Inside a Colts scouting meeting

[Superman]

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/10/05/nfl-peter-king-inside-colts-scouting-session

 

 

[OffensivelyPC]

Good article.  I had a pretty good laugh at the "Brooklyn Bolts QB from Coney Island" line...

[braveheartcolt]

Good find Supes. Thanks for sharing.

[crazycolt1]

Very good and informative read.

                                                Thanks.

[NewColtsFan]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/10/05/nfl-peter-king-inside-colts-scouting-session

 

 

 

Great find!     Great read!

 

This is the kind of stuff that I live for!

 

Gavin will be in scouting Heaven when he reads this!

 

This really is required reading for those who like the behind-the-scenes stuff....     it puts you THERE!

 

If you can't feel how hard a scout's job is,  then you're not really reading this....

 

I hope this will be read by as many of us as possible....

 

Thanks again, Superman!

 

[zibby43]

Was expecting to read: 

 

"Draft ALL the wide receivers."

[braveheartcolt]

2 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

Was expecting to read: 

 

"Draft ALL the wide receivers."

Or all centers in the Polian years!

[Steamboat_Shaun]

7 comments and not a single bashing of our GM. That's improvement folks, keep up the good work.

 

Good article BTW.

[GoDeep]

Loved the article!

 

Thanks!

[NorthernBlue]

Considering Grigson doesn't really talk that much to media, it was pretty swell seeing an entire article pretty much full of (some very quotable) Girgson lines.

 

My favourite: “On the road, text me? I’m there. Call me? You got no shot.”

[cbear]

54 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Great find!     Great read!

 

This is the kind of stuff that I live for!

 

Gavin will be in scouting Heaven when he reads this!

 

This really is required reading for those who like the behind-the-scenes stuff....     it puts you THERE!

 

If you can't feel how hard a scout's job is,  then you're not really reading this....

 

I hope this will be read by as many of us as possible....

 

Thanks again, Superman!

 

 

Me too!!  You can't beat behind the scenes reporting.  I love it!!

 

Unfortunately, most "reporters" nowadays, don't have what it takes to do such things.  Easier to just spout off sarcastic comments and mimic the internet "noise of the day."

[IinD]

I think we need a front page sticky to criticize these guys as well..

[ReMeDy]

• “Get zen on your position groups. Know ‘em cold.”

Translation:
Grigson: "So who here is my WR group?... Everyone? Okay, good. Now where's my o-line group at?... Anyone!?... Uh oh..."

[stitches]

2 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

7 comments and not a single bashing of our GM. That's improvement folks, keep up the good work.

 

Good article BTW.

Should I be the party pooper?

 

Great article when it comes to the insight it gives on the process... too bad the described process itself can give you insight into some of the questions about the lackluster talent evaluation of this front office. "Gut feeling", seriously? Is that the best we got? Old-school scouting? Well, good to know we are stuck in the past of talent evaluation. Then condition the scouts to change their evaluation by telling them how their jobs on the line. I'm sure this will make them work much better.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

Should I be the party pooper?

 

Great article when it comes to the insight it gives on the process... too bad the described process itself can give you insight into some of the questions about the lackluster talent evaluation of this front office. "Gut feeling", seriously? Is that the best we got? Old-school scouting? Well, good to know we are stuck in the past of talent evaluation. Then condition the scouts to change their evaluation by telling them how their jobs on the line. I'm sure this will make them work much better.

 

The old-school comment stood out to me too. At the same time, I'd be interested to know what kind of new, modern, techniques there are for evaluating whether someone is good at football or not. Are other teams utilizing analytics and other resources while we're still getting suckered into 40 times and standing broad jump? I'd be legit curious to know how a team like Seattle or Cincinnati goes about it. They've got great rosters every season, and they always seem to hit the majority of their draft picks.

[Superman]

49 minutes ago, stitches said:

Should I be the party pooper?

 

Great article when it comes to the insight it gives on the process... too bad the described process itself can give you insight into some of the questions about the lackluster talent evaluation of this front office. "Gut feeling", seriously? Is that the best we got? Old-school scouting? Well, good to know we are stuck in the past of talent evaluation. Then condition the scouts to change their evaluation by telling them how their jobs on the line. I'm sure this will make them work much better.

 

Good heavens...

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good heavens...

Am I reading too much into it? I guess I have my own biases...

[Fisticuffs111]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good heavens...

I don't think it's a huge thing either but I will admit I thought that part was interesting if not something worth talking about. These days it's all about analytics and such so it's interesting to see such an old school approach from as young a GM as Grigson.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I don't think it's a huge thing either but I will admit I thought that part was interesting if not something worth talking about. These days it's all about analytics and such so it's interesting to see such an old school approach from as young a GM as Grigson.

 

You don't draft on analytics, though. If drafting and scouting were a mathematical equation, then anyone could solve it, and we'd be able to predict the draft almost player for player. 

 

These guys watch hours and hours of video, they work players out in person, they talk to them, interview them, talk to their coaches, their families, their teammates, watch them lift, watch them run, etc. Scouting is very much about judgment, not analytics. If you can't trust your own judgment, then you can't scout. And if my judgment is telling me something different from what everyone else is saying about a player, then am I going to second guess myself, or am I going to trust my own judgment?

 

I'm a huge analytics guy, and it has a place even in drafting. I don't think you should spend a high pick on a slow edge rusher, or an OL with short arms. I don't like slow linebackers. I think the more picks you have in the top 100, the more likely you are to hit on a Pro Bowler. But there's a reason NFL teams still have 20+ person scouting/personnel staffs, and they send them out through the country to watch players, work them out, get to know them, etc., and that's because you can't quantify how good a prospect is without using your own judgment. 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

I liked what I read I had not heard anything prior to this concerning the Colts Scouts I previously had my questions concerning them & I both appreciate the opportunity & the insight into the process .

 

On these boards many voice there opinions nit picking each & every move & decision as tho they could do better there is a reason those guys are scouts & those here are not they put there time in & they may not be perfect but in my opinion who is they make the call & they realize at least Ahmad Russel does that they have to be accountable & diligent its not a easy job finding players who can contribute with so many needs at so many positions no matter how good they do some genius with 20-20 hindsight will tell us I knew this or I knew that about said player until a college player takes the field in regular season its a crap shoot .

 

Hell some still question Lucks ability its the speed of the game its the talent level in the NFL that creates a learning curve for all, even Peyton Manning took years to reach the level that he finally achieved, greatness is hard even for the first pick in the draft many first rounders fail & then theres Tom Brady I wonder who the scout was that for saw his talent , 

 

The Scouts are a very integral part of the game like the article stated they are a team that creates a team based on projections & needs that IMO is the biggest part of the game a tough job it makes actually playing the games look easy . 

[Fisticuffs111]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You don't draft on analytics, though. If drafting and scouting were a mathematical equation, then anyone could solve it, and we'd be able to predict the draft almost player for player. 

 

These guys watch hours and hours of video, they work players out in person, they talk to them, interview them, talk to their coaches, their families, their teammates, watch them lift, watch them run, etc. Scouting is very much about judgment, not analytics. If you can't trust your own judgment, then you can't scout. And if my judgment is telling me something different from what everyone else is saying about a player, then am I going to second guess myself, or am I going to trust my own judgment?

 

I'm a huge analytics guy, and it has a place even in drafting. I don't think you should spend a high pick on a slow edge rusher, or an OL with short arms. I don't like slow linebackers. I think the more picks you have in the top 100, the more likely you are to hit on a Pro Bowler. But there's a reason NFL teams still have 20+ person scouting/personnel staffs, and they send them out through the country to watch players, work them out, get to know them, etc., and that's because you can't quantify how good a prospect is without using your own judgment. 

Yeah, you make good points, don't disagree with any of that. I did think it was funny when I saw the bolded part though because when I read that "gut feeling" quote from Grigson one of the first players I thought of was Antonio Morrison, a slow linebacker. But he was a later pick and they're still really high on him so hopefully he's yet to scratch his surface.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Then condition the scouts to change their evaluation by telling them how their jobs on the line. I'm sure this will make them work much better.

 

39 minutes ago, stitches said:

Am I reading too much into it? I guess I have my own biases...

 

I personally don't think you're being fair, but it sounds like you have your mind made up about the guy, so trust your own judgment.

 

Specific to the comment above, that's not at all what happened. The guy in question messed up royally, wasn't on the job like he was supposed to be, and was being held accountable. He whipped it into shape, and is still with the team a year later. It wasn't that he needed to change his scouting, it's that he wasn't doing his job. I don't know what job anyone here has where they can miss a business trip, go over their allotted mileage, and not at least get dressed down. People talk about accountability, this is what that looks like.

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:

Considering Grigson doesn't really talk that much to media, it was pretty swell seeing an entire article pretty much full of (some very quotable) Girgson lines.

 

My favourite: “On the road, text me? I’m there. Call me? You got no shot.”

 

I think Grigson is talking to the media more than you realize.

 

This week, Grigson spent 13 minutes with Jim Rome....   and that was the week after he spent about 10 minutes with Jay Mohr, which led to the infamous Luck's contract comment.

 

It sure feels like Grigson is far more available this year than ever before.....

 

[NewColtsFan]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I personally don't think you're being fair, but it sounds like you have your mind made up about the guy, so trust your own judgment.

 

Specific to the comment above, that's not at all what happened. The guy in question messed up royally, wasn't on the job like he was supposed to be, and was being held accountable. He whipped it into shape, and is still with the team a year later. It wasn't that he needed to change his scouting, it's that he wasn't doing his job. I don't know what job anyone here has where they can miss a business trip, go over their allotted mileage, and not at least get dressed down. People talk about accountability, this is what that looks like.

 

I didn't quite understand the whole mileage thing....   does the team think the scout was using his car for too much personal use?

 

That's the only thing can figure........?

 

[MTC]

Quote

"Watch the preseason tape. We’re gonna have to find people at the cutdown. Look for safeties, tight ends, wide receivers, corners. We can use a good corner. And we’ll listen when people call. We got a sixth-round pick for [cornerback] Marcus Burley! We’ll take that."

 

But Marcus Burley was one of our best corners at the time.

[Bluefire4]

4 minutes ago, MTC said:

"Watch the preseason tape. We’re gonna have to find people at the cutdown. Look for safeties, tight ends, wide receivers, corners. We can use a good corner. And we’ll listen when people call. We got a sixth-round pick for [cornerback] Marcus Burley! We’ll take that."

 

But Marcus Burley was one of our best corners at the time.

He played decent but we had at least 4 corners in front of him and everybody at that time believed Purifoy had more potential than him. That was a good trade as we traded Burley to Seattle and he is off the team now and with the Browns where he doesn't even play.

[Defjamz26]

If I get labeled as a Debbie Downer than so be it, but several things stood out to me that really speaks to some of the issues with this team.

 

1. I can't lie and say I didn't chuckle at "We're going to outscout the rest of the league". I know the defenders will jump and up and say "What was he supposed to say? They're just going to do okay" but for a staff that in 5 drafts has 55% of the players drafted not even in the league anymore, I think that's a little bold. The wording should have been different.

 

2. The part where Grigson says "I want guys relying on their strong opinions and eyes and not what the consensus is" also rubbed me the wrong way. I get he's telling them to trust their instincts but to be fair the consensus is usually more right than wrong in scouting. OCCASIONALLY the consensus is wrong and you get a Tom Brady, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Couch, Giovanni Carmazzi, Jamarcus Russell, etc... but I think you should go with the consensus first until proven wrong. You're more likely to fail when you go against the grain than with it, and there's more tolerance for the latter. 

 

3. I see where the "Keep Hanging those banners!!!" Stigma comes from. They seemed to take a lot of pride in beating the future Super Bowl champs despite not participating in it. Or beating the Titans with QBs with they signed off the street. It was the Titans lol. Hell I could've beaten the Titans last year (I'm kidding of course but you get my point). Too much trying to find small victories in this organization IMO.

 

4. I thought that story the guy told to the whole room about almost being fired by Grigson was inappropriate and Grigson admitting it made him uneasy is proof of that. I get what he was trying to accomplish but stuff like that is something you tell your kids or a close friend. Not your boss or a room full of colleagues.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If I get labeled as a Debbie Downer than so be it, but several things stood out to me that really speaks to some of the issues with this team.

 

1. I can't lie and say I didn't chuckle at "We're going to outscout the rest of the league". I know the defenders will jump and up and say "What was he supposed to say? They're just going to do okay" but for a staff that in 5 drafts has 55% of the players drafted not even in the league anymore, I think that's a little bold. The wording should have been different.

 

2. The part where Grigson says "I want guys relying on their strong opinions and eyes and not what the consensus is" also rubbed me the wrong way. I get he's telling them to trust their instincts but to be fair the consensus is usually more right than wrong in scouting. OCCASIONALLY the consensus is wrong and you get a Tom Brady, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Couch, Giovanni Carmazzi, Jamarcus Russell, etc... but I think you should go with the consensus first until proven wrong. You're more likely to fail when you go against the grain than with it, and there's more tolerance for the latter. 

 

3. I see where the "Keep Hanging those banners!!!" Stigma comes from. They seemed to take a lot of pride in beating the future Super Bowl champs despite not participating in it. Or beating the Titans with QBs with they signed off the street. It was the Titans lol. Hell I could've beaten the Titans last year (I'm kidding of course but you get my point). Too much trying to find small victories in this organization IMO.

 

4. I thought that story the guy told to the whole room about almost being fired by Grigson was inappropriate and Grigson admitting it made him uneasy is proof of that. I get what he was trying to accomplish but stuff like that is something you tell your kids or a close friend. Not your boss or a room full of colleagues.

[Irsay420]

great find

[NewColtsFan]

11 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

If I get labeled as a Debbie Downer than so be it, but several things stood out to me that really speaks to some of the issues with this team.

 

1. I can't lie and say I didn't chuckle at "We're going to outscout the rest of the league". I know the defenders will jump and up and say "What was he supposed to say? They're just going to do okay" but for a staff that in 5 drafts has 55% of the players drafted not even in the league anymore, I think that's a little bold. The wording should have been different.

 

2. The part where Grigson says "I want guys relying on their strong opinions and eyes and not what the consensus is" also rubbed me the wrong way. I get he's telling them to trust their instincts but to be fair the consensus is usually more right than wrong in scouting. OCCASIONALLY the consensus is wrong and you get a Tom Brady, Shannon Sharpe, Tim Couch, Giovanni Carmazzi, Jamarcus Russell, etc... but I think you should go with the consensus first until proven wrong. You're more likely to fail when you go against the grain than with it, and there's more tolerance for the latter. 

 

3. I see where the "Keep Hanging those banners!!!" Stigma comes from. They seemed to take a lot of pride in beating the future Super Bowl champs despite not participating in it. Or beating the Titans with QBs with they signed off the street. It was the Titans lol. Hell I could've beaten the Titans last year (I'm kidding of course but you get my point). Too much trying to find small victories in this organization IMO.

 

4. I thought that story the guy told to the whole room about almost being fired by Grigson was inappropriate and Grigson admitting it made him uneasy is proof of that. I get what he was trying to accomplish but stuff like that is something you tell your kids or a close friend. Not your boss or a room full of colleagues.

 

I think you've mischaracterized every point,   but that's your right.

 

You're not happy with the status quo and you're looking for the negative.      I think that view has led to wrong conclusions.

 

 

[Defjamz26]

13 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think you've mischaracterized every point,   but that's your right.

 

You're not happy with the status quo and you're looking for the negative.      I think that view has led to wrong conclusions.

 

 

I wouldn't say I'm looking for the negative because I honestly tried to read it with an open mind. I think I read in between the lines and didn't read with the typical Colts blinders on.

 

I don't read every article or listen to every press conference and respond with the typical super positivity that most people do. What's status quo is reading pieces like these and without really doing critical reading just giving the desired reaction which is to be confident in the team and think every thing is A-Okay. This is a typical feel good piece released at a perfect time because morale around the team is low.

 

Its not looking for negativity just because I don't read it and react with a "Great piece. Grigson and his staff are working their butts off to fix this team and scouting is hard". That's just a fan response. I'm not saying you can't ever have a reaction like that, but it's okay to have a different opinion than the desired response. 

[cbear]

I can't see how anything in that article could be criticized.  You could say that he still hasn't done a good job, fine.  But as far as that exercise he put his staff through, I think it was very well done.

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

You don't draft on analytics, though. If drafting and scouting were a mathematical equation, then anyone could solve it, and we'd be able to predict the draft almost player for player. 

 

These guys watch hours and hours of video, they work players out in person, they talk to them, interview them, talk to their coaches, their families, their teammates, watch them lift, watch them run, etc. Scouting is very much about judgment, not analytics. If you can't trust your own judgment, then you can't scout. And if my judgment is telling me something different from what everyone else is saying about a player, then am I going to second guess myself, or am I going to trust my own judgment?

 

I'm a huge analytics guy, and it has a place even in drafting. I don't think you should spend a high pick on a slow edge rusher, or an OL with short arms. I don't like slow linebackers. I think the more picks you have in the top 100, the more likely you are to hit on a Pro Bowler. But there's a reason NFL teams still have 20+ person scouting/personnel staffs, and they send them out through the country to watch players, work them out, get to know them, etc., and that's because you can't quantify how good a prospect is without using your own judgment. 

EVERYTHING revolves around mathematics.  EVERYTHING.

yes, you don't draft on analytics alone, but if you are only watching film, well then you are a foolish and bad scout.

the "money ball" philosophy has tons of merit.  It's basically what NE does too.  Find pegs that fit your "holes."  The player doesn't have to be the best all-around guy at his position, he just has to be able to do what you want him to do. A good, smart, flexible athlete, that is versitile in what you are looking for.

  The reasons more don't use analytics is because very few can conceptualize and interpret  the numbers and scouting as a whole is an old-school kind of profession.

i hope we are using more than just film.  Also, if the "numbers" don't matter, why does everyone waste their time with the combine.  Additionally, these kids are young when entering the NFL.  They are not fully developed physically or mentally.

to some degree, you have to use your gut.  I'm quite sure the best scouts have a very sensitive "gut."

[WoolMagnet]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

You don't draft on analytics, though. If drafting and scouting were a mathematical equation, then anyone could solve it, and we'd be able to predict the draft almost player for player. 

 

These guys watch hours and hours of video, they work players out in person, they talk to them, interview them, talk to their coaches, their families, their teammates, watch them lift, watch them run, etc. Scouting is very much about judgment, not analytics. If you can't trust your own judgment, then you can't scout. And if my judgment is telling me something different from what everyone else is saying about a player, then am I going to second guess myself, or am I going to trust my own judgment?

 

I'm a huge analytics guy, and it has a place even in drafting. I don't think you should spend a high pick on a slow edge rusher, or an OL with short arms. I don't like slow linebackers. I think the more picks you have in the top 100, the more likely you are to hit on a Pro Bowler. But there's a reason NFL teams still have 20+ person scouting/personnel staffs, and they send them out through the country to watch players, work them out, get to know them, etc., and that's because you can't quantify how good a prospect is without using your own judgment. 

Btw, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

but, I'm starting to wonder if trading out of the 1st and grabbing lots of picks might just improve your team more.  You are somewhat hedging.  It depends who is available and how you think they fit your team. If you are in love with your 1st pick fine, if not, then moving back is very tempting.  It just seems like so many guys, 1st round thru last just don't live up to expectations.  Sure the rookie wage ceiling helps on misses, but it's still such a gamble, in ANY round.

crazy really that these guys are paid so much for EXPECTED results.  But I guess it's no different and a corporation hiring a CEO.

[21isSuperman]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

Should I be the party pooper?

 

Great article when it comes to the insight it gives on the process... too bad the described process itself can give you insight into some of the questions about the lackluster talent evaluation of this front office. "Gut feeling", seriously? Is that the best we got? Old-school scouting? Well, good to know we are stuck in the past of talent evaluation. Then condition the scouts to change their evaluation by telling them how their jobs on the line. I'm sure this will make them work much better.

I agree with you here.  I get the sentiments ("let's outscout everyone, let's outwork everyone, let's build a dynasty, rah-rah, etc.").  But it does make you question what the scouts are seeing.  What did they see in Werner?  What did they see in Trent Richardson?  Why did they not like Xavier Rhodes?  What decisions were made that led to a combined 2/12 in the 2013 and 2014 drafts?  Why did they get so excited about an old and unexplosive Andre Johnson?

 

One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way, and could be a contributor or a result of what I think is a culture problem, is Ahmad's situation.  You miss a scout trip because you overslept, and you put more than your limit on the vehicle.  Yet, you're retained to continue working for the team.  If someone isn't doing their job, you don't retain them.  If someone is unprofessional, you don't retain them.  If he were a new scout, maybe I'd understand.  But he had 7 years of scouting experience with the Eagles, so he knows how things work.  To me, I see it as the same problem that holds this team back.  If you're bad at your job (Grigson, Pagano, Ahmad), you're not held accountable for those results and are instead allowed to continue working for the team.

[Colts_Fan12]

8 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree with you here.  I get the sentiments ("let's outscout everyone, let's outwork everyone, let's build a dynasty, rah-rah, etc.").  But it does make you question what the scouts are seeing.  What did they see in Werner?  What did they see in Trent Richardson?  Why did they not like Xavier Rhodes?  What decisions were made that led to a combined 2/12 in the 2013 and 2014 drafts?  Why did they get so excited about an old and unexplosive Andre Johnson?

 

One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way, and could be a contributor or a result of what I think is a culture problem, is Ahmad's situation.  You miss a scout trip because you overslept, and you put more than your limit on the vehicle.  Yet, you're retained to continue working for the team.  If someone isn't doing their job, you don't retain them.  If someone is unprofessional, you don't retain them.  If he were a new scout, maybe I'd understand.  But he had 7 years of scouting experience with the Eagles, so he knows how things work.  To me, I see it as the same problem that holds this team back.  If you're bad at your job (Grigson, Pagano, Ahmad), you're not held accountable for those results and are instead allowed to continue working for the team.

Well Irsay kept him and Pagano and they don't do their jobs either lol so yeah.

[akcolt]

2 hours ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

Yeah, you make good points, don't disagree with any of that. I did think it was funny when I saw the bolded part though because when I read that "gut feeling" quote from Grigson one of the first players I thought of was Antonio Morrison, a slow linebacker. But he was a later pick and they're still really high on him so hopefully he's yet to scratch his surface.

Morrison was a 4th rounder not really what I'd consider a later pick. We could have done better. You are right he's another slow LB that is undersized and can't cover. Look around bet you can't find a place that has him going in the 4th predraft. I do bet you can find plenty that say 7th-priority FA. When going with your gut maybe factor in the consensus. Just a thought.  

[bradgt04]

6 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:

Considering Grigson doesn't really talk that much to media, it was pretty swell seeing an entire article pretty much full of (some very quotable) Girgson lines.

 

My favourite: “On the road, text me? I’m there. Call me? You got no shot.”

I was trying to make sense of that

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, 21isSuperman said:

I agree with you here.  I get the sentiments ("let's outscout everyone, let's outwork everyone, let's build a dynasty, rah-rah, etc.").  But it does make you question what the scouts are seeing.  What did they see in Werner?  What did they see in Trent Richardson?  Why did they not like Xavier Rhodes?  What decisions were made that led to a combined 2/12 in the 2013 and 2014 drafts?  Why did they get so excited about an old and unexplosive Andre Johnson?

 

One thing that really rubbed me the wrong way, and could be a contributor or a result of what I think is a culture problem, is Ahmad's situation.  You miss a scout trip because you overslept, and you put more than your limit on the vehicle.  Yet, you're retained to continue working for the team.  If someone isn't doing their job, you don't retain them.  If someone is unprofessional, you don't retain them.  If he were a new scout, maybe I'd understand.  But he had 7 years of scouting experience with the Eagles, so he knows how things work.  To me, I see it as the same problem that holds this team back.  If you're bad at your job (Grigson, Pagano, Ahmad), you're not held accountable for those results and are instead allowed to continue working for the team.

This couldn't be more backwards. You retain the experienced guy who has made valuable contributions even if he messes up because he will make valuable contributions, as he has proven, again in the future. You fire the Newbie who is unproven if they screw up.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I wouldn't say I'm looking for the negative because I honestly tried to read it with an open mind. I think I read in between the lines and didn't read with the typical Colts blinders on.

 

I don't read every article or listen to every press conference and respond with the typical super positivity that most people do. What's status quo is reading pieces like these and without really doing critical reading just giving the desired reaction which is to be confident in the team and think every thing is A-Okay. This is a typical feel good piece released at a perfect time because morale around the team is low.

 

Its not looking for negativity just because I don't read it and react with a "Great piece. Grigson and his staff are working their butts off to fix this team and scouting is hard". That's just a fan response. I'm not saying you can't ever have a reaction like that, but it's okay to have a different opinion than the desired response. 

 

I'm not judging the piece.....

 

If this was the exact same piece,  but it wasn't about the Colts,  I'd be saying the same thing.

 

My comments have nothing --- zero --- to do with being a Colts fan.     My comments have to do with (A) liking being the scenes stuff,  and (B) stuff about scouting.     It's hard a job,  a hard life,   and a lot goes into it more than just the pick that the GM makes and fans say "good pick" or "bad pick"....      

 

I like stories like this.

 

I think the person who judged this as a Colts fan is you....     an unhappy Colts fan.