Grading Grigson

[Valpo2004]

So I thought about every major move Grigson has made and perhaps we should catalog it all and grade it.  

 

I will as a favor to Grigson exclude free agency moves in 2012 offseason for the reason that some moves where likely made in desperation.  I will also exclude the 2016 offseason entirely as 4 games isn't enough to grade on.  I will also exclude any picks 5th round or below unless I feel that pick is a benefit to him as sort of an extra credit.  Same thing with UDFA's.  I will also exclude any FA moves for people not intended to be starters, unless they give him some extra credit.  Extra Credit will be 2 points for a good player - 1 point for a decent player.  

 

4 points is the highest (like an A grade) and 0 points is the lowest (like an F grade).  Therefore a grade of 2 would essentially be average here. 

 

Feel free to copy what I have, add or subtract to it and adjust the grades so we can all have our grades on Grigson.  

 

2012 Draft:

Luck - 4

Fleener - 3

Allen - 2

Hilton - 4

 

Average for draft - 3.25 (B+)

 

Trade: Davis - 3

 

Extra Credit

Freeman - 2 Was a good ILB while here.  

Redding - 2 Was good DE while here

Butler - 1 Has been solid at times

 

Overall 2012 Grade - 4.2 (A+) Easy to see why he got the GM of the year award here.  Most of his moves at this point where really good.  You might count Satele against him however (see more at end)

 

2013 FA's

Cherlius - 1 

Toler - 1

Thomas - 0 

Walden - 3

Landry - 0

Francois - 1

Franklin - 1

Heyward-Bey - 0

Bradshaw - 2

FA Grade - 1 (D)

 

2013 Trades 

Hughes for Shepard - 0

2014 1st for Richardson - 0

Trade Grade - 0 (F)

 

2013 Draft

Werner - 0

Thornton - 2

Holmes - 1

Draft Grade 1 (D)

 

No Extra Credit

 

Overall 2013 Grade - 0.85 (D-) All the great expectations that where built up from the 2012 offseason sort of came crashing down here.  Only one decent player came in this offseason. .  Walden which is Ironic as it was the signing that received the most criticism.  

 

2014 FA's

Jackson - 3

Jones - 1

Nicks - 1

Adams - 4

FA Grade - 2.25 (C+)

 

2014 Draft

Mewhort - 3

Moncrief - 2

 

Draft Grade - 2.5 (C+/B-)

 

Extra Credit 

Kerr - 1

 

Overall 2014 Grade - 2.5 (C+/B-)

 

2015 FA's

Gore - 3

Herremans - 0

Cole - 1

Langford - 4

Johnson - 1

Lowery - 2

FA Grade - 1.83  (C-)

 

2015 Draft

Dorsett - 2

Smith - 0

Anderson - 3

Geathers - 2

Draft Grade - 1.75 C-

 

Extra Credit

Parry - 1

 

Overall 2015 Grade 1.8  (C-)

 

Overall Grigson Grade - 2.34 (C+) 

 

But I will note that he's pretty much being carried by his 2012 grade here.  A grade which perhaps should be changed or weighted differently because I excluded the FA's.  

 

If I include FA's it would be 

 

Avery - 2

Redding - 3

Satele - 0

Zbilkowski - 0

 

FA Grade - 1.25 

 

That would bring down the overall grade to 2.66 for 2012 which would drop Grigson overall grade to 1.95 (C-).  

 

But I'm not sure how fair it is to grade him for 2012 FA's considering the cap mess he stepped into and the desperation of putting a decent team together.  

 

Also this doesn't account for letting certain players walk in the offseason.  

 

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

Very thoughtful and fair. Good job.

[Dustin]

>Luck 4

>Langford 4

>Walden 3

 

I don't think a scale of 4 works very well.

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, Dustin said:

>Luck 4

>Langford 4

>Walden 3

 

I don't think a scale of 4 works very well.

Davis 3

[Valpo2004]

50 minutes ago, Dustin said:

>Luck 4

>Langford 4

>Walden 3

 

I don't think a scale of 4 works very well.

 

It's really 5 if you include the 0.  I'm trying to put it on a scale similar to a GPA in school.  0 for F's, 1 for D's 2 for C's, 3 for B's, 4 for A's.  

 

This takes into account the resources spent in getting them.  Either in terms of money or draft picks.   One of the reasons I gave Adams a 4 for example is we spent almost nothing to get him.  

 

 

[21isSuperman]

29 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It's really 5 if you include the 0.  I'm trying to put it on a scale similar to a GPA in school.  0 for F's, 1 for D's 2 for C's, 3 for B's, 4 for A's.  

 

This takes into account the resources spent in getting them.  Either in terms of money or draft picks.   One of the reasons I gave Adams a 4 for example is we spent almost nothing to get him.  

 

 

His point was that you're grading is flawed.  If Luck is a 4.0, Langford shouldn't be a 4.0.  Luck is way more talented and has done more to help the Colts win than Langford, so it doesn't make sense to give them both the same grade.

 

Personally, I don't think Grigson deserves any credit for the Luck pick.  Anyone with any ounce of football knowledge knew Luck was the more polished QB and was the better prospect over RG3.  Not only that, but it's very possible taking Luck was a decision made by Irsay, not Grigson.  That's not a criticism of Grigson, but I don't see the point in giving someone credit for making an obvious pick.

[Larry Horseman]

@Valpo2004 I think 2015 is a bit low and this is a generally difficult/flawed exercise. That said, what is the actual expectation here? As in, what is a successful grade? What is the actual NFL GM average? How would Grigs compare to other GMs if you were to grade them the same way? I suppose I'm failing to grasp what you are trying to accomplish since there are no comps. 

 

On a side note, I wish his name actually was Grigon. 

[twfish]

21 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It's really 5 if you include the 0.  I'm trying to put it on a scale similar to a GPA in school.  0 for F's, 1 for D's 2 for C's, 3 for B's, 4 for A's.  

 

This takes into account the resources spent in getting them.  Either in terms of money or draft picks.   One of the reasons I gave Adams a 4 for example is we spent almost nothing to get him.  

 

 

The only criticism I'll deal is how you grade the players. Personally I see Butler as a 2 (there was a time he was he was touted as one of the best Nickle CB in the league. I beleive toler deserves a 2 as well he may have had a bad final season but he was definitely very useful in the 14 campaign. Jackson Imo is a 4 he's been a leader on defense and has gone to the pro bowl multiple times as a colt. Moncreif a 3.  Parry deserves a 2 and good should be the extra credit with a 1. Scale would probably work better at 0-10 and base it off percentage

[Malakai432]

Interesting assessment none the less

[OLD FAN MAN]

23 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

His point was that you're grading is flawed.  If Luck is a 4.0, Langford shouldn't be a 4.0.  Luck is way more talented and has done more to help the Colts win than Langford, so it doesn't make sense to give them both the same grade.

 

Personally, I don't think Grigson deserves any credit for the Luck pick.  Anyone with any ounce of football knowledge knew Luck was the more polished QB and was the better prospect over RG3.  Not only that, but it's very possible taking Luck was a decision made by Irsay, not Grigson.  That's not a criticism of Grigson, but I don't see the point in giving someone credit for making an obvious pick.

I agree

[crazycolt1]

19 minutes ago, FACE REALITY said:

I agree

So give him any bad credit for picks you think were bad but still give him no credit when his picks are good?

This has tuned into just another bash Grigson thread.

[TheEdgeis1]

I like it, but fleener was not a 3 he was more like a bum. Ok maybe a 2, but -1 for being a cry baby when he didn't get re-signed.

[Colts_Fan12]

20 minutes ago, twfish said:

The only criticism I'll deal is how you grade the players. Personally I see Butler as a 2 (there was a time he was he was touted as one of the best Nickle CB in the league. I beleive toler deserves a 2 as well he may have had a bad final season but he was definitely very useful in the 14 campaign. Jackson Imo is a 4 he's been a leader on defense and has gone to the pro bowl multiple times as a colt. Moncreif a 3.  Parry deserves a 2 and good should be the extra credit with a 1. Scale would probably work better at 0-10 and base it off percentage

Toler was always bad and deserves the 1 he got. Jackson sure as hell don't deserve the same grade as Luck and higher then Vontae. He is not as good as we could have he is just serviceable and gets a lot of tackles guy is trash in coverage too. Parry should stay a 1 as well guy gets shoved anywhere the defender wants him to go.

[Colts_Fan12]

5 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So give him any bad credit for picks you think were bad but still give him no credit when his picks are good?

This has tuned into just another bash Grigson thread.

wth are you talking about? 21 said he shouldn't get credit for Luck and he shouldn't Irsay made the pick no matter what you think. If you don't like the thread feel free to go start your own Grigson is great thread Ryan Grigson Sr. I think all you do on this forum is complain about what other people discuss. You are the one who chooses to click on the topics. We get it you get all butthurt when someone talks about your boy. 

[Larry Horseman]

21 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

wth are you talking about? 21 said he shouldn't get credit for Luck and he shouldn't Irsay made the pick no matter what you think. If you don't like the thread feel free to go start your own Grigson is great thread Ryan Grigson Sr. I think all you do on this forum is complain about what other people discuss. You are the one who chooses to click on the topics. We get it you get all butthurt when someone talks about your boy. 

 

In all fairness, there is a bash Grigson thread stickied at the top of the forum. You always being negative is no different than @Colts Fan 12 being positive. 

[theanarchist]

Grading Grigson?

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

"Grigon"

 

Sounds like a Godzilla monster 

[Colts_Fan12]

10 minutes ago, Larry Horseman said:

 

In all fairness, there is a bash Grigson thread stickied at the top of the forum. You always being negative is no different than @Colts Fan 12 being positive. 

Thing is ppl like me wouldn't bash him if he didn't deserve it we could go 0-16 and this guy will still find excuses for Grigson 

[lollygagger8]

12 minutes ago, Gabriel Alexander Morillo said:

"Grigon"

 

Sounds like a Godzilla monster 

 

I was going to say a huge robot that smaller robots join together to make: 

 

[Larry Horseman]

14 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Thing is ppl like me wouldn't bash him if he didn't deserve it we could go 0-16 and this guy will still find excuses for Grigson 

 

The reality is that nearly every fan base in the NFL can both bash and defend their team's GM. This thread is another example of our fan base looking at Grigson in a vacuum, as opposed to comparing his "grade" since 2012 to his peers. For example, Jerry Reese was a dumpster fire between 2012-2015; Ozzie Newsome wasn't much better. Ted Thompson struggled. Even BB has way more misses than hits. My point is that it is easy to say Grigson and his decisions are trash; what's more difficult/time consuming to do is really sit down and compare how Grigson is doing relative to his peers. That all said, I'm not a Grigson apologist--he deserves his fair share of criticism. However, I also think the coaching staff isn't developing talent or utilizing schemes that makes the talent excel. 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

wth are you talking about? 21 said he shouldn't get credit for Luck and he shouldn't Irsay made the pick no matter what you think. If you don't like the thread feel free to go start your own Grigson is great thread Ryan Grigson Sr. I think all you do on this forum is complain about what other people discuss. You are the one who chooses to click on the topics. We get it you get all butthurt when someone talks about your boy. 

It is not me who starts thread after thread complaining.

Now you want to insult me with your Grigson Sr. comment? It seems to suit you well enough.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Thing is ppl like me wouldn't bash him if he didn't deserve it we could go 0-16 and this guy will still find excuses for Grigson 

I do not find excuses. I observe reality without all the negativity. Grigson has not done that bad of job no matter what you or anyone else thinks.

The NFL is a team sport and that starts at the top and includes everyone down to the water boy. Because the Colts started out bad this year it's everyone jump on either Grigson and or Pagano. Injuries make no difference to you. Rookies should play like seasoned veterans and when they don't it's rag on Grigson and Pagano time.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

2015 Draft

Dorsett - 2

Smith - 0

Anderson - 3

Geathers - 2

Draft Grade - 1.75 C-

 

Extra Credit

Parry - 1

 

Parry was a draft pick. So was Good. I think that draft was a B. Too early, but I'm projecting Dorsett, Anderson and Geathers pretty aggressively. C- seems harsh.

 

I would also call your 2015 FA grade "generous." I'd give it a D. 

 

Overall, I agree with your post.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Personally, I don't think Grigson deserves any credit for the Luck pick.

 

Yet he'd deserve criticism if he hadn't picked Luck. 

 

This is a league where Johnny Manziel was picked before Bridgewater and Carr. Brandon Weeden went two rounds ahead of Russell Wilson. 

 

Personnel men deserve credit when they make good decisions. We've all seen them miss obvious picks before.

[21isSuperman]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Yet he'd deserve criticism if he hadn't picked Luck. 

 

This is a league where Johnny Manziel was picked before Bridgewater and Carr. Brandon Weeden went two rounds ahead of Russell Wilson. 

 

Personnel men deserve credit when they make good decisions. We've all seen them miss obvious picks before.

Manziel and Weeden weren't sure things.  Luck was about as surefire/can't miss a prospect as there was.  Some were saying he was equal to or better than Peyton coming out of college.  I also think Irsay was pretty instrumental in making this pick.  I don't think he left it up to Grigson and the scouts; he told them who would be the first overall pick that year.  Just my opinion though.

[Colts_Fan12]

18 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I do not find excuses. I observe reality without all the negativity. Grigson has not done that bad of job no matter what you or anyone else thinks.

The NFL is a team sport and that starts at the top and includes everyone down to the water boy. Because the Colts started out bad this year it's everyone jump on either Grigson and or Pagano. Injuries make no difference to you. Rookies should play like seasoned veterans and when they don't it's rag on Grigson and Pagano time.

The whole point is we shouldn't even be in this position. Had he not blown the cap space and draft picks we would be in much better shape. The roster is poor because he allowed it to become poor. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

Luck was about as surefire/can't miss a prospect as there was.

 

So was Jadeveon Clowney, but Khalil Mack has been the far better player. 

 

I don't think the Luck decision was particularly close, despite the Colts' lip service to the whole evaluation process. I think everyone knew that Luck was going to be the guy, and Irsay probably was instrumental in that. But it's not like Grigson didn't do the evaluation.

[crazycolt1]

11 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

The whole point is we shouldn't even be in this position. Had he not blown the cap space and draft picks we would be in much better shape. The roster is poor because he allowed it to become poor. 

Blown the cap space?? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

[Colts_Fan12]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Blown the cap space?? I don't think you know what you are talking about.

He wasted it on old or bad players. It's you that don't have a clue. 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

He wasted it on old or bad players. It's you that don't have a clue. 

Does free agency need explaining to you?

[Colts_Fan12]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Does free agency need explaining to you?

Lol this is going no where with you I'm out grandpa 

 

Id have more progress talking to a brick *ing wall 

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Lol this is going no where with you I'm out grandpa 

So you cant debate so you revert to insults? That suits you well too.

[Colts_Fan12]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

So you cant debate so you revert to insults? That suits you well too.

No I've tried before and I literally have no more patience for you. Me and damn near everyone on the board proves you wrong on a daily basis yet you still spew the same rah rah crap over and over. 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

No I've tried before and I literally have no more patience for you. Me and damn near everyone on the board proves you wrong on a daily basis yet you still spew the same rah rah crap over and over. 

Because I don't have the same opinion as you do now you want to start something that has zero to do with the thread?

[Colts_Fan12]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Because I don't have the same opinion as you do now you want to start something that has zero to do with the thread?

Peace out not doing this again it's my day off 

[Superman]

24 minutes ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

Had he not blown the cap space and draft picks we would be in much better shape.

 

100% true.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Parry was a draft pick. So was Good. I think that draft was a B. Too early, but I'm projecting Dorsett, Anderson and Geathers pretty aggressively. C- seems harsh.

 

I would also call your 2015 FA grade "generous." I'd give it a D. 

 

Overall, I agree with your post.

 

Parry was a 5th round pick and I said I wasn't going to grade after the 4th round except as to give extra credit.

 

My main reason for that is a lot of those guys don't even make the roster in the first place.  So why give a grade to a pick at which there is really no way that they can bust??

 

I agree it's still a little early on the 2015 picks, but we have some intelligence on them from a season and a quarter of action.  

 

I've been discouraged by Dorsett's lack of production.  A 1st round pick in his 2nd year in a passing offense who was promoted to WR2 for a while due to Moncrief's injury, I was thinking he should produce a bit more.  He's made some plays, I won't discount that, but he's not been breaking out like Hilton did.  

 

I think Geathers is trending up.  With Anderson it's a big question because of his injury.  Is he going to be a force again?  Is he going to be injury prone?  Hard to say.  

 

For 2015 I may have spotted Langford and Gore a point there more then they should have gotten.  But a C- and a D arn't all that far off.  

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, Larry Horseman said:

 

The reality is that nearly every fan base in the NFL can both bash and defend their team's GM. This thread is another example of our fan base looking at Grigson in a vacuum, as opposed to comparing his "grade" since 2012 to his peers. For example, Jerry Reese was a dumpster fire between 2012-2015; Ozzie Newsome wasn't much better. Ted Thompson struggled. Even BB has way more misses than hits. My point is that it is easy to say Grigson and his decisions are trash; what's more difficult/time consuming to do is really sit down and compare how Grigson is doing relative to his peers. That all said, I'm not a Grigson apologist--he deserves his fair share of criticism. However, I also think the coaching staff isn't developing talent or utilizing schemes that makes the talent excel. 

Excellent points.  Don't forget, I count three offensive and two defensive coordinators during Grigsons time plus the other coaching changes.  Changes take time to assimilate.  Also look at the Panthers one year removed from the SB.  "Panic" release today of one of their starting CB's?  Same record as ours I think.  It's a tough job in a tough league. I remember when Riviera was on the hot seat a few years ago too.  Things change pretty fast.   Drafting and FA is nothing but a crap shoot.  What you need is a great QB and some luck in drafting and free agency and you're in the hunt.  That's about all you can ask for.  We have our QB.  Need some more pieces. 

[Valpo2004]

4 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

His point was that you're grading is flawed.  If Luck is a 4.0, Langford shouldn't be a 4.0.  Luck is way more talented and has done more to help the Colts win than Langford, so it doesn't make sense to give them both the same grade.

 

Personally, I don't think Grigson deserves any credit for the Luck pick.  Anyone with any ounce of football knowledge knew Luck was the more polished QB and was the better prospect over RG3.  Not only that, but it's very possible taking Luck was a decision made by Irsay, not Grigson.  That's not a criticism of Grigson, but I don't see the point in giving someone credit for making an obvious pick.

 

Luck was also the #1 pick in the draft and Langford was a FA.  This grading takes into account the resources spend on obtaining the player.  

 

Langford didn't get an extremely large contract either.  

 

Anyways that is why I give both an A grade.

 

I wouldn't give Grigson a ton of credit for picking Luck but I think he deserves some.  There where certainly people out there saying RG3 was the better prospect.  I would personally be curious as to what other teams front offices thought about it all.  But media wise there was a good number of people on the RG3 bandwagon.

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

So was Jadeveon Clowney, but Khalil Mack has been the far better player. 

 

I don't think the Luck decision was particularly close, despite the Colts' lip service to the whole evaluation process. I think everyone knew that Luck was going to be the guy, and Irsay probably was instrumental in that. But it's not like Grigson didn't do the evaluation.

There were questions about Clowney's maturity and work ethic.  Questions about Luck's game were very minimal.  I don't recall seeing a single mock with the Colts taking anyone other than Luck.  Some 2014 mocks had Bortles going 1st overall, some had Khalil Mack going 1st overall.  The Andrew Luck selection was:

1) a slam dunk

2) likely made by Irsay

3) obvious to anyone who had done their homework

 

Grigson didn't have to play around with the draft board, didn't have to try to find a diamond in the rough, etc.  He was gifted the best QB prospect in the last 15 years.  That's why he doesn't get credit for that pick from me.  Just how I see it