What We Could Of Had

[The Fish]

2 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

 

And there's no article about the Vikings missing on talent, because they have atleast brought in some. 

 

 

That's the point to me. Yeah, obviously every team misses, but when they start adding up in such profoundly bad ways as Grigsons has, it's hard to resist tossing this type of info on the metaphorical Fire Grigson fire.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

Man I do wish Grigson would have drafted Landon Collins over Phillip Dorsett. It was a much bigger need at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think that would've been an even more safe pick than Ryan Kelly imo

 

I don't like Landon Collins as a safety. As a hybrid S/LB, sure, but he's not good in man coverage. I personally would not have drafted him in the first round. I would have been feverishly trying to trade back, and if not, I probably would have taken Jordan Phillips. In hindsight, the right pick is probably Eric Kendricks.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Luck is Good said:

I loved the Ryan Kelly pick at the time and still do. I think he's gonna be really good for years to come

 

It's not good value, theoretically. But I think he was much better than the other center prospects, and I think he'll lock that spot down for the foreseeable future, so I'm okay with it. 

[Luck is Good]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't like Landon Collins as a safety. As a hybrid S/LB, sure, but he's not good in man coverage. I personally would not have drafted him in the first round. I would have been feverishly trying to trade back, and if not, I probably would have taken Jordan Phillips. In hindsight, the right pick is probably Eric Kendricks.

I couldn't really disagree with Eric Kendricks either. Either way, that pick should have been defense or traded back

[Luck is Good]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's not good value, theoretically. But I think he was much better than the other center prospects, and I think he'll lock that spot down for the foreseeable future, so I'm okay with it. 

Well the Colts needed a good C and they got one

[Luck is Good]

1 hour ago, bababooey said:

Could have had*

That's actually the first thing I thought when seeing the title of this thread. Not gonna lie. Bad grammar is a pet peeve of mine

[Introspect]

8 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

 

It's for griggs to learn, not us. We don't make our picks, we only mock, lol.

 

I agree with you that other teams picks may have developed differently with our coaching staff and schemes.

I have said this consistently.... I'm glad you see this also. If Landon Collins had been drafted by this team and coaching staff, he would be talked like a wasted pick by fans on this board.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

1 minute ago, Introspect said:

I have said this consistently.... I'm glad you see this also. If Landon Collins had been drafted by this team and coaching staff, he would be talked like a wasted pick by fans on this board.

I ain't buying that. Never even understood the logic behind it. 

[mahagga73]

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

 

 

That's the point to me. Yeah, obviously every team misses, but when they start adding up in such profoundly bad ways as Grigsons has, it's hard to resist tossing this type of info on the metaphorical Fire Grigson fire.

Yeah, the guy that does the rants on YouTube layed it out year by year, draft and free agency.  I was astonished just how bad Grigson record is. I mean it's abysmal. I don't think there is anybody left from an entire draft that was just 2 years ago. I mean, he had 8 or 9 chances to draft real impact players and ended up with nobody. A lot of the ones he did draft  aren't even on the team anymore.  I knew it was bad but geez. 

[Introspect]

24 minutes ago, Majin Vegeta said:

I ain't buying that. Never even understood the logic behind it. 

Bad coaching and scheming my friend.  Belechick could coach these same players to a 15th ranked defense as opposed to a 31st ranked D. 

No need to buy it just look at the showroom floor.....

[Andrew Luck fan club]

18 minutes ago, Introspect said:

Bad coaching and scheming my friend.  Belechick could coach these same players to a 15th ranked defense as opposed to a 31st ranked D. 

No need to buy it just look at the showroom floor.....

Then what do you have to say about clayton geathers? The bad coaching turned that 4th rounder into a starter in the NFL. But the same coaching would not benefit the 1st round prospect, and it would a ruined pick? Great logic. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

24 minutes ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Then what do you have to say about clayton geathers? The bad coaching turned that 4th rounder into a starter in the NFL. But the same coaching would not benefit the 1st round prospect, and it would a ruined pick? Great logic. 

A starter on the worst Defense in the league*** 

Technically Morrison is a starting Ilb in the NFL. Does that make him a successful pick? 

Let's at least see him play a full season before we crown geathers a success. 

[SaturdayAllDay]

34 minutes ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Then what do you have to say about clayton geathers? The bad coaching turned that 4th rounder into a starter in the NFL. But the same coaching would not benefit the 1st round prospect, and it would a ruined pick? Great logic. 

Or we can talk about our starter at OLB in 2015, Bjeorn Werner.  

BIG SUCCESS.  

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

21 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

A starter on the worst Defense in the league*** 

Technically Morrison is a starting Ilb in the NFL. Does that make him a successful pick? 

Let's at least see him play a full season before we crown geathers a success. 

He would start even if the defense wasn't the worst in the league? So yeah I'd say he was a success?  More great logic lmao.

10 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Or we can talk about our starter at OLB in 2015, Bjeorn Werner.  

BIG SUCCESS.  

 

You're really reaching trying to prove something huh. Cause the poster I quoted didn't have anything to say.  Terrible argument. Geathers will start next year even when the defense is much better. (Assuming we have a good offseason)

[OLD FAN MAN]

after 5 years its certain grigs cant pick talent its time  to  hire a picker 

[AZColt11]

It's always easy to look back and see what might have been.  BUT when there is a long list of players you are missing on and you see what you could have had at that spot, it does signal a trend that maybe some part of your scouting/drafting department needs a serious review.  It's one thing to miss on one draft here or there.  It's quite another to see several that didn't add up.  So I'm not for looking back at what could have been, I'm for making any necessary changes to those departments so as to avoid going down that same road again.  This past draft seems much better in comparison to the 2-3 before it so perhaps those changes have already been made?  IDK and we probably won't for another couple of years.

[DougDew]

And you know what's worse.

 

So many mutual fund managers could have bought Microsoft in 1990 for about a 2 cents a share.

 

They should all be fired if they didn't.

[SaturdayAllDay]

3 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

He would start even if the defense wasn't the worst in the league? So yeah I'd say he was a success?  More great logic lmao.

You're really reaching trying to prove something huh. Cause the poster I quoted didn't have anything to say.  Terrible argument. Geathers will start next year even when the defense is much better. (Assuming we have a good offseason)

Just pointing out that simply BEING DECLARED a starter doesn't mean you play like one. Geathers hasn't really done anything and has yet to prove whether he's good yet. Not saying he is good or bad, but he's still a question mark. Until he actually plays more than half a season we can't make that assumption.  I hope he turns out to be an all pro, but he could just as easily be gone 3 yrs from now, much like Werner. 

[Defjamz26]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

To the bolded, it's actually young talent that EVERY team passed over, in most cases.

 

For instance, Danielle Hunter was a third rounder because every team passed on him twice, some three times, and that's based on his scouting profile. It's judging with the benefit of hindsight to say 'the Colts could have drafted Hunter, but took Smith instead,' and that applies to every team that passed on him. 

 

You can literally do this with any team in almost any year and point out how they missed on good players for players who weren't as good. The Vikings in 2013 picked at #23, #25 and #29, and missed on two of the three. They could have taken Rhodes at #23, Hopkins at #25 and Short at #29. Instead, they took Floyd, Rhodes and Patterson. 

 

Headline: "Vikings whiffed on elite young talent"

 

Oh, and Spielman has five years as GM just like Grigson, and he's not random at all, given that he's receiving credit for drafting Hunter (as he should, they had a great draft that year), and it's arguable whether the Vikings are a "winning franchise" under him, as they're 3 games above .500.

 

This argument is entirely based on hindsight, which is not a legitimate way of judging any team's draft. (And ironically, if Tyreek Hill gets in trouble with the law again, everyone will be killing the Chiefs for drafting him when all the red flags were there. It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, especially 2-3 years down the line.) It's a bad argument, and that's why I'm dismissive of it.

 

It's also hypocritical. Landon Collins was one of the worst graded safeties in 2015, per PFF. Now he's highly graded. Yet, TJ Green is a bad pick after his rookie year. It would seem that the person making this argument would recognize the folly of trying to judge draft picks based on their rookie season, whether good or bad. 

 

And just for kicks, I'll point out that it's dumb to criticize the Colts for passing on Trai Turner when they had just drafted Jack Mewhort a round earlier (ignoring the fact that Moncrief was a good pick, and is still an incredible prospect), and it's even dumber to mention Dak Prescott in an article like this, especially for a team that was getting ready to pay Andrew Luck $140m. 

 

Lastly, as a disclaimer, none of this is meant to be a defense of Grigson. Again, it's a dismissal of a poor argument. This argument is poor every time it's used, no matter who it's used against. In hindsight, you can construct a perfect draft for every team, every year. 

I think you're missing the point. It only matters if you passed over a young talent if you're devoid of talent at that position. No one is going to lament the Chiefs for passing on Hunter because they've got young playmakers on D. It's not that every team passed on Hunter. Not every team needed a flexible pass rushing D-Lineman. It's how many teams with needs on defense passed on Hunter for an inferior player. And the Colts are one of those teams, though not the only team one. Plus the Colts seem to lack more young talented defensive players than any other team.

 

And that's what you're missing. The Colts aren't being singled out because some misinformed guy has an ax to grind. They're  being singled out because how atrocious (statistically the worst in Colts history) their D is. And to explain that you have to look at draft picks. So it makes sense to look to see if their passing on talented defensive players and/or drafting poor defensive players. I'm willing to bet that there's a similar article for whatever team has the poorest offense in the NFL. Or even better, people are slamming the Browns brass for passing on Carson Wentz. Is that also a misinformed opinion because hindsight is 20/20?

 

And the problem with your Vikings example is that, yes, they've missed. But they also hit on Rhodes, Barr, Kendricks, Waynes, and Hunter. They haven't missed on 1st rounders since 2013 and have drafted well. They'll get a pass for 2013 because their team isn't devoid of playmakers (though Hopkins would have remedied their still poor receiving core). They may not win games but a lot of that will be chucked up to coaching and having a franchise QB, which is fair. They've been way better under Zimmer and have made the playoffs with Bridgewater. The Colts get crap because Grigson has only hit on 1 other 1st round pick since Luck and the guys he's picked over some of the guys mentioned are horrible and this team is devoid of playmakers on D. His 2nd Round pick from last year is already off the team. But don't think he's the only one. Stanley Jean-Baptistery, Dominique Easley, Justin Gilbert, and Eric Rowe are other players early round players who basically only lasted a season. And the people who drafted them got their fair share of criticism, except maybe for the Patriots with Easley but that's because they win a lot.

 

Lets stop acting as if the Colts are being unfairly criticized by misinformed people in the media every time a critical argument comes out. The Colts aren't some special team that gets singled out just because. If the same guy did the same article with the Vikings but pointed out how they passed on Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, and Hopkins would you cry fowl? That's the whole argument with the Colts. The GM passing on talented players for inferior ones. And it's not revisionist history because most of the guys were highly rated by most scouts. Anyone can tell you (even posters here) that Rhodes was the pick over Werner. In 2015 you yourself called for Kendricks over Dorsett so it doesn't matter if it were him and Collins, but there were better options than Dorsett. 2nd round of the same draft he takes Smith over 2 receivers (Lockett and Montgomery) more talented than the one he drafted in the first round. Forget Hunter for a moment and let that sink in. And if the defense is "he went with the highest rated players on the board" then once again, that means his scouting acumen is off. So once again, the argument of "what the Coltscould have had" is fair. I'm pretty sure there are similar articles for other teams if you look hard enough.

[The Fish]

 At some point the rubber has to meet the road in so far as constructing an opinion on the GM is concerned. His track record is his own and politely put it leaves a lot to be desired. I don't blame anyone who thinks he's not going to *get it* because there's evidence aplenty that he doesn't *get it*. He just chases past mistakes. 

A lot of the defense's of Grigson using the hindsight argument were fine a few years ago, but he has a real record now (and one of the way's that's analyzed is using the supposedly flawed argument-where did you miss and who was taken right after the miss, it's one of many ways of looking at this and it does have merit, heck the whole franchises in Indy's history revolves around getting Manning and not Leaf). Do you think it's passable and how much of the weight is being carried specifically by 12 without the support of better draft picks (guys who will stay on the friggin' roster)? I'd say far more than is ideal.

 

Honestly, I'm done entertaining the notion that he'll get better or do better or whatever. It would be dumb luck at this point if he didn't bungle FA and the Draft.

[oldunclemark]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:17 AM, Coltsfan1284 said:

‪ http://www.1070thefan.com/blogs/brunos-blog/colts-whiffed-elite-young-talent‬

 

I'm pretty sure the comments on this will start trending toward GM ineptness.  Leading to it getting merged. I just wanted people to see the players we passed on (more so) the defensive players and what we do/don't have now.

why do you want to whine about players we didnt draft.?

every team could do that...every team passed on almost everybody...

We drafted six guys last year who started for us in the 2nd half of the season..

 

....we did fine

Edited January 21, 2017 by oldunclemark
spell

[oldunclemark]

14 hours ago, FACE REALITY said:

after 5 years its certain grigs cant pick talent its time  to  hire a picker 

Look at our draft last year.

[gacoop1]

I agree with you Introspect, the coaching is awful, decision making, etc....Bellicheck would give these same players a level of higher expectations, a no nonsense approach, and I don't ever see Bellicheck clapping for every bonehead plays they make....Yes bad coaches, translate to bad teams..

[Coffeedrinker]

What's really funny is that I was just about the only person on this forum that did not like the Morrison pick.  Everybody else was talking about what a great pick it was and how he was going to be a diamond in the rough, etc.

 

[oldunclemark]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

What's really funny is that I was just about the only person on this forum that did not like the Morrison pick.  Everybody else was talking about what a great pick it was and how he was going to be a diamond in the rough, etc.

 

I still like the guy.......you should too

He's a leader and a hard hitter......slow in coverage..but we knew that.

You'll see

[oldunclemark]

17 hours ago, The Fish said:

 

 

That's the point to me. Yeah, obviously every team misses, but when they start adding up in such profoundly bad ways as Grigsons has, it's hard to resist tossing this type of info on the metaphorical Fire Grigson fire.

adding up?   Don't reject facts for theory

Look at how many of 'our' draft choices we start

[Coffeedrinker]

Just now, oldunclemark said:

I still like the guy.......you should too

He's a leader and a hard hitter......slow in coverage..but we knew that.

You'll see

I think he falls into that category of, upgrade the position when the right person comes along but if he's the starter he's not going to cost you any games.  So if a Patrick Willis type ILB in there when the Colts are drafting then you grab him but I think the ILB position would be fine with Morrison and Jackson.

 

But he's not a hard hitter he is pretty good at filling the gaps between the tackles and he will wrap up and tackle the guy but he's not a devestating hitter, he's not slow in coverage he just has bad field awareness.  If his field awareness improves then he will be an good ILB, if not then he will be average.

[jshipp23]

6 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I still like the guy.......you should too

He's a leader and a hard hitter......slow in coverage..but we knew that.

You'll see

He looks like a player to me...He might be slow in coverage but not many hit and stop the run like him..He was a great pick foe the 4th round...Fans on here think every rookie is a bust if they aren't a pro bowler their first year. .I think Green flashed at times too, and if he develops can be an elite player in a few years...

[jshipp23]

5 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I think he falls into that category of, upgrade the position when the right person comes along but if he's the starter he's not going to cost you any games.  So if a Patrick Willis type ILB in there when the Colts are drafting then you grab him but I think the ILB position would be fine with Morrison and Jackson.

 

But he's not a hard hitter he is pretty good at filling the gaps between the tackles and he will wrap up and tackle the guy but he's not a devestating hitter, he's not slow in coverage he just has bad field awareness.  If his field awareness improves then he will be an good ILB, if not then he will be average.

Ejax has a lot of promise too and has coverage ability..Colts have more talent than people think, we get a couple pass rushers all the other positions will look a lot better..Lack of pass rush exposed us, but it would most teams..It's hard cover guys long in the NFL..

[VocableLoki]

50 minutes ago, gacoop1 said:

I agree with you Introspect, the coaching is awful, decision making, etc....Bellicheck would give these same players a level of higher expectations, a no nonsense approach, and I don't ever see Bellicheck clapping for every bonehead plays they make....Yes bad coaches, translate to bad teams..

Real question: if Pagano never put his hands together, would people find him a better coach?

[SaturdayAllDay]

35 minutes ago, VocableLoki said:

Real question: if Pagano never put his hands together, would people find him a better coach?

No. Fans wouldnt be happy unless he was actively heckling our QB and throwing rotten produce at our defense. Apparently that wins championships. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

13 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Just pointing out that simply BEING DECLARED a starter doesn't mean you play like one. Geathers hasn't really done anything and has yet to prove whether he's good yet. Not saying he is good or bad, but he's still a question mark. Until he actually plays more than half a season we can't make that assumption.  I hope he turns out to be an all pro, but he could just as easily be gone 3 yrs from now, much like Werner. 

Nah terrible argument. There's been a lot of pretty dumb points trying to be made in this thread though, so don't feel too bad.

[Defjamz26]

3 hours ago, The Fish said:

 At some point the rubber has to meet the road in so far as constructing an opinion on the GM is concerned. His track record is his own and politely put it leaves a lot to be desired. I don't blame anyone who thinks he's not going to *get it* because there's evidence aplenty that he doesn't *get it*. He just chases past mistakes. 

A lot of the defense's of Grigson using the hindsight argument were fine a few years ago, but he has a real record now (and one of the way's that's analyzed is using the supposedly flawed argument-where did you miss and who was taken right after the miss, it's one of many ways of looking at this and it does have merit, heck the whole franchises in Indy's history revolves around getting Manning and not Leaf). Do you think it's passable and how much of the weight is being carried specifically by 12 without the support of better draft picks (guys who will stay on the friggin' roster)? I'd say far more than is ideal.

 

Honestly, I'm done entertaining the notion that he'll get better or do better or whatever. It would be dumb luck at this point if he didn't bungle FA and the Draft.

And just to add to your point, I did a topic a few months ago where I looked backed at every single draft pick that Grigson made up until the 2016 draft. Not only were a lot of his picks no longer with the team, but I think it was something like over 50% of them weren't even in the league anymore. A bunch of them never even made another 53. Grigson is a poor talent evaluator plain and simple. Even when he does "good" he's only finding average players.  I'm not ready to say he's getting better just because he didn't completely bungle the 2016 draft. But there's even flaws in that draft. Drafting Antonio Morrison  over Jordan Howard after stating a few years back that "If they miss they better not miss in their own backyard ". Again we can try to apply the "but every team passed on him" logic, but how many NFL teams in Indiana with need for a young RB passed over him for an inferior player? Only one. I also agree that he's not getting better as a GM.

[The Fish]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

adding up?   Don't reject facts for theory

Look at how many of 'our' draft choices we start

Where's the incorrect buzzer noise?

 

 

[ColtJax]

I have no problem with drafting a bust if it was a great choice at the time, we don't have a crystal ball. But when Dorsett was drafted we passed on the big DT, Brown, and the Pats got a great player. I DID follow Morrison, he was slow and injury prone in college. The general thought was a 6-7th rounder or a FA, we REACHED!! Kelly seems good, but Green was rated as the WORST safety prospect among the top talent. I saw a 4th round grade on him. At Clemson he got beat time after time after time, in the pros it seems the same.

[SaturdayAllDay]

1 hour ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Nah terrible argument. There's been a lot of pretty dumb points trying to be made in this thread though, so don't feel too bad.

So you seriously think 9 games a decent starter is indicative of a good player?? Like come on dude..... You have to be completely delusional to believe that. 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

Just now, SaturdayAllDay said:

So you seriously think 9 games a decent starter is indicative of a good player?? Like come on dude..... You have to be completely delusional to believe that. 

Too happy with the news to continue with this "debate". 

[runthepost]

7 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

adding up?   Don't reject facts for theory

Look at how many of 'our' draft choices we start

They start because of a lack in talent on this team at certain positions 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

What's really funny is that I was just about the only person on this forum that did not like the Morrison pick.  Everybody else was talking about what a great pick it was and how he was going to be a diamond in the rough, etc.

 

 

You weren't the only one.

[Superman]

16 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I think you're missing the point. It only matters if you passed over a young talent if you're devoid of talent at that position. No one is going to lament the Chiefs for passing on Hunter because they've got young playmakers on D. It's not that every team passed on Hunter. Not every team needed a flexible pass rushing D-Lineman. It's how many teams with needs on defense passed on Hunter for an inferior player. And the Colts are one of those teams, though not the only team one. Plus the Colts seem to lack more young talented defensive players than any other team.

 

And that's what you're missing. The Colts aren't being singled out because some misinformed guy has an ax to grind. They're  being singled out because how atrocious (statistically the worst in Colts history) their D is. And to explain that you have to look at draft picks. So it makes sense to look to see if their passing on talented defensive players and/or drafting poor defensive players. I'm willing to bet that there's a similar article for whatever team has the poorest offense in the NFL. Or even better, people are slamming the Browns brass for passing on Carson Wentz. Is that also a misinformed opinion because hindsight is 20/20?

 

And the problem with your Vikings example is that, yes, they've missed. But they also hit on Rhodes, Barr, Kendricks, Waynes, and Hunter. They haven't missed on 1st rounders since 2013 and have drafted well. They'll get a pass for 2013 because their team isn't devoid of playmakers (though Hopkins would have remedied their still poor receiving core). They may not win games but a lot of that will be chucked up to coaching and having a franchise QB, which is fair. They've been way better under Zimmer and have made the playoffs with Bridgewater. The Colts get crap because Grigson has only hit on 1 other 1st round pick since Luck and the guys he's picked over some of the guys mentioned are horrible and this team is devoid of playmakers on D. His 2nd Round pick from last year is already off the team. But don't think he's the only one. Stanley Jean-Baptistery, Dominique Easley, Justin Gilbert, and Eric Rowe are other players early round players who basically only lasted a season. And the people who drafted them got their fair share of criticism, except maybe for the Patriots with Easley but that's because they win a lot.

 

Lets stop acting as if the Colts are being unfairly criticized by misinformed people in the media every time a critical argument comes out. The Colts aren't some special team that gets singled out just because. If the same guy did the same article with the Vikings but pointed out how they passed on Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, and Hopkins would you cry fowl? That's the whole argument with the Colts. The GM passing on talented players for inferior ones. And it's not revisionist history because most of the guys were highly rated by most scouts. Anyone can tell you (even posters here) that Rhodes was the pick over Werner. In 2015 you yourself called for Kendricks over Dorsett so it doesn't matter if it were him and Collins, but there were better options than Dorsett. 2nd round of the same draft he takes Smith over 2 receivers (Lockett and Montgomery) more talented than the one he drafted in the first round. Forget Hunter for a moment and let that sink in. And if the defense is "he went with the highest rated players on the board" then once again, that means his scouting acumen is off. So once again, the argument of "what the Coltscould have had" is fair. I'm pretty sure there are similar articles for other teams if you look hard enough.

 

So many red herrings, strawmen, etc., I don't know where to start.

 

Grigson missed a lot of draft picks. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. I take issue with the perfect scenario "what if" game because it isn't a legitimate criticism.