Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Grigson says Luck's contract affects Colts Defense


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

 

But didn't Elway put most of that nucleus in place?  He built a good team without knowing who his QB would be and he was smart enough to realized the Tebow wasn't going to cut it.  I feel like Grigson would have kept rolling with Tebow if he were in Elway's shoes.  

 

Most of it. Some of the players there were Xanders/McDaniels guys, mostly on the offensive side (DT, Julius Thomas, Decker, Clady, Moreno, etc.). Ironically, Elway's biggest impact is seen on defense, plus Peyton Manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

 

Sorry,  this is not going to fly.

 

We're NOT getting charged 44 million against our cap this year.     And you know it.

 

So, then you go to note that the Broncos have drafted better than the Colts.     Well,  yeah.     Isn't that stating the incredibly obvious.     Which Grigson, while acknowledging he's missed on some picks,  couldn't say.

 

Denver did it with Manning.    Seattle did it with Wilson.    Green Bay did it with Rodgers.     Pittsburgh did it with Rothlisberger.     Carolina did it with Cam.      Cindy did it with Andy Dalton.

 

It can be done with the right GM.

 

But worse than that,  it reads to everyone outside of Colts Nation that Grigson has thrown Luck under the bus. That's he's blaming Luck when the person to blame is none other than Ryan Grigson.

 

This might be the worst,  the dumbest comment he's made as GM.

 

I know Luck will brush it off.....    but if I were him,   I'd be smoking mad.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd fire him just for making a statement like that. How dare he try "soften the blow" of him missing on draft picks by trying to use Lucks contract as damage control for his bad FA skills. He basically said "Yeah I missed on some draft picks, but don't blame FA on me. Luck has a big contract ". This guy just doesn't get it. Still resting on his laurels from his Philly days where he and his guys found some solid players in unorthodox ways. This isn't Philly though.

 

The problem now is all this out of the box thinking and diamond In the rough stuff. Just play it safe and stop overthinking everything. Yeah he hit with Hilton but not everyone is going to be Hilton. Sometimes you gotta draft/sign the obvious choice and stop beating around the bush. Stop drafting guys because "OMG you don't pass on speed like that". Stop signing FAs because "He's a little older but he brings veteran experience ". Just follow script like everyone else does and stop trying to be this talent guru.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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. 

The voice of reason amidst a sea of despair!  No wonder Lois crushed on you! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Sorry,  this is not going to fly.

 

We're NOT getting charged 44 million against our cap this year.     And you know it.

 

Come on, NCF. You know I don't just say stuff...

 

The Colts are paying Luck a $32m signing bonus and a $12m base salary. 32 + 12 = 44. Cash.

 

I didn't say cap charge. I said cash. I know all anyone around here cares about is cap, but that's not the right way to look at it, because A) cash is is real money that comes out of someone's bank account, meaning it has to be there in the first place, and B) every dollar that gets paid counts toward the cap eventually, so you have to mind your cash.

 

I also don't agree that Grigson threw Luck under the bus. Like I said, I think everyone is looking at this as a reset, not a a continuation of the previous regime. Bottom line, they have to draft well to build the roster, not go out and try to fix all the problems in one offseason.

 

Of course, everyone else will spin this -- and already are -- as Grigson throwing Luck under the bus, but that's mostly because Grigson is mud and Luck is the golden boy. I'm a big Luck fan, but Grigson saying the Colts are limited due to Luck's contract isn't new information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Come on, NCF. You know I don't just say stuff...

 

The Colts are paying Luck a $32m signing bonus and a $12m base salary. 32 + 12 = 44. Cash.

 

I didn't say cap charge. I said cash. I know all anyone around here cares about is cap, but that's not the right way to look at it, because A) cash is is real money that comes out of someone's bank account, meaning it has to be there in the first place, and B) every dollar that gets paid counts toward the cap eventually, so you have to mind your cash.

 

I also don't agree that Grigson threw Luck under the bus. Like I said, I think everyone is looking at this as a reset, not a a continuation of the previous regime. Bottom line, they have to draft well to build the roster, not go out and try to fix all the problems in one offseason.

 

Of course, everyone else will spin this -- and already are -- as Grigson throwing Luck under the bus, but that's mostly because Grigson is mud and Luck is the golden boy. I'm a big Luck fan, but Grigson saying the Colts are limited due to Luck's contract isn't new information. 

 

Two things.....    outside of Colts Nation it looks like Grigson is blaming Luck.     Look at the front page of ESPN.com     This is not a public comment that will go over well.      As a media guy,  my alarm bells are ringing loudly.      If I worked for the Colts and Grigson had asked my opinion ahead of time,  I would've pleaded with him NOT to say that.

 

Second,   what difference does it make that we're paying Luck $44 Million this year?      None.

 

The only difference is when it prevents the Colts from spending more,  and the contract only dings the cap for $18 Mill.    That's the key element here.   Not what we actually pay Luck.    It's not like we can't afford it.   

 

To argue Grison's point, it only impacts the team because of the salary cap.   And since it's only an 18 Million dollar charge,  then we should be able to handle it.

 

Plus,  the flip-side is that Irsay only had to spend 80 Million in 2012 because of Dead Cap money.    So, he could've banked $40 Mill that day and let it sit and earn interest for 4 years.

 

How many times in how many different interviews did Ryan Grigson say he's got financial people advising him about contracts so that when the time comes for Luck's big deal we'll still be OK.     Too many times,  that's how many.      Now he says this?!?

 

The $44 Million we give Luck is chump change to Irsay or any good NFL owner.    Owners don't agree to deals they can't afford.       Plus, within a week of the signing, Irsay himself said it was a well balanced contract that doesn't hurt the Colts salary structure so the team would never be in Salary Cap Hell because of it.

 

Irsay said that.      Grigson has just publicly contradicted him to cover his own rear end.

 

Sorry....    but I'm seeing RED here.....    I hate self-inflicted wounds,  and this is Grigson's biggest ever.    Just when we didn't need it.......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

Yeah but they knew they would have to fork over big bucks sooner or later to him. And that affected them putting a good D together 4 years ago. hahahahahaha

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, achcolts said:

First the pags hurry up/hard to sub excuse now this, atleast they're keeping us entertained in laughter lol

Yes they are. But they are now becoming a laughing stock on & off the field in the process.

Looks like the browns will soon have a rival.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when being a a member of the media was actually respectable? True journalism is all but dead nowadays. I knew the second I read that quote that is was taken out of context, and I also knew that everyone here would just take it the same way and spew hatred all across the forum. Predictable. Stop being sheep. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Two things.....    outside of Colts Nation it looks like Grigson is blaming Luck.     Look at the front page of ESPN.com     This is not a public comment that will go over well.      As a media guy,  my alarm bells are ringing loudly.      If I worked for the Colts and Grigson had asked my opinion ahead of time,  I would've pleaded with him NOT to say that.

 

Second,   what difference does it make that we're paying Luck $44 Million this year?      None.

 

The only difference is when it prevents the Colts from spending more,  and the contract only dings the cap for $18 Mill.    That's the key element here.   Not what we actually pay Luck.    It's not like we can't afford it.   

 

To argue Grison's point, it only impacts the team because of the salary cap.   And since it's only an 18 Million dollar charge,  then we should be able to handle it.

 

Plus,  the flip-side is that Irsay only had to spend 80 Million in 2012 because of Dead Cap money.    So, he could've banked $40 Mill that day and let it sit and earn interest for 4 years.

 

How many times in how many different interviews did Ryan Grigson say he's got financial people advising him about contracts so that when the time comes for Luck's big deal we'll still be OK.     Too many times,  that's how many.      Now he says this?!?

 

The $44 Million we give Luck is chump change to Irsay or any good NFL owner.    Owners don't agree to deals they can't afford.       Plus, within a week of the signing, Irsay himself said it was a well balanced contract that doesn't hurt the Colts salary structure so the team would never be in Salary Cap Hell because of it.

 

Irsay said that.      Grigson has just publicly contradicted him to cover his own rear end.

 

Sorry....    but I'm seeing RED here.....    I hate self-inflicted wounds,  and this is Grigson's biggest ever.    Just when we didn't need it.......

 

 

1) You know how I feel about the way the media portrays stuff. Headline grabbing, no substance, no regard for fact, all spin... Grigson did an entire interview, and they focused on one sentence, out of context. People can say what they want, it doesn't change fact. 

 

2) You're wrong that it doesn't matter about the cash. The cash is really the #1 thing, because cash hits the cap. Also, cash is real. Someone has to cut that check. It's easy to dismiss someone else's $44m just because it's not technically not accounted for yet. I'm sure you run some sort of cash flow analysis to make sure you can handle household expenses. Just because you haven't paid for a new roof yet doesn't mean that money isn't accounted for. Cap vs cash is the same thing.

 

3) Yes, Irsay only spent $80m in 2012, but he spent $150m the year before. That's where the dead money came from. It was balanced out in 2012. Dead cap is not phantom money. It's money that's already been paid.

 

4) And yes, the Colts are fine moving forward with Luck's new deal. They still need to mind cash flow, because cash flow dictates future cap standing. 

 

5) Again, it's easy to call someone else's expenditures "chump change." I don't like counting other people's money though. 

 

6) The media/fan reaction is predictable. Savvy media relations would probably dictate saying this differently. Still, nothing Grigson said is wrong. And he acknowledged that they're responsible for the hole they're in. So just because the reaction is predictable doesn't mean it's defensible. I'm not going to co-sign the headline brigade when I know better. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Two things.....    outside of Colts Nation it looks like Grigson is blaming Luck.     Look at the front page of ESPN.com     This is not a public comment that will go over well.      As a media guy,  my alarm bells are ringing loudly.      If I worked for the Colts and Grigson had asked my opinion ahead of time,  I would've pleaded with him NOT to say that.

 

Second,   what difference does it make that we're paying Luck $44 Million this year?      None.

 

The only difference is when it prevents the Colts from spending more,  and the contract only dings the cap for $18 Mill.    That's the key element here.   Not what we actually pay Luck.    It's not like we can't afford it.   

 

To argue Grison's point, it only impacts the team because of the salary cap.   And since it's only an 18 Million dollar charge,  then we should be able to handle it.

 

Plus,  the flip-side is that Irsay only had to spend 80 Million in 2012 because of Dead Cap money.    So, he could've banked $40 Mill that day and let it sit and earn interest for 4 years.

 

How many times in how many different interviews did Ryan Grigson say he's got financial people advising him about contracts so that when the time comes for Luck's big deal we'll still be OK.     Too many times,  that's how many.      Now he says this?!?

 

The $44 Million we give Luck is chump change to Irsay or any good NFL owner.    Owners don't agree to deals they can't afford.       Plus, within a week of the signing, Irsay himself said it was a well balanced contract that doesn't hurt the Colts salary structure so the team would never be in Salary Cap Hell because of it.

 

Irsay said that.      Grigson has just publicly contradicted him to cover his own rear end.

 

Sorry....    but I'm seeing RED here.....    I hate self-inflicted wounds,  and this is Grigson's biggest ever.    Just when we didn't need it.......

 

Sorry NCF, you know better than reading what a member of the media says and the reality of all of it.

It makes for good headlines when a media hound picks just the part of an interview to sell himself by adding his own spin on what was said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good heavens...

 

I just listened to the interview. The one little comment about Luck was almost a throwaway line. It's a nearly 11 minute interview, and he said that one thing about Luck's contract. His point had nothing to do with Luck.

 

I'll say again, bang Grigson for all his mistakes. But anything about this interview is nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rockywoj said:

Dumb comment by Grigson.

 

Yes, because it's public and he's still employed.  Polian recently came out and said similar things about Manning and the D he and Dungy could field... with cap space low and getting high draft picks (playoff contender every year).  It showed both sided...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) You know how I feel about the way the media portrays stuff. Headline grabbing, no substance, no regard for fact, all spin... Grigson did an entire interview, and they focused on one sentence, out of context. People can say what they want, it doesn't change fact. 

 

2) You're wrong that it doesn't matter about the cash. The cash is really the #1 thing, because cash hits the cap. Also, cash is real. Someone has to cut that check. It's easy to dismiss someone else's $44m just because it's not technically not accounted for yet. I'm sure you run some sort of cash flow analysis to make sure you can handle household expenses. Just because you haven't paid for a new roof yet doesn't mean that money isn't accounted for. Cap vs cash is the same thing.

 

3) Yes, Irsay only spent $80m in 2012, but he spent $150m the year before. That's where the dead money came from. It was balanced out in 2012. Dead cap is not phantom money. It's money that's already been paid.

 

4) And yes, the Colts are fine moving forward with Luck's new deal. They still need to mind cash flow, because cash flow dictates future cap standing. 

 

5) Again, it's easy to call someone else's expenditures "chump change." I don't like counting other people's money though. 

 

6) The media/fan reaction is predictable. Savvy media relations would probably dictate saying this differently. Still, nothing Grigson said is wrong. And he acknowledged that they're responsible for the hole they're in. So just because the reaction is predictable doesn't mean it's defensible. I'm not going to co-sign the headline brigade when I know better. Sorry.

 

What are you talking about "no facts".....?

 

I listed six different teams that are paying their QB big money and have still built a good defense.    That's a fact.     So, if other teams can do it,  then so can the Colts.     If Grigson honestly believes this then he's not the right GM for the team.     Or if Irsay is pinching pennies,  then someone needs to say so.     Irsay himself gave a recent interview saying Luck's contract was structured such that it would not hurt the team.     His GM can't say the opposite months later.

 

I mentioned that Grigson himself gave repeated assurance over a period of years that we'd have no trouble signing Luck and still fielding a good team.      That's not in dispute.

 

In fact, during this time,  you and I led the charge here assuring posters who don't understand the process that we were going to be OK financially.      We made countless posts saying just that.     Heck, you and I stated that IF we wanted to sign both Allen and Fleener we had plenty of money to do it.

 

Heck you made posts explaining how we could afford to sign Suh AND still be able to pay Andrew Luck.   I'm sure you remember that?     I think there were other Free Agents that you laid out a plan where we could afford to sign them as well.

 

You're singing a new and strange tune now.....     it's 180 degrees opposite from what you sang not too long ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sorry NCF, you know better than reading what a member of the media says and the reality of all of it.

It makes for good headlines when a media hound picks just the part of an interview to sell himself by adding his own spin on what was said.

 

Honestly,  I care when the GM is blaming the star quarterback for his short-comings and that's exactly what it looks like.

 

If Grigson worded this poorly,  then he needs to say so.

 

But if this stands as is,  then he blamed Luck's deal for the teams current struggles.    That's how this plays out in  the real world.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Superman said:

Good heavens...

 

I just listened to the interview. The one little comment about Luck was almost a throwaway line. It's a nearly 11 minute interview, and he said that one thing about Luck's contract. His point had nothing to do with Luck.

 

I'll say again, bang Grigson for all his mistakes. But anything about this interview is nonsense.

 

I'm sorry.    But this isn't the media's fault.      The media isn't turning a NOTHING into a SOMETHING.

 

It doesn't matter where or when he said it.    The point is --- he said it.   

 

It exploded the moment it came out of his mouth.

 

The only people a comment like that protects are Grigson and Irsay.     And it throws Luck under the bus.    He's blaming Luck for the Colts lousy defense.

 

Even if its true --- which it's not --- a good GM never, EVER says something like that PUBLICLY.    It's toxic.

It infects a locker-room.       Pagano always talks about keeping things in house, behind doors.    And Grigson just violated that basic rule.     And for what?!?

 

I don't know why you're pretending that this is nothing?     It's something.     Worse, it's a self-inflicted wound.

It was completely unnecessary.       We gained nothing by him saying it.     And now it's a story whether fans here want it to be or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sorry.    But this isn't the media's fault.      The media isn't turning a NOTHING into a SOMETHING.

 

It doesn't matter where or when he said it.    The point is --- he said it.   

 

It exploded the moment it came out of his mouth.

 

The only people a comment like that protects are Grigson and Irsay.     And it throws Luck under the bus.    He's blaming Luck for the Colts lousy defense.

 

Even if its true --- which it's not --- a good GM never, EVER says something like that PUBLICLY.    It's toxic.

It infects a locker-room.       Pagano always talks about keeping things in house, behind doors.    And Grigson just violated that basic rule.     And for what?!?

 

I don't know why you're pretending that this is nothing?     It's something.     Worse, it's a self-inflicted wound.

It was completely unnecessary.       We gained nothing by him saying it.     And now it's a story whether fans here want it to be or not.

 

100% on the money here. I wish Grigson would be fired immediately. I dislike Pagano too, but he would never do something like this. You don't throw Luck under the bus as an excuse for your ineptness of building a team and poor drafting. This is just awful. Luck needs to tear Grigson a new one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Superman said:

Good heavens...

 

I just listened to the interview. The one little comment about Luck was almost a throwaway line. It's a nearly 11 minute interview, and he said that one thing about Luck's contract. His point had nothing to do with Luck.

 

I'll say again, bang Grigson for all his mistakes. But anything about this interview is nonsense.

 

I just listened to it too.....    it's a throw-away line...   couldn't be more than 5-6 seconds.    

 

But the point is,  he said it.      And once he said it,  it's out there.

 

It's the type of comment that a good GM recognizes should not be said,  and would never EVER say it publicly.

 

There's no upside to saying it.     Only downside.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Honestly,  I care when the GM is blaming the star quarterback for his short-comings and that's exactly what it looks like.

 

If Grigson worded this poorly,  then he needs to say so.

 

But if this stands as is,  then he blamed Luck's deal for the teams current struggles.    That's how this plays out in  the real world.

 

I guess you are not going to actually listen or read what the whole interview said?

You drawing the conclusions you have come to without reading the whole interview is being way too narrow minded. Of coarse it's rag on Grigson time so by all means jump to conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess you are not going to actually listen or read what the whole interview said?

You drawing the conclusions you have come to without reading the whole interview is being way too narrow minded. Of coarse it's rag on Grigson time so by all means jump to conclusions.

 

There's no interview to read that I'm aware of....   would be happy to read it if I can see the link.

 

It's an audio link and I heard the soundbite....    it's at the 3:45 point of the interview....

 

It's on the front of the website there for anyone to hear.

 

Tonight,  I got in my car to go to dinner with the wife.   I turn on the NFL Channel on XM radio and the topic of the section is....     "Ryan Grigson and Luck's Contract."

 

Later tonight,  I'll watch NFL's Total Access on the NFL Network and I'm guessing it will be a topic of discussion.

I'd be beyond shocked if it's not.     

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry,  this is not going to fly.

 

We're NOT getting charged 44 million against our cap this year.     And you know it.

 

So, then you go to note that the Broncos have drafted better than the Colts.     Well,  yeah.     Isn't that stating the incredibly obvious.     Which Grigson, while acknowledging he's missed on some picks,  couldn't say.

 

Denver did it with Manning.    Seattle did it with Wilson.    Green Bay did it with Rodgers.     Pittsburgh did it with Rothlisberger.     Carolina did it with Cam.      Cindy did it with Andy Dalton.

 

It can be done with the right GM.

 

But worse than that,  it reads to everyone outside of Colts Nation that Grigson has thrown Luck under the bus. That's he's blaming Luck when the person to blame is none other than Ryan Grigson.

 

This might be the worst,  the dumbest comment he's made as GM.

 

I know Luck will brush it off.....    but if I were him,   I'd be smoking mad.  

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

ROTFlmao. Where did $44 million come from? Definitely not supported by any sources, or even gossip.

 

Overthecap.com places it at $18,400,000 for this year.

 

Yet another person who doesn't know the difference between cash and cap hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

What are you talking about "no facts".....?

 

I listed six different teams that are paying their QB big money and have still built a good defense.    That's a fact.     So, if other teams can do it,  then so can the Colts.     If Grigson honestly believes this then he's not the right GM for the team.     Or if Irsay is pinching pennies,  then someone needs to say so.     Irsay himself gave a recent interview saying Luck's contract was structured such that it would not hurt the team.     His GM can't say the opposite months later.

 

I mentioned that Grigson himself gave repeated assurance over a period of years that we'd have no trouble signing Luck and still fielding a good team.      That's not in dispute.

 

In fact, during this time,  you and I led the charge here assuring posters who don't understand the process that we were going to be OK financially.      We made countless posts saying just that.     Heck, you and I stated that IF we wanted to sign both Allen and Fleener we had plenty of money to do it.

 

Heck you made posts explaining how we could afford to sign Suh AND still be able to pay Andrew Luck.   I'm sure you remember that?     I think there were other Free Agents that you laid out a plan where we could afford to sign them as well.

 

You're singing a new and strange tune now.....     it's 180 degrees opposite from what you sang not too long ago.

 

???

 

I didn't say no facts. I said no regard for facts. Like the FACT that Grigson didn't blame Luck or his contract for anything, or the FACT that Grigson took responsibly for having missed draft picks.

 

Yes, other teams have built well around highly paid QBs. And yes, the Colts can do it with Luck. I never said they can't, neither did Grigson. Why are you acting like anyone even suggested that?

 

I said specifically, in the post you quoted, that the Colts are fine, even with Luck's contract, and I've never said otherwise. My comment about cash flow was specific to 2016. 

 

And just to reiterate, the point is that it would not have been prudent for the Colts to throw a bunch of money at the roster -- in 2016. They were still working on Luck's contract, weren't sure what kind of commitment they were going to make, what the cash flow would be, etc., during 2016 FA. They had to be judicious and disciplined.

 

Moving forward, what they need to do is A) draft well, B) retain their good, young players on second contracts, and C) smartly supplement the draft with free agency. That's how you build a good team around a highly paid QB. It's not rocket science, but it requires good decision making, patience, and discipline. The Colts problem is that they haven't drafted well (which Grigson said), and they haven't made great decisions in free agency.

 

Again, this is no different than anything I've been saying for the last couple years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sorry.    But this isn't the media's fault.      The media isn't turning a NOTHING into a SOMETHING.

 

Yes it is, and yes they are.

 

Quote

And it throws Luck under the bus.    He's blaming Luck for the Colts lousy defense.

 

No it doesn't, and no he's not. That's sensationalist commentary. 

 

Quote

Even if its true --- which it's not

 

What's not true about this?

when you have to tighten up once you pay Andrew what we did, it’s going to take some time to build on the other side of the ball

 

Quote

 

--- a good GM never, EVER says something like that PUBLICLY.    It's toxic.

It infects a locker-room.       Pagano always talks about keeping things in house, behind doors.    And Grigson just violated that basic rule.     And for what?!?

 

I don't know why you're pretending that this is nothing?     It's something.     Worse, it's a self-inflicted wound.

It was completely unnecessary.       We gained nothing by him saying it.     And now it's a story whether fans here want it to be or not.

 

 

I completely disagree about the impact of this statement by Grigson. I think you're being overly defensive of Luck, and so is everyone else. That's the popular thing to do lately: "THE COLTS ARE RUINING LUCK'S PRIME! HE NEEDS TO GET OUT OF INDY RIGHT NOW!!!" In reality, Grigson didn't blame him for anything. He didn't say anything negative about Luck or about his contract. He didn't pretend that it's Luck's fault he hasn't drafted better. That angle is complete nonsense.

 

People can push it all they want, and like I said earlier, it would have been savvy of Grigson to not give people the opportunity. And still, I'm not buying into the nonsense, and to whatever extent my opinion matters -- which isn't very much -- I'm not going to give people a pass on their nonsense. What Grigson said is being taken completely out of context, twisted, blown out of proportion and regurgitated, and there's no question about that in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Yes, because it's public and he's still employed.  Polian recently came out and said similar things about Manning and the D he and Dungy could field... with cap space low and getting high draft picks (playoff contender every year).  It showed both sided...

 

Polian said that same thing while he was still with the Colts, multiple times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rock8591 said:

ROTFlmao. Where did $44 million come from? Definitely not supported by any sources, or even gossip.

 

Overthecap.com places it at $18,400,000 for this year.

 

We ARE paying Luck 44 Million this year.     And that's what Superman was saying.    He's right.    I misread his comment.

 

But while we're paying it,   we're not being charged for it.    Our cap hit for Luck's contract this year is 18 Mill.

 

And Superman is ALWAYS sourced.     It's either Spotrac.com,  or Overthgcap.com.       The man knows what he's talking about.        Best poster, most informed poster on the website.     Even when he and I disagree,  the man is seriously informed.      

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

 

 

Again, this is no different than anything I've been saying for the last couple years. 

 

Of course it's different.

 

You can't claim, as you and I have for years,  that the Colts had the money to re-sign Allen and Coby Fleener.... plus...

 

You also claimed and even laid-out with facts and figures how we could sign Nndomican (sp?) Suh to a huge contract,  and also sign Andrew Luck.     Which you did.

 

And you're now defending Grigson and Irsay saying apparently we didn't have enough to do all that.   That Grigson is telling the truth when he says Luck's deal has caused us to slow the pace of building the defense.

 

Those comments collide with each other.    They contradict each other.

 

It's one or the other,   it's not both.    It can't be both.

 

If money is tight now due to Luck's contract,  then signing Fleener and Suh was never possible.    Not even close.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rodney Johnson said:

Grigson is the worst G.M ever. Elway built a deffense with Peyton. All Grigson has is excuses for his ineptness

If you think Grigson is the worst GM ever, your knowledge of the NFL is seriously lacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

There's no interview to read that I'm aware of....   would be happy to read it if I can see the link.

 

It's an audio link and I heard the soundbite....    it's at the 3:45 point of the interview....

 

It's on the front of the website there for anyone to hear.

 

Tonight,  I got in my car to go to dinner with the wife.   I turn on the NFL Channel on XM radio and the topic of the section is....     "Ryan Grigson and Luck's Contract."

 

Later tonight,  I'll watch NFL's Total Access on the NFL Network and I'm guessing it will be a topic of discussion.

I'd be beyond shocked if it's not.     

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend?

 

I am not defending anything. It is you and a few others who have hand picked something that was said and are now using it out of context because it fits your agenda of Grigson is no good. Has Grigson made mistakes? Yes, he admitted that and explained that pretty clear.

If you want to believe what the media is harping on that's on you.

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...