Pat McAffee Story in IndyStar

[jvan1973]

Pat was better at his job than Grigson was at his.    Pat didn't like the guy,   he has a podcast,   he is gonna say things.   Grigson can go to any reporter and refute anything pat has to say,   but some of pats teammates have agreed,  he was an butt.    It's ok to be an butt if you're a good GM.  Lots of players thought that about Polian.   Most notability,  Mike Vanderjagt

[Flash7]

12 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Why it is pretty much confirmed by most of his former players that Grigson was a scumbag who no one liked, this is an interesting view of what fans couldn’t see. It doesn’t make him look any worse as he’s already cemented his legacy as one of the worst GMs of this decade. It does help paint a picture. 

 

The story from Reggie was that he went months without ever speaking to him in 2012 when he got hired. The report from the guy who used to work with him in Philly was that the guy thought he invented the football and knew more than everyone else. Now Pat is telling us that he basically tries to fine him for several small things and put the losing on everyone else. Not to mention the reports that he was meddling in coaching decisions. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

 

What a shame it was that he ever represented the horseshoe.

Let’s also not forget that Irsay had to hire a psychologist in an effort to work things out between Grigson and Pagano. Note that Ballard and Pagano didn’t need one, so it was more of a Grigson issue.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

It does have a lot to do with the discussion, you just continue to disagree and repeatedly say that it had no correlation. 

 

Not sure what you're saying here. I never said there was no correlation between McAfee's popularity and increased sales at the pro shop. I am saying it's unreasonable to suggest that McAfee was the sole reason or even a significant reason for those increased sales. But that's a side note. If you're willing to give him more credit than I am, fine. It's not really my main issue.

 

But to whatever extent McAfee's merchandise benefited the Colts, I doubt it was a significant amount. 

 

Quote

Yeah, you have said that several times now. 

 

Because that's the point.

 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I can grasp it.  But the comment cited was that "the only reason you're here is because the owner wants you", makes it sound spiteful, and not being based on a football decision.

 

So maybe Grigson thought he could spend less for a punter and that those few million dollars saved would offset the lost profit on Jersey sales.

 

Or do we just want to keep going with spite being the reason?

 

Whether it was spite, dislike because of McAfee's legal history, strictly football/cap, or a combination of all three, if what Pat said about their initial interaction and contract dispute is true, Grigson was a jerk to him, and there's no real defense for that.

[superrep1967]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:12 PM, jvan1973 said:

 maybe if Grigson wasn't * he would have tried to rehab.   Who knows? I think the guy is a great story teller.   I'm a big fan of his podcast 

Pat was right there's not enough money available to have to deal with these *. I would have done the same as him Grigson is truly an * and it showed the whole time he was with Colts. 

[ColtStrong2013]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I can grasp it.  But the comment cited was that "the only reason you're here is because the owner wants you", makes it sound spiteful, and not being based on a football decision.

 

So maybe Grigson thought he could spend less for a punter and that those few million dollars saved would offset the lost profit on Jersey sales.

 

Or do we just want to keep going with spite being the reason?

 

Undoubtedly. He thought he could easily replace Pat with someone much cheaper. The problem with that is, he could not have. Irsay knew that, and he shut the conversation down. Therefore it was Grigson being spiteful at Pat and looking for everything little (like a stupid picture that was against his rules...is that in Andrew Luck's contract? Or just Pat's I wonder?) 

[SilentHill]

23 hours ago, Tsarquise said:

That is not a millennial thing, it's an individual thing. Where do these warped, and skewed narratives come from? 

 

An individual thing that is more prevalent among millenials. Are you happy now?

[TheRustonRifle#7]

Sad to see Colts fans fight over this.....with the upcoming season right around the corner, and with new blood, we should be focusing on the present and future....not the past.

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Whether it was spite, dislike because of McAfee's legal history, strictly football/cap, or a combination of all three, if what Pat said about their initial interaction and contract dispute is true, Grigson was a jerk to him, and there's no real defense for that.

Actually, I'll judge that for myself.

 

What did Pat say about the initial interaction and contract dispute?  That's not this story Pat is telling now is it? 

 

I mean, its fine that Grigson is a jerk, but its not the be-all and end-all to everything.  In fact, it hardly matters. Why is it constantly brought up like it does?

 

I think a bit of Diva attitude is also at play by the players/media who publicly call him a jerk.

 

People in the visibility business usually like their butts kissed, and if someone doesn't kiss it, they are called a butt.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why Reggie thought is was so important for Grigson to talk to him an not to other players too.  If you read what Reggie said, that was the problem he had.

[DougDew]

37 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

Undoubtedly. He thought he could easily replace Pat with someone much cheaper. The problem with that is, he could not have. Irsay knew that, and he shut the conversation down. Therefore it was Grigson being spiteful at Pat and looking for everything little (like a stupid picture that was against his rules...is that in Andrew Luck's contract? Or just Pat's I wonder?) 

I take it at its face value.  Grigson didn't want him on the team, and Irsay did.  Beyond that I can't say why or why not. 

 

Pat seemed to think Jersey sales should have figured into it.  I'm not sure it should, nor do I know that it wasn't considered.

[SilentHill]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Nah, that's not it. This isn't a millennial thing, it's an entitlement thing. Not all millennials act entitled, despite the popular narrative. They are perfectly capable of being professional in the workplace, and I know that firsthand.

 

It's also not old fashioned to expect and require professionalism in the workplace. Storming into a supervisor's office and cussing them out because of a bad exchange with someone else is not acceptable in any context. Doesn't matter what generation they belong to. 

 

Not all, but a majority, and i'm not trying to paint them in a negative light. Change is good. There is a shift happening right now in workplace culture. In order to attract young talent, companies are changing their dress code, making the hours flexible, and ditching the kind of shenanigans that Ryan Grigson allegedly pulled on  Pat McAfee, because if they don't? Millennials are more than willing to turn down boatloads of cash and tell their employer to hit the road, and they are going to make it known why they are leaving, and why they feel wronged, because they want transparency.

 

Pat took it another step further when he yelled at Pagano (which was not acceptable), but the Exchange between him and Grigson is a fairly common struggle in old fashioned work environments, and it is happening more and more. Of course as a result you end up with corporate change, which is exactly what happened in Indianapolis.

[jvan1973]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Actually, I'll judge that for myself.

 

What did Pat say about the initial interaction and contract dispute?  That's not this story Pat is telling now is it? 

 

I mean, its fine that Grigson is a jerk, but its not the be-all and end-all to everything.  In fact, it hardly matters. Why is it constantly brought up like it does?

 

I think a bit of Diva attitude is also at play by the players/media who publicly call him a jerk.

 

People in the visibility business usually like their butts kissed, and if someone doesn't kiss it, they are called a butt.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why Reggie thought is was so important for Grigson to talk to him an not to other players too.  If you read what Reggie said, that was the problem he had.

 because Reggie was a leader on that team.   A future hall of famer that the locker room would listen to.   Pretty simple.   Not one player has come to Grigson defense in any way.   That says alot.  To most 

[braveheartcolt]

4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

He had an overinflated opinion of himself as a player? Not sure on that one. He knew his self worth as a punter, especially with an offense that often stalled and relied on his field position magic to stay in ball games. He truly helped win some games with his brilliant onside game (2 in the same Houston game if I remember correctly.) 

 

He also took the damage of kickoffs so Vinny could have an extended career (would love to hear his take on Pat on this forum... would undoubtedly be more positive than most on here.) 

Never said he was not a good player. He was. But still only a punter, but he somehow thought he was up there with with Peyton and Marvin etc. 

[DougDew]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

 because Reggie was a leader on that team.   A future hall of famerthat the locker room would listen to.   Pretty simple.   Not one player has come to Grigson defense in any way.   That says alot.  To most 

Did Grigson talk to other leaders on the team, or was just Reggie slighted? 

 

Terrell Owens used to feel slighted too.  Frequently, over just about everything.

 

I know of no other players other than the ones who are liked well enough by the media to be interviewed,ever speak out on the issue.  Probably because it didn't really matter to 95% of the others.  That says volumes.

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Actually, I'll judge that for myself.

 

What did Pat say about the initial interaction and contract dispute?  That's not this story Pat is telling now is it? 

 

It's fine to judge that for yourself. I've done the same.

 

If you follow the link, you'll see a story about McAfee's comments after Grigson was fired, where he discussed the contract conversations he had with Grigson early on, and why he thinks Grigson had a problem with him. It's not part of this story he's telling now.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/2/2/14491684/pat-mcafee-opens-up-on-relationship-with-ryan-grigson-he-and-i-did-not-like-each-other-at-all-colts

 

Quote

 

I mean, its fine that Grigson is a jerk, but its not the be-all and end-all to everything.  In fact, it hardly matters. Why is it constantly brought up like it does?

 

 

Strawman.
 

Quote

 

I think a bit of Diva attitude is also at play by the players/media who publicly call him a jerk.

 

People in the visibility business usually like their butts kissed, and if someone doesn't kiss it, they are called a butt.

 

 

Or how about, people don't like being treated poorly, spoken to condescendingly, etc. Is that really lost on you?

 

You like to compare the reception that Ballard gets to the way people felt about Grigson. Let me highlight one of the differences between their approach, especially as it pertains to the media. 

 

After the 2014 draft, when everyone was hyperventilating about who would play center, and how could Khaled Holmes be the guy if he only played 12 snaps in 2013, and why didn't they draft a center, Grigson responded by saying 'Khaled's our center, we work hard on the draft and we know what we need at that position, we know what Khaled can do because we scouted him, we didn't just watch a bunch of Youtube videos.' That's a loose paraphrase, but it's pretty close. He was dismissive of the local media guys because they were being shortsighted alarmists (which is typical, IMO). I agreed with Grigson, so I'm not saying that his response was wrong, or inappropriate.

 

But compare it to Ballard's dealing with the local guys after this year's draft. He invited them into the building, watched film with them, and spent time explaining the team's decisions.

 

Ballard has been more accessible to the media (so far), he's been more engaging, and he comes across as a nice guy (to most people). In doing so, he endeared himself to the media that covers the team, which includes him.

 

You might call that butt kissing; I call it effective media relations.

 

Should a GM necessarily have to endear himself to the local media? I don't think so, but it would obviously influence the way reporters think of him. And I'm sure you can see the difference between Grigson's approach and Ballard's, whether you find one superior to the other or not.

 

Even then, plenty of local media guys are still critical of Ballard's restrained approach this offseason and the way the coaching search went. So it's not like they refuse to disagree with him just because they like him better (to whatever extent that's even true).

 

Quote

I'm still trying to figure out why Reggie thought is was so important for Grigson to talk to him beyond talking to other players.  If you read what Reggie said, that was the problem he had.

 

Reggie wanted to feel like his opinion was valued. As a long time veteran, someone who performed well on the field, probably took less money to stay with the Colts in 2012, and who had a great reputation off the field, that's reasonable. If Grigson dealt with Reggie the way he dealt with Pat, or anything close, I can imagine Reggie not feeling valued. 

 

If you take it at face value, it's not hard to understand. But you have this thing where you have to project ulterior motives onto what people say, especially if you disagree with their stance. Can't just be an honest disagreement; someone has to have an agenda. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, SilentHill said:

 

Not all, but a majority, and i'm not trying to paint them in a negative light. Change is good. There is a shift happening right now in workplace culture. In order to attract young talent, companies are changing their dress code, making the hours flexible, and ditching the kind of shenanigans that Ryan Grigson allegedly pulled on  Pat McAfee, because if they don't? Millennials are more than willing to turn down boatloads of cash and tell their employer to hit the road, and they are going to make it known why they are leaving, and why they feel wronged, because they want transparency.

 

Pat took it another step further when he yelled at Pagano (which was not acceptable), but the Exchange between him and Grigson is a fairly common struggle in old fashioned work environments, and it is happening more and more. Of course as a result you end up with corporate change, which is exactly what happened in Indianapolis.

 

Two main issues with this viewpoint.

 

1) It's probably not true that a majority of millennials act entitled. That's a very broad brush, and there's no way to quantify that statement. It comes off as just an insult to a large group of people because of their age.

 

2) The corporate workplace adjusting to the times isn't a reflection of entitlement. It's just a generational shift. It happens every couple of decades. Workers wanting to have a reasonable dress code, reasonable hours, be paid a reasonable wage and be treated with a reasonable degree of respect isn't a sense of entitlement. It's a sense of self worth.

 

(A little deeper on #2: A big part of this latest shift in the corporate workplace has to do with the increasing prevalence of telecommuting, and the decreased frequency of dealing with customers face to face. That's a technological shift, more than anything else. It's trickled into more casual office environments, and it's manifested in other ways. It's not just because millennials don't want to dress up for work.)

 

This exchange between Grigson and McAfee isn't new, nor is McAfee's response. Just like always, and with anything, a person's response to a difficult is partly a reflection of the quality of their alternatives. That's always been the case. If you have options, you can tell your terrible boss to shove it, and go find another job. This is not unique to the millennial generation. 

[chrisfarley]

I listened to Barstool Sports today on Sirius and David Portnoy was on (founder of Barstool).  He was explaining the Pat McAffee situation.  Said that it was inevitable that Pat would eventually go off and do his own thing.  He said that Pat still owns his Indy office which he called an awesome place and that the other barstool employees that were Pat hires are still in the same building working for Barstool and they have all been offered positions in NYC (or east coast office) and all have accepted those positions (as you have already read about). He said that it was a very difficult thing and that Pat is a mega-star and he will do very well (he repeated that about 5 times).  Said that to be fair to Barstool  , he said that the people that Pat was mad at, and left because of, were not trying to deceive him or rip him off.  But he knows how it could be received that way, etc.  As Pat already said, he has no issues with Portnoy and you could definitely tell that Portnoy respects Pat immensely.  But on the show today, there were other Barstool broadcasters asking David questions about what happened.  So they were definitely in "damage control mode".  Pat's pretty open about stuff but we may never know what really happened.  But with everything, it came down to money changing hands without McAffee's blessing / approval.  Portnoy said McAffee is every sales manager's nightmare, he is very demanding of the Sales staff and is very difficult to deal with in that area.  I'm a Pat M. fan, so I know he will build his own brand in Indy and be a rock-star.  He was making Barstool tons of money (they are a 100 million dollar company according to what Portnoy said today).  

[Tsarquise]

3 hours ago, SilentHill said:

 

An individual thing that is more prevalent among millenials. Are you happy now?

No, I am not happy.

 

What has made you come to that conclusion?

 

I'm a millennial myself, and have been around many millennials, and many fellow millennials I know don't act like this. 

[Defjamz26]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Not disputing what you are saying or your conclusion, but

 

when Grigson did not speak to Reggie, was that the problem, or was it that he didn't speak to other players too?  

 

I'm just trying to figure out why Reggie thought it was so important for the GM to speak to him, but not so much to other players.  

 

Do you get the question?

It’s basically a respect thing that stems from making a good first impression. Wayne is/was a lockeroom leader and Colts legend. At the time when Grigson was hired, Wayne had been there for 12 years. When you’re the new guy in the building it should be your priority to go and talk to your veteran players, especially the one the caliber of Wayne. That’s respect. Sends the wrong message too when you walk past a legend and don’t feel like you need to at least introduce yourself and have a conversation .

[ColtStrong2013]

8 hours ago, SilentHill said:

 

Not all, but a majority, and i'm not trying to paint them in a negative light. Change is good. There is a shift happening right now in workplace culture. In order to attract young talent, companies are changing their dress code, making the hours flexible, and ditching the kind of shenanigans that Ryan Grigson allegedly pulled on  Pat McAfee, because if they don't? Millennials are more than willing to turn down boatloads of cash and tell their employer to hit the road, and they are going to make it known why they are leaving, and why they feel wronged, because they want transparency.

 

Pat took it another step further when he yelled at Pagano (which was not acceptable), but the Exchange between him and Grigson is a fairly common struggle in old fashioned work environments, and it is happening more and more. Of course as a result you end up with corporate change, which is exactly what happened in Indianapolis.

 

And this is relevant to this franchise... extremely relevant. Top free agents, and especially your own draft picks looking for an extension, do not stay in bad environments. If people can't see the difference between how Ballard communicates and runs this organization now versus how Grigson did, they never will. 

[ColtStrong2013]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Two main issues with this viewpoint.

 

1) It's probably not true that a majority of millennials act entitled. That's a very broad brush, and there's no way to quantify that statement. It comes off as just an insult to a large group of people because of their age.

 

2) The corporate workplace adjusting to the times isn't a reflection of entitlement. It's just a generational shift. It happens every couple of decades. Workers wanting to have a reasonable dress code, reasonable hours, be paid a reasonable wage and be treated with a reasonable degree of respect isn't a sense of entitlement. It's a sense of self worth.

 

(A little deeper on #2: A big part of this latest shift in the corporate workplace has to do with the increasing prevalence of telecommuting, and the decreased frequency of dealing with customers face to face. That's a technological shift, more than anything else. It's trickled into more casual office environments, and it's manifested in other ways. It's not just because millennials don't want to dress up for work.)

 

This exchange between Grigson and McAfee isn't new, nor is McAfee's response. Just like always, and with anything, a person's response to a difficult is partly a reflection of the quality of their alternatives. That's always been the case. If you have options, you can tell your terrible boss to shove it, and go find another job. This is not unique to the millennial generation. 

 

I hate to keep nitpicking at you Superman, because you are a great poster and obviously incredibly wise. 

 

However, I disagree with you reverting to the entitlement remarks, as if that is the root of this whole thing. I just don't see it that way. I don't think pat thought he was entitled to be treating like Peyton Manning like someone mentioned on here. I don't think he felt he was entitled to get away with breaking rules. I think he felt he was entitled to be treated a little better than dog crap, which is what Grigson treated he, pagano, and apparently several others in the Colts franchise. Pat had the gonads to stand up to him finally and ultimately walk out. That's not entitlement, that is having guts to make a point. 

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

It’s basically a respect thing that stems from making a good first impression. Wayne is/was a lockeroom leader and Colts legend. At the time when Grigson was hired, Wayne had been there for 12 years. When you’re the new guy in the building it should be your priority to go and talk to your veteran players, especially the one the caliber of Wayne. That’s respect. Sends the wrong message too when you walk past a legend and don’t feel like you need to at least introduce yourself and have a conversation .

Did he talk to Robert Mathis?

 

Has he ever talked with Andrew Luck, Ryan Kelly, AC, DQ Jackson, or Vontae Davis? (I'd avoid that one, VD might have called him Bill Polian)  I don't know.  Seems like the media isn't providing reasonable people enough information to form a conclusion.

 

Maybe the media interviewed Reggie first, got a salacious answer they liked, then stopped.

[DougDew]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's fine to judge that for yourself. I've done the same.

 

If you follow the link, you'll see a story about McAfee's comments after Grigson was fired, where he discussed the contract conversations he had with Grigson early on, and why he thinks Grigson had a problem with him. It's not part of this story he's telling now.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/2/2/14491684/pat-mcafee-opens-up-on-relationship-with-ryan-grigson-he-and-i-did-not-like-each-other-at-all-colts

 

 

Strawman.
 

 

Or how about, people don't like being treated poorly, spoken to condescendingly, etc. Is that really lost on you?

 

You like to compare the reception that Ballard gets to the way people felt about Grigson. Let me highlight one of the differences between their approach, especially as it pertains to the media. 

 

After the 2014 draft, when everyone was hyperventilating about who would play center, and how could Khaled Holmes be the guy if he only played 12 snaps in 2013, and why didn't they draft a center, Grigson responded by saying 'Khaled's our center, we work hard on the draft and we know what we need at that position, we know what Khaled can do because we scouted him, we didn't just watch a bunch of Youtube videos.' That's a loose paraphrase, but it's pretty close. He was dismissive of the local media guys because they were being shortsighted alarmists (which is typical, IMO). I agreed with Grigson, so I'm not saying that his response was wrong, or inappropriate.

 

But compare it to Ballard's dealing with the local guys after this year's draft. He invited them into the building, watched film with them, and spent time explaining the team's decisions.

 

Ballard has been more accessible to the media (so far), he's been more engaging, and he comes across as a nice guy (to most people). In doing so, he endeared himself to the media that covers the team, which includes him.

 

You might call that butt kissing; I call it effective media relations.

 

Should a GM necessarily have to endear himself to the local media? I don't think so, but it would obviously influence the way reporters think of him. And I'm sure you can see the difference between Grigson's approach and Ballard's, whether you find one superior to the other or not.

 

Even then, plenty of local media guys are still critical of Ballard's restrained approach this offseason and the way the coaching search went. So it's not like they refuse to disagree with him just because they like him better (to whatever extent that's even true).

 

 

Reggie wanted to feel like his opinion was valued. As a long time veteran, someone who performed well on the field, probably took less money to stay with the Colts in 2012, and who had a great reputation off the field, that's reasonable. If Grigson dealt with Reggie the way he dealt with Pat, or anything close, I can imagine Reggie not feeling valued. 

 

If you take it at face value, it's not hard to understand. But you have this thing where you have to project ulterior motives onto what people say, especially if you disagree with their stance. Can't just be an honest disagreement; someone has to have an agenda. 

Well, people in the visibility business liked to have their rear smooched, and they believe they get more play if they smooch others.  Not everybody's rear, they only need their audience.

 

AFAIK, the people who hated Grigson the most, local media (who also didn't care for Bill Polian but couldn't really say much because it was Bill Polian) are in the visibility business.

 

Pat McAffee sits on barstools somewhere, so he's in the visibility business.

 

And I've seen Reggie on TV behind a desk on some channel, so he's  got that mindset too.

 

I guess I see a pattern with the people who think he's a jerk.  There may be a lot of them, but it may just be their opinion from how they prioritize personality traits. Afterall, they did agree to be interviewed about the personality of their GM.

 

Just wondering what Luck, AC, DQ, and many other nonvisbility people thought about Grigson's ungregarious personality.

 

And this is a weird discussion, because you then have to take what ever conclusion is drawn, and try to put that into the framework of how important it is anyway. 

 

I would expect the head of ticket sales to be a perpetual smoocher, and try to get a leg up on his employees by throwing the first smooch.  But I'm not sure how important it is for a person in a more calculating position.

 

As far as local media, both Grigson and Polian had contempt no doubt.  And why not?  They're in the pressers posing as reporters to gather information, when they delineate it to the public as an aside and excuse to be in the room, while their real goal is to use it for writing an opinion.  Why would a GM feel its his responsibility to provide info for someone to then write an opinion?  Polian always went to Chris Mortensen and Chris Berman.

 

Its great that Ballard tries to play the media.  But I'd prefer a GM that took the attitude that the media shouldn't have to be played, if they were doing did their jobs.

 

[jvan1973]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Well, people in the visibility business liked to have their rear smooched, and they believe they get more play if they smooch others.  Not everybody's rear, they only need their audience.

 

AFAIK, the people who hated Grigson the most, local media (who also didn't care for Bill Polian but couldn't really say much because it was Bill Polian) are in the visibility business.

 

Pat McAffee sits on barstools somewhere, so he's in the visibility business.

 

And I've seen Reggie on TV behind a desk on some channel, so he's  got that mindset too.

 

I guess I see a pattern with the people who think he's a jerk.  There may be a lot of them, but it may just be their opinion from how they prioritize personality traits. Afterall, they did agree to be interviewed about the personality of their GM.

 

Just wondering what Luck, AC, DQ, and many other nonvisbility people thought about Grigson's ungregarious personality.

 

And this is a weird discussion, because you then have to take what ever conclusion is drawn, and try to put that into the framework of how important it is anyway. 

 

I would expect the head of ticket sales to be a perpetual smoocher, and try to get a leg up on his employees by throwing the first smooch.  But I'm not sure how important it is for a person in a more calculating position.

 

 

 

Are you Ryan Grigson's dad? The dude was a jerk.   No one came out in support for him when he was fired.   Not one player. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Are you Ryan Grigson's dad? The dude was a jerk.   No one came out in support for him when he was fired.   Not one player. 

That's fine.  I have no information by which to conclude he isn't, or is.  I guess others do.  I don't routinely hear players complain about people who are no longer around, unless they are the few who remain in the business to give opinions.  Who knows what players who didn't speak to the media think?

 

[Pacergeek]

Is it in a GM's job description to talk with and befriend players? Grigson did a bad job with roster management, but all these personality attacks are foolish. Doesn't matter if he was a jerk or not

[Pacergeek]

6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

It’s basically a respect thing that stems from making a good first impression. Wayne is/was a lockeroom leader and Colts legend. At the time when Grigson was hired, Wayne had been there for 12 years. When you’re the new guy in the building it should be your priority to go and talk to your veteran players, especially the one the caliber of Wayne. That’s respect. Sends the wrong message too when you walk past a legend and don’t feel like you need to at least introduce yourself and have a conversation .

Reggie Wayne was a football player, not a GM assistant. If Reggie was butt hurt because Ryan did not talk to him, Reggie is being petty. Imagine Marvin Harrison being upset because the new GM did not befriend him. Football players are paid to play football. Period

[Myles]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

Its great that Ballard tries to play the media.  But I'd prefer a GM that took the attitude that the media shouldn't have to be played, if they were doing did their jobs.

 

That's the thing though.  Grigson didn't do his job.   

[Myles]

37 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

Reggie Wayne was a football player, not a GM assistant. If Reggie was butt hurt because Ryan did not talk to him, Reggie is being petty. Imagine Marvin Harrison being upset because the new GM did not befriend him. Football players are paid to play football. Period

Grigson should have talked to Wayne.   Imagine a new GM in Green Bay not ever taking the minute to talk to Aaron Rodgers.   That would be weird, right?   

I think this is just another piece to the puzzle of what kind of a guy Grigson was.  

[DougDew]

29 minutes ago, Myles said:

That's the thing though.  Grigson didn't do his job.   

No.  I meant if the media did their jobs in a way where they didn't have to be "played" the right way.

 

Seriously, the beat writers pretend to ask questions to get vital information to the public, when everybody in the room knows the reason they ask it is to write an opinion about it. 

 

Why would a GM not treat the media with contempt?  Ballard, smooches them, and plays the "play them" game.  It gets favorable press, but he loses respect in my book.  Polian and Grigson treated the local media more appropriately.  And Polian always went to the national guys, Mortensen and Bermann, for that reason, partially.

 

I mean, the way in which Grigson handled himself at pressers indicates he's a normally principled guy to me, not a jerk.   He may be a jerk overall, but they way in which he treated the two faced beat reporters wouldn't indicate it.  Like the way he treated Pat, its appropriate to treat annoying self righteous players and two faced media types like jerks.  Its correct behavior in those instances.  If it were me, I'd launch the first salvo every time I saw them.

[Myles]

25 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No.  I meant if the media did their jobs in a way where they didn't have to be "played" the right way.

 

Seriously, the beat writers pretend to ask questions to get vital information to the public, when everybody in the room knows the reason they ask it is to write an opinion about it. 

 

Why would a GM not treat the media with contempt?  Ballard, smooches them, and plays the "play them" game.  It gets favorable press, but he loses respect in my book.  Polian and Grigson treated the local media more appropriately.  And Polian always went to the national guys, Mortensen and Bermann, for that reason, partially.

 

I mean, the way in which Grigson handled himself at pressers indicates he's a normally principled guy to me, not a jerk.   He may be a jerk overall, but they way in which he treated the two faced beat reporters wouldn't indicate it.  Like the way he treated Pat, its appropriate to treat annoying self righteous players and two faced media types like jerks.  Its correct behavior in those instances.  If it were me, I'd launch the first salvo every time I saw them.

I see it the other way.   While I don't care for sports reporters and know that are out for the best click bait they can find, they are not going anywhere.   They are part of the job that both Grigson and Ballard agreed to.   Ballard mans up and takes care of it.  Grigson was petty and didn't.  

[Defjamz26]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Did he talk to Robert Mathis?

 

Has he ever talked with Andrew Luck, Ryan Kelly, AC, DQ Jackson, or Vontae Davis? (I'd avoid that one, VD might have called him Bill Polian)  I don't know.  Seems like the media isn't providing reasonable people enough information to form a conclusion.

 

Maybe the media interviewed Reggie first, got a salacious answer they liked, then stopped.

Well no, this wasn’t a media story. This was directly from Wayne’s mouth. This isn’t a media story. These are statements directly from players. That’s what gives it all the more credence. As other posters have said, if it was false Grigson could come out and say so. But he hasn’t.

[DougDew]

14 minutes ago, Myles said:

I see it the other way.   While I don't care for sports reporters and know that are out for the best click bait they can find, they are not going anywhere.   They are part of the job that both Grigson and Ballard agreed to.   Ballard mans up and takes care of it.  Grigson was petty and didn't.  

Yeah, you singled out a phrase that I realize I worded poorly.  

 

What I meant is that if you want neutral or positive opinions, or slanted that way during a period of bad results, you need to play the media a certain way constantly.  Ballard probably chooses to approach pressers that way more than the past two GMS.

 

If you don't play them the correct way, expect opinions to be negative and to not get much slack during periods of bad results.

 

When I look to the context of how the media and Pat, (can't really explain Reggie) perpetually treat Grigson, I don't really consider it to be neutral data from which to form an opinion one way or the other.   I think Grigson made his feelings known, and in return, that influences their opinion of him.  Like I said, I don't have a problem with how Grigson treated either the media or Pat, considering who they are, even if he started it.  I've never heard of him treating Luck the same way.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Well no, this wasn’t a media story. This was directly from Wayne’s mouth. This isn’t a media story. These are statements directly from players. That’s what gives it all the more credence. As other posters have said, if it was false Grigson could come out and say so. But he hasn’t.

I was equating Reggie with being a media person, which he now is I believe.  I doubt that Grigson is really interested in refuting the opinions of the people involved.  I don't think he cared much about their opinions when he was here.  Maybe that's what makes him a jerk.

 

My overall point is that I don't hear reports that he treated the other players the same way, or they don't feel it rises to the level of mattering enough to them to say something in public.  Apparently, it mattered enough to Pat and Reggie.  That's a difference that shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

Perhaps the root of it was that both players thought they were worth more money than Grigson did, since I think both went through a period of contract limbo for a while.  Maybe there was a better meeting of the minds with Mathis' contract, and DQ's.

[Defjamz26]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I was equating Reggie with being a media person, which he now is I believe.  I doubt that Grigson is really interested in refuting the opinions of the people involved.  I don't think he cared much about their opinions when he was here.  Maybe that's what makes him a jerk.

 

My overall point is that I don't hear reports that he treated the other players the same way, or they don't feel it rises to the level of mattering enough to them to say something in public.  Apparently, it mattered enough to Pat and Reggie.  That's a difference that shouldn't go unnoticed.

The reason why you don’t hear reports are because there are none. Everything is coming from the players. It’s not just Mcafee and Wayne. Jerell Freeman and others have come out and said things. This isn’t some isolated issue where only 2 players felt some type of way.

[PrincetonTiger]

Who cares this is 2018

   Grigson, McAfee et. al are ancient history 

[Restored]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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.

 

You're doing a lot of inferring and reaching here but I understand the sentiments. Pat isn't the most humble guy in the room and has a bit of an ego. The deeper issue is that this type of treatment he got from the organization (mainly Grigson) wasn't just an isolated issue and appears to be one of a long string of incidents that aren't just unique to Pat. When we put it in that context, its easier to understand why he reacted this way in that moment.

 

Not saying that Pat wasn't already like this in terms of his personality traits, but its tough to not think that Grigson and co. drove him to act out in this way at the end. We see it all the time in everyday business cases where management continually berates and belittles employees to the point of where they can't stand it anymore like we saw here with Pat.

[PrincetonTiger]

The Tiger Digest Version

 

  2016- Grigson was wrong, Pat was wrong

  2018- Both are gone and it is time for football 

   This Argument is not productive and a waste of time for all

[Myles]

57 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

The reason why you don’t hear reports are because there are none. Everything is coming from the players. It’s not just Mcafee and Wayne. Jerell Freeman and others have come out and said things. This isn’t some isolated issue where only 2 players felt some type of way.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.     There is enough out there to make an educated guess on what type of guy Grigson was.    From all the players comments to needing psychologists to try to help him get along with Pagano.  

[RollerColt]

I'm seeing a lot of political undertones in this thread...