Pat McAffee Story in IndyStar

[The Fish]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A lack of hate is not the same thing as being a fan.  Its the most frustrating concept not understood by many in this forum.

 

A lack of hate? Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't make any sense and it's revisionism 101. Let us read from the book of failed OL picks... Ye cometh to protect Luck, ye suck if bestowed by Grigson. Or something. 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

And now he's gone. 

 

If you want to dig up old passages to maintain the validation, told by Pastor Pat,  be my guest.  I like old stories that help spread positive vibes, not animus and vengeance.

I have no issue with history.   I don't like to hide the bad or the good.   Grigson was bad and Pat didn't forget or hide it.

Good job as usual Pat!

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

A lack of hate? Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't make any sense and it's revisionism 101. Let us read from the book of failed OL picks... Ye cometh to protect Luck, ye suck if bestowed by Grigson. Or something. 

But new GMs come with the idea that the team was bad, or else they wouldn't be a new GM.   Ballard is unusual for a new GM.  He inherited a team that was 8-8 two years in a row, not 3-13.  So obviously not all draft picks were failures.

 

The record shows he wasn't even as bad as most. I'm not a fan, but why so much hate for this particular bad GM?  Two years post-career now?

 

There must be something going on currently that the hate is feeding, no?

[Myles]

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just for the record. 

 

Ballard started his job with a franchise QB, a #1WR in his prime, a LT, and a C, as well as $70m in cap space.  I would say he has a "blank canvas with a QB" more than he was burdened.

 

We are past the point where Grigson is the cause of anything. 

 

Maybe be don't have a lot of young core players beyond those mentioned, but the cap space and draft picks (not required to be used on a QB) was/is there for Ballard to find his own.  Ultimately, that's better, not a burden. 

You are not going to win if you are trying to make the case that Ballard started in an ideal situation.   He inherited a horrible roster.  The "Grigson affect" will last for a few more years.   

[The Fish]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But new GMs come with the idea that the team was bad, or else they wouldn't be a new GM.   Ballard is unusual for a new GM.  He inherited a team that was 8-8 two years in a row, not 3-13.  So obviously not all draft picks were failures.

 

The record shows he wasn't even as bad as most. I'm not a fan, but why so much hate for this particular bad GM?  Two years post-career now?

 

There must be something going on currently that the hate is feeding, no?

 

You sort of detect the point, but somehow you're skipping over it..The fact that this team has a generational talent, that's very close to Aaron Rodgers in terms of individual talent and this team isn't going to do squat this year should be at least sort of bothersome, at least as far as these things go. When you've got *the guy* at QB, the window should be open. It's not, and it's not "the golden boy" or Lucks fault. 

[Superman]

8 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Come on now....      You're being WAY too literal over this "I don't want to make them money" line.

 

Basically, was Pat an asset to the team?    Did he help win games for the Colts?   

 

Then he helped the Colts make money.    It's nothing more than that.    

 

He even mentioned jersey sales. He literally meant make money. He also meant win games, but he said that separately. 

 

Either way, that's just an aside. The attitude is the problem, and it's something that he's evidently still having issues with. 

[ColtStrong2013]

I think we can all agree that things weren't good in the Grigson/Pagano organization. I blame that on management. Pagano was suspect as a coach. But he was dealing with far more than anybody in the league was dealing with... especially with management of the team. Really sad.

 

At the end of the day regardless of the outcome of his career, Chris Ballard will walk away with respect from the players and coaches, and take full responsibility for the results. Grigson couldn't and wouldn't. It was always someone else's fault and he had no accountability whatsoever. Bad management. 

[Surge89]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just for the record. 

 

Ballard started his job with a franchise QB, a #1WR in his prime, a LT, and a C, as well as $70m in cap space.  I would say he has a "blank canvas with a QB" more than he was burdened.

 

We are past the point where Grigson is the cause of anything. 

 

Maybe be don't have a lot of young core players beyond those mentioned, but the cap space and draft picks (not required to be used on a QB) was/is there for Ballard to find his own.  Ultimately, that's better, not a burden. 

 

I actually agree with you here. Many dismiss but Ballard has a decent roster to mold here. It may not be an ideal roster for a QB who is in the middle of his prime (which is everyone's issue with Grigson and mine as well) but I'd say the roster is in a little bit of a better place than what Grigson inherited.  The issue is it wasn't good enough. But with that aside I don't see how that has much to do with what we are talking about. 

 

You seem hung up on this notion that Pat McAfee is so persuading that the masses are going to give 10 years more to Ballard, which is definitely not the case.  People will be judging Ballard off of his own actions and rightfully so no matter what article Pat decides to say on Grigson. If you think that everyone's not going to give Ballard a little bit longer of a leash because of the Trainwreck they just left behind then I think that is naive.  Most are going to give Ballard as much time as possible to right the ship just by the nature of circumstance. 

 

Me for instance I question alot of things Ballard has been doing lately but I also remember that he is learning on the job as well. As long as he continuously gets better in practicing what he preaches then I'm fine with giving him a longer leash as well. One of my biggest issues with Grigson was that he gave very little as far as a direction for the franchise and so thus we had to grade his decisions in a vacuum and the rest is history...  With Ballard I'm a bit more lenient because I can understand a miss or 2 as long we eventually hit the main goal he keeps reiterating. 

 

Things become different though if he too never improves and thus the wheel keeps on turning. 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So obviously not all draft picks were failures.

 

The record shows he wasn't even as bad as most

 

With the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious to everyone who will pay attention that Grigson was a bad GM who didn't draft well. Half of his picks are out of the league, including early round guys who should presently be the foundation of the Colts roster. The majority of his free agent signings were disappointments, plenty of whom didn't reach the end of their contracts. 

 

Yes, he was unpopular, and yes, a lot of people are biased against him. But it's also true that, yes, he was a bad GM. The roster bears that out. And stories like this shed further light on his poor interpersonal and management skills. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

Pat has the right to tell his story. If people don't like it that's their problem, not Pats. I support him 100%. The truth never changes. 

 

No one is suggesting that Pat's right to tell his story should be taken away.

[Surge89]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He even mentioned jersey sales. He literally meant make money. He also meant win games, but he said that separately. 

 

Either way, that's just an aside. The attitude is the problem, and it's something that he's evidently still having issues with. 

 

I mean. Was it a lie that he was making the colts money? Number 2 in jerseys sales isn't something to scoff at especially punter. Also he was probably the only personality getting national attention which is way more valuable than jersey sales...

 

If his attitude is a problem then a bunch of the NFL has a bunch of problems. In professional sports this is common and accepted because you don't get to this level of competition without having an ego and being confrontational.  Especially with talented players.  And I'd say McAfee was truly talented.  Grigson isn't somehow divine of criticism. He called McAfee in there and probably wouldn't have been much of an issue if he just said simply hey this isn't tolerated you know the rules and fine him.  But no Grigson had to somehow justify shelving the blame onto our punter who is a league leading athlete that the issues of the team lay on Pat's shoulders and not his own.  C'mon you know damn well you wouldn't stay quiet either. Especially when you are producing in spite of the rest of the mess Grigson has put on the field. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Even when criticizing Pat, the religion is so strong comments must work in the caveat that they're not defending Grigson.  Wow, what brainwashing.

 

 Like a typical social media millennial loser, Pat latches on to some public narrative rooted in falsehoods and feelgoodism, and spreads it to gather favor among the masses

 

This is such nonsense. You hold yourself up as this paragon for objective reasoning, which necessarily means that anyone who disagrees with you is 'brainwashed,' rather than just accepting that people view things differently. It's demeaning and condescending.

 

And you're also being hypocritical. First, what exactly is a "typical social media millennial loser," and how is it okay for someone who is such a transcendent objective thinker to paint with such a broad brush? That's dung.

 

Second, the narrative that Grigson was a bad GM is not rooted in falsehoods. He was clearly a bad GM. Whether he was as much of a jerk as Pat would have us believe is something we can't really know, but Pat is not the only person to say that Grigson was difficult to deal with.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

With the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious to everyone who will pay attention that Grigson was a bad GM who didn't draft well. Half of his picks are out of the league, including early round guys who should presently be the foundation of the Colts roster. The majority of his free agent signings were disappointments, plenty of whom didn't reach the end of their contracts. 

 

Yes, he was unpopular, and yes, a lot of people are biased against him. But it's also true that, yes, he was a bad GM. The roster bears that out. And stories like this shed further light on his poor interpersonal and management skills. 

I agree with all of that.  But why is it worthy of an article today?  What is the relevance of that two year old story now?

 

I know Pat needs some material, and Grigson is part of that, but why the continued interest in that material from so many?  Grigson's old news.

 

BTW, to recount a story where the boss was annoyed at Pat Macaphee doesn't necessarily support the idea that the boss had poor skills. 

 

[Nesjan3]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

With the benefit of hindsight, it's obvious to everyone who will pay attention that Grigson was a bad GM who didn't draft well. Half of his picks are out of the league, including early round guys who should presently be the foundation of the Colts roster. The majority of his free agent signings were disappointments, plenty of whom didn't reach the end of their contracts. 

 

Yes, he was unpopular, and yes, a lot of people are biased against him. But it's also true that, yes, he was a bad GM. The roster bears that out. And stories like this shed further light on his poor interpersonal and management skills. 

im too lazy to go over every draft pick but i am sure over half of his picks are out of the league, including 2013 1st round Werner, 2014 first round T-Rich, 2014 2nd round Mewhort, 2015 2nd round Smith. 2015 1st round Dorsett traded away. Not only did he miss badly on most of his picks, he missed on almost all of his 1st and second round picks.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

I mean. Was it a lie that he was making the colts money? Number 2 in jerseys sales isn't something to scoff at especially punter. Also he was probably the only personality getting national attention which is way more valuable than jersey sales...

 

If his attitude is a problem then a bunch of the NFL has a bunch of problems. In professional sports this is common and accepted because you don't get to this level of competition without having an ego and being confrontational.  Especially with talented players.  And I'd say McAfee was truly talented.  Grigson isn't somehow divine of criticism. He called McAfee in there and probably wouldn't have been much of an issue if he just said simply hey this isn't tolerated you know the rules and fine him.  But no Grigson had to somehow justify shelving the blame onto our punter who is a league leading athlete that the issues of the team lay on Pat's shoulders and not his own.  C'mon you know damn well you wouldn't stay quiet either. Especially when you are producing in spite of the rest of the mess Grigson has put on the field. 

 

Number 2 in jersey sales spoke more to the fact that the Colts had basically no marketable personalities on the team (and that's accepting as fact that he was #2 in jersey sales, which I haven't attempted to verify). My point is that whatever he was bringing in was likely a drop in the bucket, and him acting like his jersey sales were a significant part of the operation is a laugh, IMO.

 

And his personality getting national attention was kind of a two-edged sword. By this time period, he had lived down the arrest, but that was and still is his primary claim to fame. 

 

Again, I'm not knocking Pat because of his personality, his arrest, his being a punter, or anything like that. I'm saying that his own version of this story makes him look bad, the way he told it makes him look bad, and him telling it now, two years later, makes him look bad. I'm certainly not claiming this makes Pat a bad person, or any of the other nonsense that others are peddling. But my reaction to the story was 'wow, Pat, that's kind of petty and arrogant of you.'

 

And again, this is not a defense of Ryan Grigson, nor does Pat getting into an argument with Grigson bother me.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

im too lazy to go over every draft pick but i am sure over half of his picks are out of the league, including 2013 1st round Werner, 2014 first round T-Rich, 2014 2nd round Mewhort, 2015 2nd round Smith. 2015 1st round Dorsett traded away. Not only did he miss badly on most of his picks, he missed on almost all of his 1st and second round picks.

 

Yup. I'll give him a break on Mewhort. I don't think his knees were an issue before he was drafted, and he was actually a good player when healthy. 

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with all of that. 

 

Then why are you playing devil's advocate by acting like Grigson wasn't a bad GM? 

[Surge89]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Number 2 in jersey sales spoke more to the fact that the Colts had basically no marketable personalities on the team (and that's accepting as fact that he was #2 in jersey sales, which I haven't attempted to verify). My point is that whatever he was bringing in was likely a drop in the bucket, and him acting like his jersey sales were a significant part of the operation is a laugh, IMO.

 

And his personality getting national attention was kind of a two-edged sword. By this time period, he had lived down the arrest, but that was and still is his primary claim to fame. 

 

Again, I'm not knocking Pat because of his personality, his arrest, his being a punter, or anything like that. I'm saying that his own version of this story makes him look bad, the way he told it makes him look bad, and him telling it now, two years later, makes him look bad. I'm certainly not claiming this makes Pat a bad person, or any of the other nonsense that others are peddling. But my reaction to the story was 'wow, Pat, that's kind of petty and arrogant of you.'

 

And again, this is not a defense of Ryan Grigson, nor does Pat getting into an argument with Grigson bother me.

 

Ah. I understand.  For me I just could care less if it makes him or Grigson look bad I just like the entertainment and insight to the inner workings of the Grigson era.  I think he was more than justified to look bad in this instance. You think he wasn't which is fine.  

 

Also as far as the money is concerned none of us are claiming that he was such a big part of the Colts but he was in fact making them money and one of the only bright spots on the roster from a financial standpoint (low cost, high income) so his point still stands. It's bad business to shoulder the blame of your ineptness on to a punter who is succeeding and think he's gonna sit there and take it.  Grigson being the boss should have been better than that and we have history that says he wasn't. 

[PrincetonTiger]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yup. I'll give him a break on Mewhort. I don't think his knees were an issue before he was drafted, and he was actually a good player when healthy. 

 

Then why are you playing devil's advocate by acting like Grigson wasn't a bad GM? 

Agreed 

 

   I put Mewhort in the Entmann and Trev Alberts camp not the Werner camp

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

It seems like you're contradicting yourself, did Grigson deserve to be cussed out or not.  If true Grigson over reacted to a picture and Pat had had enough.  It's not like this is the first reported incident between the two, didn't Grigson tell Pat that the only reason he was on the team was Irsay told Grigson he had to keep Pat?  None of these stories have been refuted by anyone else as far as I know.  Grigson seems like he was a difficult person to get along with.  Pat told him off and decided to retire because he had options, good for him, that is not cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

I had a boss that was a total jerk, one day I had enough and told him off.  He ended up leaving the company and I ended up with a better boss.  Also, you better believe I told other managers about the incident with my boss, I didn't want them only to hear his side of the story.  I have no problem with telling the story to anyone, the only difference is that the Indy Star isn't interested in writing a story about that interaction with my ex-boss.

 

There's more to this story -- and my reaction to it -- than whether Grigson deserved to be cussed out. And really, my reaction to Pat's response isn't really about the words he said to Grigson.

 

As for talking to other managers about his interaction with Grigson, that isn't a problem either. If Pat had gone to Pagano and discussed the situation with him in something resembling a professional manner, that would be perfectly fine, and even advisable, like you say. But Pat says he walked into Pagano's office and cussed him out, too, even though he had nothing to do with it. Did you go to other managers and tell them to go bleep themselves? 

[The Fish]

20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I agree with all of that.  But why is it worthy of an article today?  What is the relevance of that two year old story now?

 

I know Pat needs some material, and Grigson is part of that, but why the continued interest in that material from so many?  Grigson's old news.

 

BTW, to recount a story where the boss was annoyed at Pat Macaphee doesn't necessarily support the idea that the boss had poor skills. 

 

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Ah. I understand.  For me I just could care less if it makes him or Grigson look bad I just like the entertainment and insight to the inner workings of the Grigson era.  I think he was more than justified to look bad in this instance. You think he wasn't which is fine.  

 

Also as far as the money is concerned none of us are claiming that he was such a big part of the Colts but he was in fact making them money and one of the only bright spots on the roster from a financial standpoint (low cost, high income) so his point still stands. It's bad business to shoulder the blame of your ineptness on to a punter who is succeeding and think he's gonna sit there and take it.  Grigson being the boss should have been better than that and we have history that says he wasn't. 

 

I like getting insight into the inner workings. If Pat's story was 'Grigson was a jerk to me and it made me not want to play football anymore,' that would be one thing.

 

His story was more 'Grigson was a jerk to me, and I should have been treated like a prince because I was the best punter in the league and I sold jerseys for the Colts, so I stormed out of his office and went and cussed out my coach who had nothing to do with the interaction. And recently I had the same feeling of entitlement with Barstool Sports (which, no love lost there on my end, btw, so not a defense of them either) and decided I didn't want to make money for them, either, so now I'm doing my own podcast, and I'm gonna tell stories like this so tune in please.' 

 

Again, Grigson wasn't a good GM, and if stories like this are true -- since we've only heard one side of the story, to be fair, so I'm including the "if" -- he wasn't a good manager of people or leader of men. He should have been better. But this story doesn't make anyone look good, IMO.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Ah. I understand.  For me I just could care less if it makes him or Grigson look bad I just like the entertainment and insight to the inner workings of the Grigson era.  I think he was more than justified to look bad in this instance. You think he wasn't which is fine.  

 

Since I spent most of my childhood in a locker room and behind the scenes of sports teams. I don’t see those stories as entertaining But cringe worthy 

 

 

   

[Restored]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's more to this story -- and my reaction to it -- than whether Grigson deserved to be cussed out. And really, my reaction to Pat's response isn't really about the words he said to Grigson.

 

As for talking to other managers about his interaction with Grigson, that isn't a problem either. If Pat had gone to Pagano and discussed the situation with him in something resembling a professional manner, that would be perfectly fine, and even advisable, like you say. But Pat says he walked into Pagano's office and cussed him out, too, even though he had nothing to do with it. Did you go to other managers and tell them to go bleep themselves? 

 

I think its important to realize that this incident between Pat and Grigson was very likely not the first clash between the two. This time appeared to be more of the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I believe that Pagano was more amicable in discussions with players and likely much more respectable but ultimately felt his hands were tied with some of the decision making that would come down from Grigson.

 

Now, do I think Pat went a bit overboard with his reaction here? Maybe. But ultimately, his reaction appears to reflect a build up of animosity and resentment towards Grigson that from what we've seen and heard over the years from other players and personnel, reflects a horrible image of Grigson.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I like getting insight into the inner workings. If Pat's story was 'Grigson was a jerk to me and it made me not want to play football anymore,' that would be one thing.

 

His story was more 'Grigson was a jerk to me, and I should have been treated like a prince because I was the best punter in the league and I sold jerseys for the Colts, so I stormed out of his office and went and cussed out my coach who had nothing to do with the interaction. And recently I had the same feeling of entitlement with Barstool Sports (which, no love lost there on my end, btw, so not a defense of them either) and decided I didn't want to make money for them, either, so now I'm doing my own podcast, and I'm gonna tell stories like this so tune in please.' 

 

Again, Grigson wasn't a good GM, and if stories like this are true -- since we've only heard one side of the story, to be fair, so I'm including the "if" -- he wasn't a good manager of people or leader of men. He should have been better. But this story doesn't make anyone look good, IMO.

  For me it isn’t the story that is concerning but the timing 

 

[DougDew]

35 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is such nonsense. You hold yourself up as this paragon for objective reasoning, which necessarily means that anyone who disagrees with you is 'brainwashed,' rather than just accepting that people view things differently. It's demeaning and condescending.

 

And you're also being hypocritical. First, what exactly is a "typical social media millennial loser," and how is it okay for someone who is such a transcendent objective thinker to paint with such a broad brush? That's dung.

 

Second, the narrative that Grigson was a bad GM is not rooted in falsehoods. He was clearly a bad GM. Whether he was as much of a jerk as Pat would have us believe is something we can't really know, but Pat is not the only person to say that Grigson was difficult to deal with.

You're taking things a bit too literally, but, 

 

A person becomes a fan, or thrown into the "you must like Grigson" bucket, just for raising a few reasonable thoughts that might threaten an echo chamber.  Anybody who doesn't immediately attach the caveat "but I'm no fan of Grigson", gets viewed as being one.  

 

It's a broader thing that happens a lot on social media.  When you don't say what you're supposed to say when provided the opportunity to say it, in this case I hate Grigson, then the environment will peg you as not conforming.   A threat, I guess.

 

Its a weird dynamic that is feeding off of something else other than the actual matter at the time.

 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

I think its important to realize that this incident between Pat and Grigson was very likely not the first clash between the two. This time appeared to be more of the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I believe that Pagano was more amicable in discussions with players and likely much more respectable but ultimately felt his hands were tied with some of the decision making that would come down from Grigson.

 

Now, do I think Pat went a bit overboard with his reaction here? Maybe. But ultimately, his reaction appears to reflect a build up of animosity and resentment towards Grigson that from what we've seen and heard over the years from other players and personnel, reflects a horrible image of Grigson.

 

Yes, most of that is clear from the story. 

 

But this is Pat's version of the story. In his own version, I think he comes off as petty, arrogant, spiteful and unprofessional. Also as a target of a petty, arrogant and spiteful GM, but nonetheless, Pat's own telling of the story makes Pat look bad.

 

And it seems clear that Pat told the story in this way because he thinks it helps his reputation, which, to me, says something about Pat's attitude. There was no 'I felt bad for taking it out on Chuck,' there's no implication that he ever apologized... It's like 'yeah, I'm this cocksure, presumptuous and impetuous guy who says whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, and I can because I'm a good punter -- don't you like that about me?' And no, I don't like that about him. It's not endearing, even if I think everything he said to and about Grigson is 100% correct.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You're taking things a bit too literally, but, 

 

A person becomes a fan, or thrown into the "you must like Grigson" bucket, just for raising a few reasonable thoughts that might threaten an echo chamber.  Anybody who doesn't immediately attach the caveat "but I'm no fan of Grigson", gets viewed as being one.  

 

It's a broader thing that happens a lot on social media.  When you don't say what you're supposed to say when provided the opportunity to say it, in this case I hate Grigson, then the environment will peg you as not conforming.   A threat, I guess.

 

Its a weird dynamic that is feeding off of something else other than the actual matter at the time.

 

 

First, I don't think you raised reasonable thoughts. I think you defended Grigson, in an instance where it's not clear that he needed or deserved defending. And that's a pattern with you, and has been for a long time.

 

I used to defend Grigson because I thought a lot of criticism of him was unfair and premature, but it's pretty apparent that the things people were saying about him were true all along. He was a bad drafter, he didn't use free agency well, and he wasn't good with other people, particularly his subordinates. So I don't defend him anymore, even though I still think some specific criticisms are unfair.

 

And I personally added the caveat in my first post in this thread, not because I wanted to show that I conform to the Grigson hate, but because I wanted it to be clear that I don't agree with Grigson's role in this particular drama, and I don't think he deserves a defense. If what Pat said actually happened the way he says, then Grigson was just as wrong as Pat, IMO.

 

But you decided that if a person mentions that they aren't defending Grigson, that must mean they are blinded by hate, or a sheeplike conformist, or both. And that's condescending nonsense.

 

I agree with you about the mob mentality, which is especially prevalent on social media (and message boards). But just because a person is prominent on social media and is a millennial doesn't mean that they are part of the mob mentality, nor does it mean they should be stuck with any of the pejorative labels that people like to pin on millennials or those who use social media. These are offensive stereotypes.

[TheMarine]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

And it seems clear that Pat told the story in this way because he thinks it helps his reputation, which, to me, says something about Pat's attitude.

 

Or we didn't get the entire story with CP involvement. CP is known as being a players coach, probably an open door policy too if you need to blow steam: I had that with my guys when I was coaching. Anything said in that time was between us, regardless of what was said. It was probably discussed afterwards with cooler heads, esp. when CP talked to him about coming back.

[csmopar]

watching some of you debate Grigson vs Ballard is almost as bad as watching CSPAN right now, good grief charlie brown

[lollygagger8]

Good for Pat! 

 

I've worked for boss like this before in the Oil Industry. If I made him $17M on a deal, he was mad I didn't make him $18M. He would berate you over the loud speaker in front of the company, and I could go on for days how bad of a person he was. People that were starting there would walk out by lunchtime and never come back it was so bad. 

 

The more they ride you, the more snarky you become. Until one day you've had it, and it all comes out.

 

I did the same thing McAfee did. Went in there, spoke my mind and told him I'm done with his #^$& and I was tired of making money for him. I worked there 2 years (people don't last days there) and he offered me $10k/yr twice to stay and I still told him no. 

 

There's more to life than money. 

 

It's been said already, but people don't quit jobs, they quit managers. 

 

[jvan1973]

4 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

It's a good story, but the timing is an obvious plot for Pat to make headlines. He is a failed comedian, and the only way he gets attention is by talking about the Colts. 

He isn't a failed comedian.   He did a few shows.   It's not like he was trying to become a stand-up. 

[Cynjin]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's more to this story -- and my reaction to it -- than whether Grigson deserved to be cussed out. And really, my reaction to Pat's response isn't really about the words he said to Grigson.

 

As for talking to other managers about his interaction with Grigson, that isn't a problem either. If Pat had gone to Pagano and discussed the situation with him in something resembling a professional manner, that would be perfectly fine, and even advisable, like you say. But Pat says he walked into Pagano's office and cussed him out, too, even though he had nothing to do with it. Did you go to other managers and tell them to go bleep themselves? 

 

Lol, no definitely not.  I went to the managers that I knew and would listen to what I had to say.  I did tell them what a jerk I thought my boss was and why I thought that.  However, a locker room is not exactly the same as a professional office when it comes to language used in the work place.  When I was in a locker room, there was a lot of colorful language used between coaches and players.

[Four2itus]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

I used to defend Grigson because I thought a lot of criticism of him was unfair and premature, but it's pretty apparent that the things people were saying about him were true all along. He was a bad drafter, he didn't use free agency well, and he wasn't good with other people, particularly his subordinates. So I don't defend him anymore, even though I still think some specific criticisms are unfair.

 

And I personally added the caveat in my first post in this thread, not because I wanted to show that I conform to the Grigson hate, but because I wanted it to be clear that I don't agree with Grigson's role in this particular drama, and I don't think he deserves a defense. If what Pat said actually happened the way he says, then Grigson was just as wrong as Pat, IMO.

 

I agree with you about the mob mentality, which is especially prevalent on social media (and message boards). But just because a person is prominent on social media and is a millennial doesn't mean that they are part of the mob mentality, nor does it mean they should be stuck with any of the pejorative labels that people like to pin on millennials or those who use social media. These are offensive stereotypes.

 

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

But this is Pat's version of the story. In his own version, I think he comes off as petty, arrogant, spiteful and unprofessional. Also as a target of a petty, arrogant and spiteful GM, but nonetheless, Pat's own telling of the story makes Pat look bad.

 

And it seems clear that Pat told the story in this way because he thinks it helps his reputation, which, to me, says something about Pat's attitude. There was no 'I felt bad for taking it out on Chuck,' there's no implication that he ever apologized... It's like 'yeah, I'm this cocksure, presumptuous and impetuous guy who says whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, and I can because I'm a good punter -- don't you like that about me?' And no, I don't like that about him. It's not endearing, even if I think everything he said to and about Grigson is 100% correct.

 

I agree with all of the above. I too defended Grigson, and no longer do so. I also had my moments where I have loved the cockiness of Pat. This was not cockiness as much as unprofessional rudeness. No matter what happens to you, rise above. It is not what you experience that shapes you as a person as much as how you react to what you experience. It is my guess Pat will continue to experience things like this in his life. 

[Surge89]

44 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Since I spent most of my childhood in a locker room and behind the scenes of sports teams. I don’t see those stories as entertaining But cringe worthy 

 

 

   

 

That's interesting I have been in the locker room and I thought it was hilarious then too (on both the player and coach side). Who knows I just like to find the laughter in everything I guess. 

[SteelCityColt]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

So what?  What is the point of rehashing the story by Pat now, or the IndyStar, if it isn't to validate some opinion (or some previously written negative article).  The same opinion, over and over and over. Why the need to keep it going?  

 

Do we need it as a backdrop to support the current narrative?  That, oops, golden boy Ballard might take longer than we hoped, so we need to spread the idea that his roster is the victim of the really bad predecessor?  (yes, that's why) (and it isn't).

 

 

 

 

Maybe you should look at applying this thought to your opinion on Ballard and not shoehorn it into everything? 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Lol, no definitely not.  I went to the managers that I knew and would listen to what I had to say.  I did tell them what a jerk I thought my boss was and why I thought that.  However, a locker room is not exactly the same as a professional office when it comes to language used in the work place.  When I was in a locker room, there was a lot of colorful language used between coaches and players.

 

The language isn't the problem. He didn't go to Chuck to tell him how much of a jerk Grigson was. By his own admission, he went and told Chuck to go bleep himself, when Chuck wasn't even aware of what happened.

 

That's different from venting to another manager, or discussing the matter with another manager or HR rep to cover your own butt. 

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, I don't think you raised reasonable thoughts. I think you defended Grigson, in an instance where it's not clear that he needed or deserved defending. And that's a pattern with you, and has been for a long time.

 

I used to defend Grigson because I thought a lot of criticism of him was unfair and premature, but it's pretty apparent that the things people were saying about him were true all along. He was a bad drafter, he didn't use free agency well, and he wasn't good with other people, particularly his subordinates. So I don't defend him anymore, even though I still think some specific criticisms are unfair.

 

And I personally added the caveat in my first post in this thread, not because I wanted to show that I conform to the Grigson hate, but because I wanted it to be clear that I don't agree with Grigson's role in this particular drama, and I don't think he deserves a defense. If what Pat said actually happened the way he says, then Grigson was just as wrong as Pat, IMO.

 

But you decided that if a person mentions that they aren't defending Grigson, that must mean they are blinded by hate, or a sheeplike conformist, or both. And that's condescending nonsense.

 

I agree with you about the mob mentality, which is especially prevalent on social media (and message boards). But just because a person is prominent on social media and is a millennial doesn't mean that they are part of the mob mentality, nor does it mean they should be stuck with any of the pejorative labels that people like to pin on millennials or those who use social media. These are offensive stereotypes.

I've said this before.  I don't think that pointing out where attacks are flawed is the same thing as saying they prefer Grigson.  Its simple to throw people into a like or dislike bucket.  Also, when I point out flawed attacks, I don't feel compelled to say the "but I don't like the guy either" stuff.

 

I'm talking about the GM of a team that went to the playoffs annually then left with no worse than an 8-8 record.  The attack now is that he rode the arm of Luck and left the Colts with a terrible roster.  Well, duh, that's why you draft him #1, forgo the RG type of trade to build a team a different way, then sign him to contract that puts a big dent in your cap.  We could have had a better roster under Polian too, but we rode Manning for years and had limited draft picks at the bottom of each round.  And, Luck is part of that 8-8 roster, and Ballard will ride his arm also.

 

Polian's picks stunk too, and he left us with cap problems, but I don't hear the same kind of animus towards Polian.  Maybe the current generation doesn't know him, or they are just generally hate other people more and are more vocal about it. 

 

I don't think the discussions about Grigson even have anything to do with the Colts.  I think it has to do with validating a faith of some kind.  No other topic ever brings so much discussion.  And its just a former GM.  Weird.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Surge89 said:

 

That's interesting I have been in the locker room and I thought it was hilarious then too (on both the player and coach side). Who knows I just like to find the laughter in everything I guess. 

  It is very different when the livelihoods of close family might be affected

     

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Maybe you should look at applying this thought to your opinion on Ballard and not shoehorn it into everything? 

What is my opinion on Ballard?  Am I in the "like him" or "hate him" bucket there BillyBob?

 

[SteelCityColt]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I've said this before.  I don't think that pointing out where attacks are flawed is the same thing as saying they prefer Grigson.  Its simple to throw people into a like or dislike bucket.  Also, when I point out flawed attacks, I don't feel compelled to say the "but I don't like the guy either" stuff.

 

I'm talking about the GM of a team that went to the playoffs annually then left with no worse than an 8-8 record.  The attack now is that he rode the arm of Luck and left the Colts with a terrible roster.  Well, duh, that's why you draft him #1, forgo the RG type of trade to build a team a different way, then sign him to contract that puts a big dent in your cap.  We could have had a better roster under Polian too, but we rode Manning for years and had limited draft picks at the bottom of each round.  And, Luck is part of that 8-8 roster, and Ballard will ride his arm also.

 

 

That runs counter to all the noises Ballard has made, and the moves he's made too. On what basis are you saying that? Having a franchise QB doesn't preclude building a good roster.