Job Security and Decision Making

[Flash7]

Last year, both Chuck Pagano and Ryan Grigson were on the hot seat. Irsay gave his vote of confidence and re-signed both of them for another 4 years. IMO, with this scare in job security (and I'm sure a mandate by Irsay), Grigson focused heavily on the O-line during the draft. It also forced Pagano to fire many of the assistant coaches and hire new ones.

 

Although recently re-signed, this year they have found themselves on the hot seat once again, and there's even more speculation now. I am sure that Pagano has heard the rumors about Irsay and Gruden. And I am sure that Grigson has heard the rumors about Peyton Manning as the GM. My question is, do these rumors change their decision making this year in FA and the draft, and how the team is coached moving forward?

 

Grigson's MO in Free Agency has been to target mid-tier players and offer team-friendly contracts. He has never gone after big named FA's and has stated that he would not. However, with these recent rumors, despite having a good draft recently, would Grigson decide that this is a "make-or-break" year and finally go after big named guys (i.e. Berry, K. Short, Jamie Collins, etc...). Would Grigson say forget the future, (I may not be hereto see the future if I don't hit a home run right now) and finally bring in difference makers on defense? And will Pagano use a less conservative approach and hold his players more accountable, instead of being a "players" coach?

[lollygagger8]

At this point, I don't even care if FA's brought in are "big names", Grigs just needs to find good ones!! 

[Oldschoolcolt19]

A productive draft, predominately defensive, and some mid level FA's that can contribute would be his best chance to help the team. He's gotta hit on the first round pick for sure though

[Superman]

I think the whole point in giving them long term extensions was so they wouldn't be looking over their shoulders trying to save their jobs by hitting a home run in one season. Irsay wanted them to build it right, with an eye on sustained success, not a patchwork kind of approach. The way for them to keep their jobs is to do their jobs well, moving forward.

 

I think Irsay basically told them he was wiping the slate, not planning to hold their past mistakes against them, and giving them an opportunity to get the train back on the tracks. I don't think he gave them any kind of mandate for 2016, although they all obviously wanted/expected to make the playoffs. That seemed pretty obvious to me from the way Pagano retooled his staff and from Grigson's reserved offseason.

 

Whatever happens, I don't want to see Grigson doing anything in the name of saving his job. 

[BProland85]

If he goes after a few big name FAs I hope they are NT Dontari Poe and OG Kevin Zeitler. Then I'm the draft focus on LB, CB, and a RB. 

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, Flash7 said:

Last year, both Chuck Pagano and Ryan Grigson were on the hot seat. Irsay gave his vote of confidence and re-signed both of them for another 4 years. IMO, with this scare in job security (and I'm sure a mandate by Irsay), Grigson focused heavily on the O-line during the draft. It also forced Pagano to fire many of the assistant coaches and hire new ones.

 

Although recently re-signed, this year they have found themselves on the hot seat once again, and there's even more speculation now. I am sure that Pagano has heard the rumors about Irsay and Gruden. And I am sure that Grigson has heard the rumors about Peyton Manning as the GM. My question is, do these rumors change their decision making this year in FA and the draft, and how the team is coached moving forward?

 

Grigson's MO in Free Agency has been to target mid-tier players and offer team-friendly contracts. He has never gone after big named FA's and has stated that he would not. However, with these recent rumors, despite having a good draft recently, would Grigson decide that this is a "make-or-break" year and finally go after big named guys (i.e. Berry, K. Short, Jamie Collins, etc...). Would Grigson say forget the future, (I may not be hereto see the future if I don't hit a home run right now) and finally bring in difference makers on defense? And will Pagano use a less conservative approach and hold his players more accountable, instead of being a "players" coach?

The changes that both of these guys can make are nuances and not  philosophical overhauls.  Grigson seems to have made more strides in that sense.  He played the first round safe this past draft, though I'd like to see him do better at maximizing his picks - he probably could've traded down and still got Kelly.  I have always liked his philosophy in FA, except that I think he should be better about who he gives bigger contracts to.  He didn't do much in 2016 FA, so we only have pre-2016 FA to go off of.  Avoid giving larger contracts to injury prone guys.  I'm not against signign injury prone guys, but the contract should be incentive based, which contracts like Cherilus' deal was not.  That's more of a nitpick than anything because it was the exception rather than the rule I think.

 

Pagano doesn't need to change his philosphy so much as he needs ot be aware of when Andrew Luck is struggling to connect with his receivers, whether they're dropping the ball, Luck is missing his guys, or whatever.  Too many times we'd continue tring to push the ball up the field when it just wasn't working.  Re-direct your offensive approach sooner in this regard.  Run more slants, screens, quick hitting TE seams, etc. to build some momentum, and when the time is right, strike downfield.  If anything, Pagano needs to be a little more conservative atl east as far as his play calling is concerned.  He could do better with his challenges as well.  I seem to recall a few that appeared futile - and that's before I saw the slow-mo replay.  The 2nd half collapses on defense were also a huge issue.  

[Flash7]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

1) I think the whole point in giving them long term extensions was so they wouldn't be looking over their shoulders trying to save their jobs by hitting a home run in one season. 

 

2)  I don't think he gave them any kind of mandate for 2016,  although they all obviously wanted/expected to make the playoffs. That seemed pretty obvious to me from the way Pagano retooled his staff and from Grigson's reserved offseason.

 

3) Whatever happens, I don't want to see Grigson doing anything in the name of saving his job. 

I've numbered your response so that I can refer to certain points that you have made. My responses are numbered accordingly.

 

1) They were given long term extensions and for a comfortable period of time (4 years). I agree that the extension was so that they would have job security and not have to look over their shoulders, which would allow them to make good decisions for the team, especially decisions that were not made in haste. However, as we can see, there is already some concern and it's just the first year. What's interesting to me is that the rumors of Manning and Gruden involve Irsay. Grigson and Pagano might have a vote of confidence publicly, but they may be wondering what's really going on with Irsay behind the scenes?

 

2) We may not know for sure that a mandate was given to Pagano and Grigson by Irsay. My gut tells me that Irsay wanted Luck to be protected at all costs, which led Grigson to draft 4 offensive lineman in the same draft, immediately after being re-signed. Also, Pagano made a change in coaching staff immediately after the re-signing, (although he really couldn't make any changes prior to being retained that particular year).

 

3) I agree that I do not want to see Grigson do anything in the name of saving his job, but human nature may play a factor. And for some, security is a major influence in decision making.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

I've numbered your response so that I can refer to certain points that you have made. My responses are numbered accordingly.

 

1) They were given long term extensions and for a comfortable period of time (4 years). I agree that the extension was so that they would have job security and not have to look over their shoulders, which would allow them to make good decisions for the team, especially decisions that were not made in haste. However, as we can see, there is already some concern and it's just the first year. What's interesting to me is that the rumors of Manning and Gruden involve Irsay. Grigson and Pagano might have a vote of confidence publicly, but they may be wondering what's really going on with Irsay behind the scenes?

 

2) We may not know for sure that a mandate was given to Pagano and Grigson by Irsay. My gut tells me that Irsay wanted Luck to be protected at all costs, which led Grigson to draft 4 offensive lineman in the same draft, immediately after being re-signed. Also, Pagano made a change in coaching staff immediately after the re-signing, (although he really couldn't make any changes prior to being retained that particular year).

 

3) I agree that I do not want to see Grigson do anything in the name of saving his job, but human nature says that it may play a factor. And for some, security is a major influence in decision making.

 

Good stuff.

 

1) That's possible, but if media reports are right about Pagano, then he's met with Irsay and been told that he'll be back. I would assume that Grigson has received the same news.

 

2) If any mandates were given, they were probably 'get the line fixed,' and 'upgrade your staff.' But not 'you have two years to win a SB' or anything like that. 

 

3) Thing is, Irsay or one of his stand-ins approves all big moves -- significant contracts, first rounders, big trades -- so Grigson can't do anything imprudent without Irsay's approval. Based on last year's offseason, I think Grigson is taking a steady and long term approach to his job, and drafting a center at #18 kind of solidifies that in my mind. The thinking is 'we've missed on four centers in four years, let's get our guy for the next decade.' Same thing with LeRaven Clark, who basically needed to redshirt as a rookie, and everyone knew it when he was drafted. 

 

Side point: I do think Grigson will make a splash or two this offseason, simply because they should have around $60m in cap space, with a pretty weak FA class of their own. But the long term plan appears to be to draft well, build it organically, and have sustained success, and that's what it should be. The only departure from that in the past was the Richardson trade, but poor drafting undermined the building process. That, IMO, is how a GM should be graded, and if this roster doesn't have a nice jump in quality this offseason, Grigson could/should be on the block a year from now. But that's because he didn't draft well in the past, and presumably wouldn't have looked any better moving forward. Not because of one bad offseason.

[richard pallo]

Regarding Grigson I do think he will go all out in FA and bring in a couple of difference makers for the reason you mentioned.  They have to get to the playoffs.  He has the cap space and I think he will use it and probably overpay.  I don't care if he overpays as long as its for a young player looking for that second contract.  Don't forget a trade as well.  He did it for Vontae and he could do it again.  This could be a great offseason. 

[csmopar]

30 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Regarding Grigson I do think he will go all out in FA and bring in a couple of difference makers for the reason you mentioned.  They have to get to the playoffs.  He has the cap space and I think he will use it and probably overpay.  I don't care if he overpays as long as its for a young player looking for that second contract.  Don't forget a trade as well.  He did it for Vontae and he could do it again.  This could be a great offseason. 

Vontae was a trade.....

[richard pallo]

20 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Vontae was a trade.....

Right, That's what I said. He traded for Vontae.

[csmopar]

Just now, richard pallo said:

Right, That's what I said. He traded for Vontae.

sorry, misread your post. my bad