Pat McAffee Story in IndyStar

[Superman]

4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

 

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. 

 

I think maybe you missed the initial exchange between me and SilentHill. That has become about more than McAfee.

 

But I agree with you, Pat standing up for himself against a bully-like GM isn't indicative of a sense of entitlement. Like I said, it's having a sense of self worth, and I have no problem with McAfee deciding he didn't want to work for or with Grigson anymore. 

[DougDew]

1 hour 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.

Yes, reading what the player said.  I wasn't there first hand so I don't call it first hand experience.  We're probably just calling it by different words.

 

Ok, there's another name. Freeman.

 

Didn't Wayne, Pat, and Freeman all have less than smooth contract negotiations?  OTOH, I think Mathis' went fairly smoothly.

 

And when you say "others have come out".  I have read that there were a few office types in Philly that said they were "surprised" he got the job.  (Of course its said in a way that reflects poorly on Grigson).   I would have said that it was surprising Irsay chose to hire him.  (but that would read bad towards Irsay).

 

So who are the "others"?  People who interviewed for the job too, but didn't get it? 

 

I hope not folks like Colin Cowherd count as a source, because he would simply be repeating what Pat and Reggie said.  Basically, the same statements repeated by many different people isn't the same thing as many people saying it, right?

 

So far we have three players, all who were in less than smooth contracts negotiations, plus some other people.  And 97% of the other people he dealt with saying nothing.  And yet the entire sports world seems to think Grigson being a jerk is common knowledge.  I just can't see how they get there.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

...

 

 

Again, if you take it at face value rather than projecting ulterior motives and agendas, it's not hard to understand. People don't like to be spoken to condescendingly or treated unfairly. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Restored said:

 

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.

 

Well yeah, I'm definitely reading into what Pat says happened, and stating my opinion on it.

 

And it's not hard to see how Grigson's treatment of Pat could have pushed him over the edge. But this story makes Pat look bad, and this is Pat's version. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this story and Pat's telling of it are indicative of parts of Pat's personality. 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Pacergeek said:

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

 

It does matter if he was a jerk, and in this case, possibly a petty, vindictive, and unprofessional jerk. 

 

If you're a scout who spends his time on the road alone, I'm not too concerned with your personality (though it could impact your ability to gain access and do your job effectively). Even if you're a pro scout in the building, or a personnel director who mostly scouts and manages scouts -- which is Grigson's background -- you're not running the entire football operation, so a gruff personality doesn't have a much of a bearing on your job duties.

 

As GM, Grigson was the leader of the football operation. Every member of the team answered to him. The word "manager" was in his title. Leadership is implied, and good character is necessary to be an effective leader and manager. The ability to relate to and motivate your employees, and hold them accountable, is part of the job. 

 

And there's a huge chasm between befriending players and not actively antagonizing them. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Looks like the retelling “stunt” was to get hits on his Podcast

[Valpo2004]

On 9/5/2018 at 10:28 AM, DougDew said:

But the punter was essentially telling the GM he sucks at evaluating other talent, because he accused him of causing the QB to get hurt.  It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, how does the punter feel like its his right to tell the GM that he sucks at his job?

 

Entitled is a word that explains somethings.  But crazy or drunk would explain this.

 

How does the GM feel like it's his right to tell the punter that taking a picture in the equipment room is the reason why the team is losing.  

 

Don't get me wrong if the rules say don't take pics in the equipment room and Pat does then he has every right to fine him.  

 

But he went beyond that and blamed Pat's pictures for a loss.  Grigson's disrespect of Pat came before Pat's disrespect of Grigson.  Grigson's not entitled to disrespect Pat just because he's the GM. 

 

Now most of us might have to put up with crap from the boss because we need to keep our jobs.  But Pat had enough money to live on for the rest of his life and probably could have found another team anyways if he was fired.  So Pat didn't have to take it.

 

 

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

How does the GM feel like it's his right to tell the punter that taking a picture in the equipment room is the reason why the team is losing.  

 

Don't get me wrong if the rules say don't take pics in the equipment room and Pat does then he has every right to fine him.  

 

But he went beyond that and blamed Pat's pictures for a loss.  Grigson's disrespect of Pat came before Pat's disrespect of Grigson.  Grigson's not entitled to disrespect Pat just because he's the GM. 

 

Now most of us might have to put up with crap from the boss because we need to keep our jobs.  But Pat had enough money to live on for the rest of his life and probably could have found another team anyways if he was fired.  So Pat didn't have to take it.

 

 

What bothered me was not the incident( I actually commend PM for standing up) but the timing of the retelling 

[Restored]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Well yeah, I'm definitely reading into what Pat says happened, and stating my opinion on it.

 

And it's not hard to see how Grigson's treatment of Pat could have pushed him over the edge. But this story makes Pat look bad, and this is Pat's version. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this story and Pat's telling of it are indicative of parts of Pat's personality. 

 

Oh of course. Pat certainly has a reputation in regards to his personality but his reaction and story really is highly reflective of a fairly common practice in businesses today:

 

Disgruntled and under appreciated employee blows up on head management after string of incidents.

[Valpo2004]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It does matter if he was a jerk, and in this case, possibly a petty, vindictive, and unprofessional jerk. 

 

If you're a scout who spends his time on the road alone, I'm not too concerned with your personality (though it could impact your ability to gain access and do your job effectively). Even if you're a pro scout in the building, or a personnel director who mostly scouts and manages scouts -- which is Grigson's background -- you're not running the entire football operation, so a gruff personality doesn't have a much of a bearing on your job duties.

 

As GM, Grigson was the leader of the football operation. Every member of the team answered to him. The word "manager" was in his title. Leadership is implied, and good character is necessary to be an effective leader and manager. The ability to relate to and motivate your employees, and hold them accountable, is part of the job. 

 

And there's a huge chasm between befriending players and not actively antagonizing them. 

 

This. . . 

 

The turning point for me in the story is that Grigson tells Pat that they are losing because of his social media behavior.

 

Listen if the rules say no pics in the equipment room it's perfectly ok with me to fine him for it.  Rules apply to everyone.

 

But that's a pretty minor rule violation that has nothing to do with on the field play.  To blame that and Pat by extension for losing is where this turns from a boss disciplining an employee for a minor violation to complete disrespect of that employee which Pat, having money and options did not have to take laying down.

 

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Restored said:

 

Oh of course. Pat certainly has a reputation in regards to his personality but his reaction and story really is highly reflective of a fairly common practice in businesses today:

 

Disgruntled and under appreciated employee blows up on head management after string of incidents.

  In most cases they then find themselves on the unemployment office

[Valpo2004]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

What bothered me was not the incident( I actually commend PM for standing up) but the timing of the retelling 

 

Meh I think a lot of times where head leadership is causing major problems because of their personality these kind of stories take a long time to get out.  

 

Everyone seemed to notice that Pat didn't like Grigson after Grigs was let go.  I think it's ok to fill in the background a little bit. 

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It does matter if he was a jerk, and in this case, possibly a petty, vindictive, and unprofessional jerk. 

 

If you're a scout who spends his time on the road alone, I'm not too concerned with your personality (though it could impact your ability to gain access and do your job effectively). Even if you're a pro scout in the building, or a personnel director who mostly scouts and manages scouts -- which is Grigson's background -- you're not running the entire football operation, so a gruff personality doesn't have a much of a bearing on your job duties.

 

As GM, Grigson was the leader of the football operation. Every member of the team answered to him. The word "manager" was in his title. Leadership is implied, and good character is necessary to be an effective leader and manager. The ability to relate to and motivate your employees, and hold them accountable, is part of the job. 

 

And there's a huge chasm between befriending players and not actively antagonizing them. 

But not befriending some players and maybe others, to the extent a cold fish like Grigson is capable of,  is not the same thing as poor character, unprofessionalism, or any other extrapolation into a rabbit hole of evilness.  If some employees are too sensitive, maybe their perception of events is off, or are part of the problem and need to leave as well....see Jonathan Martin.

 

If he doesn't think the player is worth the money, and made it clear during negotiations, there is going to be less friendly c h i t-chatting in the hallway than others.  A cold fish like Grigson probably isn't able to make make-shift small talk look sincere, so he probably just avoided it, especially with a few players.

 

Its obvious he and Pat butted heads in terms of personality.   I wouldn't even call the version of what Pat described a lack of character or unprofessional (to any significant degree).

 

Besides, I doubt that his management style had much to with how the oline executed blocking schemes. 

 

This entire IndyStar article is simply a feel good validation ploy for those who were outspoken about it way back when.  I'm sure the Star will be coming out with opinion based articles about other Colts matters, and this is brought out to help the reader think the Star's opinions are correct, by reasserting old information into an old issue they previously opined on.  Why else bring this tale up now.

[PrincetonTiger]

11 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Meh I think a lot of times where head leadership is causing major problems because of their personality these kind of stories take a long time to get out.  

 

Everyone seemed to notice that Pat didn't like Grigson after Grigs was let go.  I think it's ok to fill in the background a little bit. 

Yes but

   He and  Grigson were not employed by the Colts last year

      Tell All Stories that take time often involve protracted court cases(gag orders) or some know nd of loyalty

 

   From what I see outside the market is that this was to deflect questions about his leaving Barstool and/or promote his podcast

 

    On a Personal and Professional level in TigerTown this retelling can send a negative message and possibly tarnish the Horseshoe

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

How does the GM feel like it's his right to tell the punter that taking a picture in the equipment room is the reason why the team is losing.  

 

Don't get me wrong if the rules say don't take pics in the equipment room and Pat does then he has every right to fine him.  

 

But he went beyond that and blamed Pat's pictures for a loss.  Grigson's disrespect of Pat came before Pat's disrespect of Grigson.  Grigson's not entitled to disrespect Pat just because he's the GM. 

 

Now most of us might have to put up with crap from the boss because we need to keep our jobs.  But Pat had enough money to live on for the rest of his life and probably could have found another team anyways if he was fired.  So Pat didn't have to take it.

 

 

Its not right for Grigson to tell him that, as a function of being GM.  But who knows if it impacted Pat in any professional way, and was simply an effort to get under his skin on a personal level.   

 

I doubt Grigson actually believed it, unless he felt Pat made a bad kickoff or punt at a critical time and thought he should be more focused rather than goofing around.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yes, reading what the player said.  I wasn't there first hand so I don't call it first hand experience.  We're probably just calling it by different words.

 

Ok, there's another name. Freeman.

 

Didn't Wayne, Pat, and Freeman all have less than smooth contract negotiations?  OTOH, I think Mathis' went fairly smoothly.

 

And when you say "others have come out".  I have read that there were a few office types in Philly that said they were "surprised" he got the job.  (Of course its said in a way that reflects poorly on Grigson).   I would have said that it was surprising Irsay chose to hire him.  (but that would read bad towards Irsay).

 

So who are the "others"?  People who interviewed for the job too, but didn't get it? 

 

I hope not folks like Colin Cowherd count as a source, because he would simply be repeating what Pat and Reggie said.  Basically, the same statements repeated by many different people isn't the same thing as many people saying it, right?

 

So far we have three players, all who were in less than smooth contracts negotiations, plus some other people.  And 97% of the other people he dealt with saying nothing.  And yet the entire sports world seems to think Grigson being a jerk is common knowledge.  I just can't see how they get there.

So it seems like you’re suggesting that the people who spoke out for him had ulterior motives for talking about him. That’s very short sighted. You’re basically accusing the players of lacking the ability to be genuine. The fact that Wayne, who is as quiet and humble as it gets opened up about his GM after being nothing but a dedicated horseshoe player for 15 years should tell you that’s not the case. If he ruffled Wayne’s feathers enough for him to go out and say something, then that’s very telling.

 

If you still need further insight, here’s Wayne’s full comments:

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/ContentGallery/Reaction-to-the-firing-of-Indianapolis-Colts-general-manager-Ryan-Grigson-50717716/

 

Here’s Freeman after he left for the Bears:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox59.com/2016/10/05/colts-notebook-jerrell-freeman-didnt-take-departure-personal-but/amp/

 

Wesley Saunders

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/football/afc-south/indianapolis-colts/pat-mcafee-twitter-ryan-grigson/amp

 

There are some other players too but I can’t find them. I’m sure some of the other members remember.

[bluebombers87]

7 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

So it seems like you’re suggesting that the people who spoke out for him had ulterior motives for talking about him. That’s very short sighted. You’re basically accusing the players of lacking the ability to be genuine. The fact that Wayne, who is as quiet and humble as it gets opened up about his GM after being nothing but a dedicated horseshoe player for 15 years should tell you that’s not the case. If he ruffled Wayne’s feathers enough for him to go out and say something, then that’s very telling.

 

If you still need further insight, here’s Wayne’s full comments:

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/ContentGallery/Reaction-to-the-firing-of-Indianapolis-Colts-general-manager-Ryan-Grigson-50717716/

 

Here’s Freeman after he left for the Bears:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox59.com/2016/10/05/colts-notebook-jerrell-freeman-didnt-take-departure-personal-but/amp/

 

Wesley Saunders

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/football/afc-south/indianapolis-colts/pat-mcafee-twitter-ryan-grigson/amp

 

There are some other players too but I can’t find them. I’m sure some of the other members remember.

This.

 

Reggie Wayne could tell me Grigson punted kittens and I’d probably believe it.

 

Wayne was the epitome of class in this organization. He deserved better from the bad leader that was Grigson. He deserves to be believed over Grigson. Character counts.

[SilentHill]

On 9/5/2018 at 11:05 PM, 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 think we have a disconnect here. I'm not calling millennials entitled, but you can't argue the fact that these type of actions are becoming more prevalent, which is probably due to the options out there for employment, so you can tell your terrible boss to "shove it".

[Superman]

5 hours ago, SilentHill said:

 

I think we have a disconnect here. I'm not calling millennials entitled, but you can't argue the fact that these type of actions are becoming more prevalent, which is probably due to the options out there for employment, so you can tell your terrible boss to "shove it".

 

Yeah, maybe so. Which actions do you mean?

 

I don't think walking on a bad job is a millennial thing, but I do think there are more career options now than previous generations had to choose from. 

 

I also don't think millennials are walking from good jobs because they want to wear flip flops to the office. 

[Fluke_33]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:40 PM, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Nice!   And now I have the joe Jackson song everything gives you cancer stuck in my head.  

 

 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Talk about beating a dead horse.

[Myles]

2 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

Nice!   And now I have the joe Jackson song everything gives you cancer stuck in my head.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Fluke_33]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

 

 

 

So good!

[BR-549]

 

[Myles]

17 hours ago, BR-549 said:

 

Funny thing is, I thought Vanderjagt was right.

[BR-549]

7 hours ago, Myles said:

Funny thing is, I thought Vanderjagt was right.

I hear ya ....

 

I remember watching that live .... kinda wish AL was a little more assertive like PM is/ was but he has his own style I suppose.  And... wins are wins and that is what we all want.

 

I prefer the "matter of fact" and outspoken leadership qualities or personalities more than what I have noticed from Andrew.  That doesn't mean he does not posses those qualities, because I don't know for sure, from what I have seen however, he appears to be more relaxed and quiet than PM was.

 

I inserted the video because this topic drew so much attention and, well Pat could be considered and * kicker by some so it seemed relative.  I don't feel that way, I like Pat although I think he could have handled these situations differently - more professionally and responsibly.   

 

It feels like more of a "Pat" problem than a manager/ boss problem.  Even though RG is likely a bigger Richard than most of us even know.

[crazycolt1]

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:54 PM, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Talk about beating a dead horse.

Yeah I agree.  While I like Patty Mac a lot and what he brought to the game. With that said how long is he going to milk the Grigson issue for laughs?  In the end Grigson got fired so Patty Mac could have went that route just get laughs?