson is 41-20 in regular season with a GM of the year under his belt. Those are facts that cant be argued. It is also a fact that Grigsons first 4 years is well above the average of the majority of GMs in the league. That is another fact.

[JPFolks]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Any team that was unhappy with their GM and or needed a new one. You seem to overlook that Grigson is 41-20 in regular season with a GM of the year under his belt. Those are facts that cant be argued. It is also a fact that Grigsons first 4 years is well above the average of the majority of GMs in the league. That is another fact.

So you think Grigson got those wins, not Andrew Luck or the other guys nor the coaching staff right?  Anyone with a pulse would have drafted Luck.  Some could argue in years 2, 3 and 4 that most GM's could have done a better job, hence he was on the hot seat last year.  Of all the possible people involved, I credit Grigson fairly low on the reason they finished with a good record.  Now we're thin in the secondary so badly we're bringing in guys like Cromartie for a tire kick because we have no depth and are in trouble.  
 

[BOTT]

21 hours ago, twfish said:

The past 2 years have been very good and the year before developed some studs too like Mewhort and Moncreif 

Mewhort is a stud?  He's a young players who, at this point, has proven to be a solid starter.

[BOTT]

7 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Who would hire him in 5 minutes?

A dummy

[Smonroe]

4 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

So you think Grigson got those wins, not Andrew Luck or the other guys nor the coaching staff right?  Anyone with a pulse would have drafted Luck.  Some could argue in years 2, 3 and 4 that most GM's could have done a better job, hence he was on the hot seat last year.  Of all the possible people involved, I credit Grigson fairly low on the reason they finished with a good record.  Now we're thin in the secondary so badly we're bringing in guys like Cromartie for a tire kick because we have no depth and are in trouble.  
 

 

You can blame Grigson on a lot of things but I'm pretty sure he's not out there injuring guys in our secondary.  

[JPFolks]

Just now, Smonroe said:

 

You can blame Grigson on a lot of things but I'm pretty sure he's not out there injuring guys in our secondary.  

Were were thin WITH all the guys we started with all healthy.  I said it at draft time and many times since.  

[SP_21]

3 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

So you think Grigson got those wins, not Andrew Luck or the other guys nor the coaching staff right?  Anyone with a pulse would have drafted Luck.  Some could argue in years 2, 3 and 4 that most GM's could have done a better job, hence he was on the hot seat last year.  Of all the possible people involved, I credit Grigson fairly low on the reason they finished with a good record.  Now we're thin in the secondary so badly we're bringing in guys like Cromartie for a tire kick because we have no depth and are in trouble.  
 

You can't blame Grigson for our lack of depth in the secondary. He brought in Davis and drafted Geathers, Smith, and Green. Injuries happen and that's not his fault. 

Bringing in a veteran to see if he can possibly help seems like a good idea to me. 

As far as Grigsons role in our success, I believe he had a lot to do with it. Besides drafting Luck, which was a no brainier, he's drafted Fleener, Allen, TY, Moncrief, Mewhort, Anderson, and Geathers. He's also brought in guys like Langford and Adams who have played very well for us. 

[krunk]

I don't think there is a team in the NFL defensively that can handle 5 Cornerbacks being injured at one time.  What does that have to do with the GM?  This could happen to Green Bay, Seattle, New England, whomever.  That's a huge hit no matter how well you have stocked the roster.  That would leave anybodies depth thin.

[BOTT]

4 minutes ago, krunk said:

I don't think there is a team in the NFL defensively that can handle 5 Cornerbacks being injured at one time.  What does that have to do with the GM?  This could happen to Green Bay, Seattle, New England, whomever.  That's a huge hit no matter how well you have stocked the roster.  That would leave anybodies depth thin.

I wouldn't blame him for the injuries, but the secondary is pretty thin.  Without Vontae the secondary goes from ok to horrible.

[Malakai432]

I really like TY and Ridgeway a lot and it makes me feel a lot better about the DL if players like (Anderson, Langford, Jones) miss some time which some will.  The starting DL should be very very good.  Depth like Ridgeway, McGill and Kerr make me feel confident in their abilities.  

 

The CB core worries me especially since we don't know if Dejuan can play effectively.  I do like the safties though with Greene, Adams and especially once Gaethers comes back, will they be a top saftey core no, but they should be good.   

 

I see some solid depth on this team with the young fellas. 

[crazycolt1]

44 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

So you think Grigson got those wins, not Andrew Luck or the other guys nor the coaching staff right?  Anyone with a pulse would have drafted Luck.  Some could argue in years 2, 3 and 4 that most GM's could have done a better job, hence he was on the hot seat last year.  Of all the possible people involved, I credit Grigson fairly low on the reason they finished with a good record.  Now we're thin in the secondary so badly we're bringing in guys like Cromartie for a tire kick because we have no depth and are in trouble.  
 

We all know that the secondary is the only position on the team. We also know that Grigson was responsible for those injuries too? Right? We had depth till injuries took it away. You can hand pick just your choice of anything negative to make Grigson look bad. Except the facts don't back up your opinion.

[AZColt11]

I like it so far but I'm going to underline so far.  I think we have some players.  ProBowlers?  Probably not.  But we may have quite a few very solid guys from this off-season.  I think what excites me is they are going to have to cut some good players for once.  That is a good sign for the future.  Just hope they make the right choices.

[JPFolks]

13 hours ago, SP_21 said:

You can't blame Grigson for our lack of depth in the secondary. He brought in Davis and drafted Geathers, Smith, and Green. Injuries happen and that's not his fault. 

Bringing in a veteran to see if he can possibly help seems like a good idea to me. 

As far as Grigsons role in our success, I believe he had a lot to do with it. Besides drafting Luck, which was a no brainier, he's drafted Fleener, Allen, TY, Moncrief, Mewhort, Anderson, and Geathers. He's also brought in guys like Langford and Adams who have played very well for us. 

That's a lot of draft picks for a small number of names.  Geathers is totally unproven and he didn't draft Adams, that was simply a happy surprise that no one expected including the Colts staff.  When you're picking at the top of each round, you SHOULD get some quality guys.  But in all these years his busts have far outweighed your list above. And before this year he's never fixed the running game nor the line.  Our talent is widely considered to be among the worst collectively which has made Luck that much more impressive.  In my opinion, after Grigson brought in all those old FA's year after year leading to last year, it was the coaching staff who saved us from a losing record, not Grigson.  It's fine that you love Grigson... no biggie, we just disagree.  I don't think his collective performance has been top half in the league.  I think we "lucked" into getting a transformative QB who made up for a lot of bad picks and FA's these past years.  

[JPFolks]

13 hours ago, BOTT said:

I wouldn't blame him for the injuries, but the secondary is pretty thin.  Without Vontae the secondary goes from ok to horrible.

This exactly!!!!!

[JPFolks]

13 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

We all know that the secondary is the only position on the team. We also know that Grigson was responsible for those injuries too? Right? We had depth till injuries took it away. You can hand pick just your choice of anything negative to make Grigson look bad. Except the facts don't back up your opinion.

Our depth was bad with all of them healthy.  That is the point.  And having poor depth means if you lose the only top quality guy we had in Davis, we were in big trouble even if the rest were healthy.  Adam's is really old and has been beyond anyone's dream to this point, but odds and old man time catch all men eventually.  Geathers is unproven.  The CB's are weak to terrible behind Davis.  The only Safety depth we had were rookies who are 100% unproven.  That isn't quality depth and I said it (and others) before ANYONE was hurt.  Now that they ARE hurt, it's even worse because getting some of them back doesn't solve the problem, it only exposes how bad off we were in the first place.  

[SP_21]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

That's a lot of draft picks for a small number of names.  Geathers is totally unproven and he didn't draft Adams, that was simply a happy surprise that no one expected including the Colts staff.  When you're picking at the top of each round, you SHOULD get some quality guys.  But in all these years his busts have far outweighed your list above. And before this year he's never fixed the running game nor the line.  Our talent is widely considered to be among the worst collectively which has made Luck that much more impressive.  In my opinion, after Grigson brought in all those old FA's year after year leading to last year, it was the coaching staff who saved us from a losing record, not Grigson.  It's fine that you love Grigson... no biggie, we just disagree.  I don't think his collective performance has been top half in the league.  I think we "lucked" into getting a transformative QB who made up for a lot of bad picks and FA's these past years.  

You should check out other teams drafts. Not many players drafted ever play a significant role or make it to a second contract. 

We have drafted at the bottom of every draft except for one. I believe he won GM of the year for that draft...

Grigson has drafted and signed many players to try and fix the O-line. Just because they've been injured or haven't lived up to expectations isn't his fault. 

I don't love Grigson. Stop making assumptions about everything and everyone on here. 

I've just countered all your supposed "points". It's ok if you dislike Grigs but your reasoning is faulty. 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Our depth was bad with all of them healthy.  That is the point.  And having poor depth means if you lose the only top quality guy we had in Davis, we were in big trouble even if the rest were healthy.  Adam's is really old and has been beyond anyone's dream to this point, but odds and old man time catch all men eventually.  Geathers is unproven.  The CB's are weak to terrible behind Davis.  The only Safety depth we had were rookies who are 100% unproven.  That isn't quality depth and I said it (and others) before ANYONE was hurt.  Now that they ARE hurt, it's even worse because getting some of them back doesn't solve the problem, it only exposes how bad off we were in the first place.  

Most NFL teams have at least one position that help is needed bad. You have been so consumed with hating on Grigson that you fail to see anything positive. Like I said before. Living with a negative mindset must be a real bummer. I don't think it's all the doom and gloom you make it out to be.

[SP_21]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Our depth was bad with all of them healthy.  That is the point.  And having poor depth means if you lose the only top quality guy we had in Davis, we were in big trouble even if the rest were healthy.  Adam's is really old and has been beyond anyone's dream to this point, but odds and old man time catch all men eventually.  Geathers is unproven.  The CB's are weak to terrible behind Davis.  The only Safety depth we had were rookies who are 100% unproven.  That isn't quality depth and I said it (and others) before ANYONE was hurt.  Now that they ARE hurt, it's even worse because getting some of them back doesn't solve the problem, it only exposes how bad off we were in the first place.  

It's hard to build a complete team with depth at every position. That's why it hardly ever happens. The Ravens are one of the most respected franchises in the league. Their GM has been praised for his draft picks/strategy but due to circumstances have many holes on the roster now. 

 

My point is that a GM only has so many resources. They can't just go online and order solid players. They have to make hard decisions about where to allocate those resources. And then injuries and lack of development/ poor performance can derail their plan. 

[CoachLite]

On 8/22/2016 at 0:09 AM, crazycolt1 said:

You mean Grigson might actually know what he is doing? To hear what most in this forum have to say is that he is one of the worst in the league.

Has he made a few mistakes?  Yes.

Has he made some good choices?  Yes.

Is he rated in the bottom of the GM chain? No.

 

Sadly, there is always the performance record of Matt Millen as GM - gotta be the worst. Then there was a "kid" once - Jim Irsay - who was GM under his dad/owner (can you say Fredd Young? Second worst?). Only then there is Ryan Grigson. OK, maybe that is overly harsh and unfair. Can someone else do better?

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

Sadly, there is always the performance record of Matt Millen as GM - gotta be the worst. Then there was a "kid" once - Jim Irsay - who was GM under his dad/owner (can you say Fredd Young? Second worst?). Only then there is Ryan Grigson. OK, maybe that is overly harsh and unfair. Can someone else do better?

Sorry to inform you what you say is nonsense. Putting Grigson that low is not only nonsense it shows your lack of football knowledge as far as the history of GMs in the league.

[braveheartcolt]

On 22/08/2016 at 4:16 AM, RockThatBlue said:

This could end up Grigs best offseason since 2012.

Or his worst........just sayin'

[Rally5]

On 8/22/2016 at 2:09 AM, crazycolt1 said:

You mean Grigson might actually know what he is doing? To hear what most in this forum have to say is that he is one of the worst in the league.

Has he made a few mistakes?  Yes.

Has he made some good choices?  Yes.

Is he rated in the bottom of the GM chain? No.

 

 

Well, I think a few things as it relates to Grigson...one, he was nearly fired, two Pagano now has much more say in personnel and coaching decisions, and three the injuries to a generational player served as a wake-up call to re-focus priorities.  In the end, if these experiences and changes make our team better and Grigson can keep his ego in check then good for all of us. 

[myic90]

Grigson has proven to be a quick learner. He's not half as bad as some of ya'll make him out to be.

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

Well, I think a few things as it relates to Grigson...one, he was nearly fired, two Pagano now has much more say in personnel and coaching decisions, and three the injuries to a generational player served as a wake-up call to re-focus priorities.  In the end, if these experiences and changes make our team better and Grigson can keep his ego in check then good for all of us. 

1- none of us can be sure if Irsay was going to fire Grigson. That was all fan speculation and opinion.

2- We have no way to know how much control Pagano had earlier and sure don't know now.

3- According to Irsay, Grigson and Pagano draft picks are discussed as a unit of all three plus other peoples input.

4- Your comment about Grigson's ego is just your opinion. There is no evidence his ego had anything to do with anything.

[CoachLite]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sorry to inform you what you say is nonsense. Putting Grigson that low is not only nonsense it shows your lack of football knowledge as far as the history of GMs in the league.

I'm shocked. OK, not really.

[Mameluc]

7 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Our depth was bad with all of them healthy.  That is the point.  And having poor depth means if you lose the only top quality guy we had in Davis, we were in big trouble even if the rest were healthy.  Adam's is really old and has been beyond anyone's dream to this point, but odds and old man time catch all men eventually.  Geathers is unproven.  The CB's are weak to terrible behind Davis.  The only Safety depth we had were rookies who are 100% unproven.  That isn't quality depth and I said it (and others) before ANYONE was hurt.  Now that they ARE hurt, it's even worse because getting some of them back doesn't solve the problem, it only exposes how bad off we were in the first place.  

the whole depth thing is a myth. You cant have depth everywhere its impossible. Some teams have great depth at DL but thin at S(like denver last year) or whatever.

The injuries are happening right now at DL also for us and we havfe it covered cause some of those guys stepped but u are crazy if you think that was gonna happen at every position. We just got unlucky it happend to CB.

Also i see you complaining about CB but quiet on DL.

 

Take a pick, try with a random team, there will be depth issues somewhere.

 

I assume you like seahawks secondary...what happens if they lose Sherman? 

Simon, Tharold 13/5  happens. imagine if they lose like 3 corners like we had?

 

look at saints CB's etc

 

 

Finnally dont take things i type personally, English is not my first language so i might have some issues with how direct i might sound.

[throwing BBZ]

21 hours ago, BOTT said:

Mewhort is a stud?  He's a young players who, at this point, has proven to be a solid starter.

 

 Mewhort is a below average run blocker and always will be because of his Way below average athleticism
 and his leverage issues. He is GRITTY though!

[rock8591]

Mewhort was rated 85 by Madden, may not be elite or solid/high quality, but definitely in the "good/above average" category.

 

 

 

P.S. My chart based on information available to us...not Madden's chart.

[JPFolks]

5 hours ago, SP_21 said:

You should check out other teams drafts. Not many players drafted ever play a significant role or make it to a second contract. 

We have drafted at the bottom of every draft except for one. I believe he won GM of the year for that draft...

Grigson has drafted and signed many players to try and fix the O-line. Just because they've been injured or haven't lived up to expectations isn't his fault. 

I don't love Grigson. Stop making assumptions about everything and everyone on here. 

I've just countered all your supposed "points". It's ok if you dislike Grigs but your reasoning is faulty. 

Really... we've drafted AT THE BOTTOM of EVERY draft except for one? I didn't need to read beyond that false statement.