Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Grigson says Luck's contract affects Colts Defense


lollygagger8
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep he's going to take some heat over that comment.  Not a very smart thing to say considering Luck was a bargain for the early part of his career. I know Grigson thinks he is the smartest man alive but he's actually pretty dumb if he thinks that explanation will fly with most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thing Grigson said is that they've missed on picks. And that's the primary reason the defense isn't where it should be. Werner, no first for Richardson, D'Joun Smith, Hughes, Andrew Jackson, etc., etc. That's reason #1.

 

However -- and I said this during the offseason, and it's still true -- when you commit a bunch of cash, you can't just go on a spending spree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

First thing Grigson said is that they've missed on picks. And that's the primary reason the defense isn't where it should be. Werner, no first for Richardson, D'Joun Smith, Hughes, Andrew Jackson, etc., etc. That's reason #1.

 

However -- and I said this during the offseason, and it's still true -- when you commit a bunch of cash, you can't just go on a spending spree. 

 

Image result for stumped gif

 

Wait, didn't Elway do that exact same thing? Seemed to work out pretty well for Denver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lollygagger8 said:

 

Image result for stumped gif

 

Wait, didn't Elway do that exact same thing? Seemed to work out pretty well for Denver. 

 

No, he didn't. 

 

The most the Broncos paid Manning in a given year was $19m in 2015, after his postseason bonuses. Second highest was $18M in 2012. 

 

The Colts are paying Andrew Luck $44m in 2016.

 

But the main difference is the Broncos drafted better than the Colts have. Part of that is Von Miller at #3, but the other part is Derek Wolfe, Malik Jackson, Danny Travathan, Sylvester Williams, Kayvon Webster, Bradley Roby -- all defensive contributors, mostly starters, on rookie contracts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Ya, this is excuse making at it's finest. I fail to see how Luck signing the big deal this off season has effected the paltry results of the defense over the previous 4 years. Do your job Mister Grigson. Start drafting players that are going to make a difference and quit making excuses. If you draft right you don't have money concerns with those players for 4-5 years. I'm ready for this guy to go. Ive been pretty silent to this point but I'm sick of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But the main difference is the Broncos drafted better than the Colts have. Part of that is Von Miller at #3, but the other part is Derek Wolfe, Malik Jackson, Danny Travathan, Sylvester Williams, Kayvon Webster, Bradley Roby -- all defensive contributors, mostly starters, on rookie contracts. 

Good point that just go to show that FO has been fooling around waaaay to much doing the wrong moves.:Gaah:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I liked how Grigson admitted he made a lot of bad picks on defense, however I don't like the fact that he pretty much ignored how bad he was the past four seasons as the GM when it comes to free agency and not addressing important needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do yourselves a favor and listen to the entire interview: http://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/media/play/27375889/

 

Florio via Zak Keefer totally pulled that quote out of context. As @Superman said, Grigson actually said the main problem is bad drafting on the defensive side of the ball. When I first read the quote, I was going to say it is egregious, but in the context of the entire interview, he is just being realistic, and actually admits he has messed up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be nice if the article posted the quote in its entirety.  I saw this article somewhere else and nothing he said was wrong.  They've missed on picks and they spent a lot on Andrew Luck.  I mean, maybe he didn't labor over his missed picks more and glossed over his short comings, but what person doesn't do that?  You don't go into an annual evaluation and celebrate your shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Grigson isn't wrong. When you pay any player as much as the Colts are paying Luck then you will be limited as to how much you spend in other areas.

 

As many have already pointed out, Luck's current salary did not cause all of the awful decisions that this front office has made. His current salary did not prevent this front office from doing a good job of drafting players over the last 4-5 years...their incompetence did. 

 

This sounds more like an excuse on why this team will be lousy for the next 2-3 years. It's like Grigson is setting it up early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone here Made an excellent point about Grigson: He seems preoccupied and obsessed with finding diamonds in the rough and I think he because of that tend to loose the plot and instead for just getting that solid player that will just work, he reaches for someone that might have some superior intangibles.He is simply outsmarting himself at times.

 

Pick "safe" in round 1-3, then go diamond in the rough hunting for all I care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zak took it out of context because he knew people would go crazy over it. But Grigson didn't say it the way its being interpreted. 

 

Click the link Larry Horseman  posted above so you can hear the whole thing. I have issues with Grigson but I hate when people are taken out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

It'd be nice if the article posted the quote in its entirety.  I saw this article somewhere else and nothing he said was wrong.  They've missed on picks and they spent a lot on Andrew Luck.  I mean, maybe he didn't labor over his missed picks more and glossed over his short comings, but what person doesn't do that?  You don't go into an annual evaluation and highlight your flaws, you acknowledge them and then quickly move along.  If you're boss wants to discuss weaknesses, that's one thing, but you don't celebrate them.

Good point. But that don't fit into the narrative that supports their claim that Grigson is the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Zak took it out of context because he knew people would go crazy over it. But Grigson didn't say it the way its being interpreted. 

 

Click the link Larry Horseman  posted above so you can hear the whole thing. I have issues with Grigson but I hate when people are taken out of context.

Twitter is going crazy over it too. Turd move by Keefer to get a bunch of clicks, IMO....he's knows darn good and well most are too lazy to actually look at the larger context of the quote. He did send out the link later, but he still knows no one is going to look into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I listened to it live yesterday. This is so far out of context that I actually thought it was a completely different interview.

 

5 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I listened to it live yesterday. This is so far out of context that I actually thought it was a completely different interview.

Don't know why it quoted you twice. But its sad that sports journalists are not very honest.  Maybe Zak should join CBS ABC NBC or Fox if he wants to be a dishonest journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

He screwed up the first four years.  He's making the point that because they had to pay Andrew they couldn't get more players this off-season to make up for the four years of mistake.  

 

Whole true still annoying as a fan to a fan to hear when we know he screwed up a lot defensive players on the past four years and then let one of the few he got right walk for chicken feed in NFL terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i read, Grigson does admit he has missed some picks.  But then he instantly turns around and pats himself on the back for his drafting overall.  Even says other teams scouting departments would say they have done a good job, at least on the offensive side of the ball. To me, the comment on Luck is still ludicrous and not needed. If Grigson would have done as great a job as he thinks he has, he wouldn't be having to toss out his QB's contract that he knew was coming for years as the reason as to why the D is terrible. He doesn't say the D is bad because he messed up, he just says it's going to take a while to fix because of Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

First thing Grigson said is that they've missed on picks. And that's the primary reason the defense isn't where it should be. Werner, no first for Richardson, D'Joun Smith, Hughes, Andrew Jackson, etc., etc. That's reason #1.

 

However -- and I said this during the offseason, and it's still true -- when you commit a bunch of cash, you can't just go on a spending spree. 

Ok and spent big money on the free agency players before and see how that turned out this is just a poor excuse he's not good at recognizing the talent we need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I was just reinforcing what you were saying.   Here's what people don't get about stats.  They are a simply just a mathematical computation of values.  And that's a huge weakness.  Formulas require consistency in the values.  Yards.  Number of Carries.  Interceptions.  Down and Distance, etc.   In the NFL, each one of those situations is unique from team to team, even situation to situation.  Its called idiosyncrasies.  Mathematical formulas hate idiosyncrasies....but the NFL is hardly anything else but a collection of idiosyncrasies.   So what happens is, and this is with stats in all fields not just sports, is that the data must be stripped down to its most basic components in order to be loaded into the formulas, or algorithms.  (Complex algorithms are rare, but they are able to process many different idiosyncrasies.  Facebook etc. has complex algorithms).   When looking at interception stats, we try to gauge the QBs decision making.  He gets diminished when he makes a good decision and a good throw but the WR lets the ball hit off of his facemask for a pick.  He gets elevated when he makes poor decisions and throws passes right at DBs who doesn't catch them.  The passes get processed as mere incompletions.   That's why watching tape is more important than stats.  For example, if you were to rate Wentz performance against SF, he might stat-wise rate out to over 100.  But if you included the terrible decisions he made in the first half (where Collinsworth pointed out he might have had 3 or 4 picks), he probably should have rated no higher than a 30.   But, since the math can't process the idiosyncrasy of a bad play by the DB from another type of incomplete pass, the math is processing very very simple data points and the stat becomes very basic information....not sophisticated at all.
    • I agree this is a pivotal game   If we dont win THIS game, TENN has the division .... we are too far back   There are some good teams vying for the Wild Card.     One week at a time
    • With Mich State and Michigan playing and Penn State and Ohio State and Iowa and Wisc., the Big Ten will be beating each other up this week.  
  • Members

    • IndyEric07

      IndyEric07 297

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mitch Connors

      Mitch Connors 456

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • newb767

      newb767 0

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 4,964

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colts1324

      Colts1324 516

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Knuckles79

      Knuckles79 102

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • buccolts

      buccolts 2,846

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JMichael557

      JMichael557 281

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltsfan1953

      Coltsfan1953 155

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • mirobi48

      mirobi48 53

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...