Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Sign in to follow this  
CurBeatElite

McAfee on Grigs

Recommended Posts

This is kinda funny -- McAfee on how locker rooms deal with trades.  I think he meant the Colts released (not traded) AQ Shipley because Grigs wanted to keep Satele who he overpaid.  He doesn't say Grigs exactly, but you can tell that when Chuck called the team together to tell them 'these things happen, people above you make decisions and you have to trust it..'   Maybe this should go into the recent thread about Chuck... but this is just one case of Grigs' ego getting in the way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, that whole ordeal... with Shipley not playing, and eventually being traded, was a real downer for the fans at that time as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it’s not a coincidence Bruce Arians, the OC then, knew what Shipley brought to the table and got him there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

McAfee has made his dislike for Grigs known for years.

 

Ya, there was some chat about this in the recent thread about if Pagano was really a bad HC.  I'm not saying Chuck was the best coach of all time, but how bad would that suck if you are a head coach and your GM is cutting away your solid players because he overpaid other players, or benching players for guys he made bad moves on (see Trent Richardson for example).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

McAfee has made his dislike for Grigs known for years.


When he has to dip into his playing years experience, he gets his shot when he can, no doubt. But then, I’m sure he wishes things turned out differently and he was still playing. He was/is passionate with everything he does, that makes him endearing to fans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CurBeatElite said:

 

Ya, there was some chat about this in the recent thread about if Pagano was really a bad HC.  I'm not saying Chuck was the best coach of all time, but how bad would that suck if you are a head coach and your GM is cutting away your solid players because he overpaid other players, or benching players for guys he made bad moves on (see Trent Richardson for example).


There’s a reason why Grigson was let go first and Chuck still enjoys a higher level coaching position than Grigson in the scouting circle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAfee has no love for Grigson...   as others have noticed, it’s quite the opposite.

 

At some point, McAfee’s contract was up and he was negotiating for a new deal.  Grigson was a spectacular jerk in negotiations.   A deal was NOT getting done.   The dollars were not close.   It took Irsay to step in and get the deal done.   Grigson was reportedly NOT happy with the contract Irsay gave McAfee.  
 

Plenty of players had problems with Grigson on how he conducted his business.   It wasn’t just a select few.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chad72 said:


When he has to dip into his playing years experience, he gets his shot when he can, no doubt. But then, I’m sure he wishes things turned out differently and he was still playing. He was/is passionate with everything he does, that makes him endearing to fans.

I am not saying Pat is wrong or doesn’t have just cause.  I am just saying Pat really doesn’t like Grigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grigson ruined the career of one of the best prospects in decades, mainly because h was too stubborn to protect him.  
 

It’s fitting that the Browns hired him...again.  Perfect fit, worst owner in the league, And the worst city.  He fits right in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

McAfee has made his dislike for Grigs known for years.

It's more like hatred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah McAfee isn't a fan of Grigs, but who was? 

 

That dude set this franchise back quite a long time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grigson was obviously bad, but Shipley remains one of the most overrated Colts of the last decade.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Grigson ruined the career of one of the best prospects in decades, mainly because h was too stubborn to protect him.  
 

It’s fitting that the Browns hired him...again.  Perfect fit, worst owner in the league, And the worst city.  He fits right in.  

He wasn't too stubborn to protect him....he really did try. He was just horrible at getting the right players to do it.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

Grigson was obviously bad, but Shipley remains one of the most overrated Colts of the last decade.

 

 Satelle had a very solid 2nd year here.
 Shipley was very medicocre and not a good fit to dress on Sundays as a backup becaue he couldn't play guard. Very replaceable.
 Sorry Pat, your friendship is showing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterBowman said:

He wasn't too stubborn to protect him....he really did try. He was just horrible at getting the right players to do it.  

 

It was a bit of both but it wasn't til his last draft that he made a specific point of drafting OL.  

 

Prior to that 2012 to 2015 drafts, 4 years, most of those while watching Luck taking a pounding he spent a grand total of 2 - day 2 picks on OL.  In those 4 years he spent 1 2nd round pick on a OL and 1 3rd round pick on an OL.  Never spent a first until his last draft.  

 

Sure he had a few late round picks that he drafted OL, but if you are waiting til the 4th round or later to pick up OL you can't tell me that you've made it a priority.  

 

Sure there are a couple instances where he simply tried and failed.  Goster Cherilus in FA being one, Donald Thomas being anther one mainly due to injury.  

 

But even so you can make a very strong argument IMO that it should have been a greater priority given the severity of the beating that Luck was taking.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

It was a bit of both but it wasn't til his last draft that he made a specific point of drafting OL.  

 

Prior to that 2012 to 2015 drafts, 4 years, most of those while watching Luck taking a pounding he spent a grand total of 2 - day 2 picks on OL.  In those 4 years he spent 1 2nd round pick on a OL and 1 3rd round pick on an OL.  Never spent a first until his last draft.  

 

Sure he had a few late round picks that he drafted OL, but if you are waiting til the 4th round or later to pick up OL you can't tell me that you've made it a priority.  

 

Sure there are a couple instances where he simply tried and failed.  Goster Cherilus in FA being one, Donald Thomas being anther one mainly due to injury.  

 

But even so you can make a very strong argument IMO that it should have been a greater priority given the severity of the beating that Luck was taking.  

 

 

Cherilus was a good signing at the time and so was Donald Thomas...I was at the game that Thomas got his freak injury. He would have been solid but that injury killed it. But yes I agree that Grigson could've done more in the draft.....before Kelly, I'm not sure what lineman were available in the draft that Grigson passed on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat's still talking about AQ Shipley?  

 

Grigs was right.  Pat's personality peaked about 10 years ago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Pat's still talking about AQ Shipley?  

 

Grigs was right.  Pat's personality peaked about 10 years ago.  

He's just giving an example in response to a question he was asked, he's not going out of his way to bring it up out of nowhere.

 

There are extremely few situations where one can say "Grigs was right" and this is certainly not one of them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

He's just giving an example in response to a question he was asked, he's not going out of his way to bring it up out of nowhere.

 

There are extremely few situations where one can say "Grigs was right" and this is certainly not one of them

 

It was amazing back then how many folks got so upset over the Shipley/Satele thing, then understood in about every other similar situation the guy who is getting paid starters money is the guy who starts, especially when the other guy is basically the same mediocre player.

 

That Satele/Shipley thing was always just an excuse to validate already thinly formed hate for Grigson.   Saw it right off at the time.  Looks even more that way in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

It was amazing back then how many folks got so upset over the Shipley/Satele thing, then understood in about every other similar situation the guy who is getting paid starters money is the guy who starts, especially when the other guy is basically the same mediocre player.

 

That Satele/Shipley thing was always just an excuse to validate already thinly formed hate for Grigson.   Saw it right off at the time.  Looks even more that way in hindsight.

Not necessarily.  A good GM should park his ego and let the coach play whoever is best.  For example, the Seahawks gave Matt Flynn a 3 year, $26 mil deal with $10 mil guaranteed, only to have him be the backup because rookie Russell Wilson was a better option.  The coach and GM parked their egos and let the best players play, regardless of contract.

 

Say what you want about Shipley. He wasn't an All-Pro, but he was certainly better than Satele.  I disagree that it was an excuse to validate the hate. I think it was another reason to hate Grigs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

It was a bit of both but it wasn't til his last draft that he made a specific point of drafting OL.  

 

Prior to that 2012 to 2015 drafts, 4 years, most of those while watching Luck taking a pounding he spent a grand total of 2 - day 2 picks on OL.  In those 4 years he spent 1 2nd round pick on a OL and 1 3rd round pick on an OL.  Never spent a first until his last draft.  

Not particularly defending him but isn't it also worth noting that he inherited a 1st rounder on the line as well? We didn't need a left tackle for the whole of Grigson's tenure.

 

By the end of his spell we could quite easily have finished up with a line that went...

 

1st rounder

2nd rounder 

1st rounder

3rd rounder 

Premier free agent 

 

Which is more resource than most teams spend on a line.

 

It's not that he didn't focus on it. A combination of serious injuries coupled with a few misses really let us down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

Not particularly defending him but isn't it also worth noting that he inherited a 1st rounder on the line as well? We didn't need a left tackle for the whole of Grigson's tenure.

 

By the end of his spell we could quite easily have finished up with a line that went...

 

1st rounder

2nd rounder 

1st rounder

3rd rounder 

Premier free agent 

 

Which is more resource than most teams spend on a line.

 

It's not that he didn't focus on it. A combination of serious injuries coupled with a few misses really let us down.

 

Could have. . . problem was that he continued his non-investment after it became clear that some of those guys where not going to work out.  

 

Say Braden Smith didn't work out for some reason.  By now Ballard is scouting day 1 and 2 OL in search of someone who will workout.

 

Hugh Thornton was drafted in 2013.  2 years later in 2015 it should be clear that Huge Thornton is not going to be a decent starter.  Lets add that to the fact that at this point Grigs still doesn't have a decent center or right tackle (Cherilus had also busted by this point.)  Only Castanzo who he inherited and Mewhort are actually working out to some extent.  So you are still missing starters in 3 spots.

 

Grigson drafts Good in the 7th round and brings in no one else new on the OL.

 

On 2/20/2020 at 12:38 PM, PeterBowman said:

Cherilus was a good signing at the time and so was Donald Thomas...I was at the game that Thomas got his freak injury. He would have been solid but that injury killed it. But yes I agree that Grigson could've done more in the draft.....before Kelly, I'm not sure what lineman were available in the draft that Grigson passed on. 

 

2013.  Grigson Drafts Bjorn Werner.  Travis Frederick is still on the board.  

2014 Grigson had traded for Trent Richardson - Joel Bitonio is still on the board

2014  Grigson drafts Donte Moncrief in the 3rd round.  Trai Turner is still on the board

2015  Grigson drafts Phillip Doresett in the first.  Donovan Smith and Ali Marpet are still on the board.

 

Some of those might have been considered reaches at the time, especially Marpet.  

 

That was just a cursory search.  Point was, he didn't make it a priority.

 

Let me be clear I'm not saying he IGNORED the OL (as in never ever tried).  But he didn't make it a priority (as in fix this first than the rest.)

 

And when you have found yourself a franchise QB, keeping your franchise QB alive by giving him a functional line should be a priority.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CanuckColt said:

Grigson was a scout experimenting at playing GM.

And the experiment failed miserably,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 5:35 PM, DougDew said:

 

It was amazing back then how many folks got so upset over the Shipley/Satele thing, then understood in about every other similar situation the guy who is getting paid starters money is the guy who starts, especially when the other guy is basically the same mediocre player.

 

That Satele/Shipley thing was always just an excuse to validate already thinly formed hate for Grigson.   Saw it right off at the time.  Looks even more that way in hindsight.

Who had the better career?  I know you're a grigson apologist.   But answer the question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 2:35 PM, DougDew said:

 

It was amazing back then how many folks got so upset over the Shipley/Satele thing, then understood in about every other similar situation the guy who is getting paid starters money is the guy who starts, especially when the other guy is basically the same mediocre player.

 

That Satele/Shipley thing was always just an excuse to validate already thinly formed hate for Grigson.   Saw it right off at the time.  Looks even more that way in hindsight.

According to Pat this created a problem in the locker room.  Quite a few players were not happy.  

 

Maybe you misdiagnosed the problem then and now?  We don't know what all goes in in the locker room/off field.  If this move really caused some issues in the locker room then maybe Shipley seemed like the better player to the rest of the team.  If the rest of the team felt he gave them the best chance of winning this might not be an excuse at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not trying to be argumentative but you simplifying this issue is not the reality of it all. Not only are there 53 players plus 10 practice squad players (90 in training camp) there are how many others around a NFL team? Doctors, trainers, coaches, assistant coaches, coordinators and whoever else. Just the sheer space need to keep social distance is impossible.  All of these people have families away from a locker room so it's not like they are going to be quarantined.  How about the mental aspect of the players? Can the players put all of this out of their thought process when their mindset has to be 100% about the game itself?  We are always reminded about distractions in the locker room and how it can have a negative effect.  IMO this goes much deeper than what can and can't be controlled.   
    • Its funny you say that.... I feel the same......   Strange times......
    • I would tend to agree   There is significant $$ moving around so I believe there will be a season of some sort.... maybe shortened.....   I think the NFL union may hold the players back from competing until there is a resolution or some protection.   We are seeing a crazy jump in new cases in Texas. (My daughter just tested positive   she is ok now)    If we are in mid August and the new cases in Covid starts to drop AND the death rates are dropping we may see a season.....   If not..... we may see a start in Oct......   Who knows....    
    • There is a big difference. After they all get initially tested the chances of it spreading among players is low. With the amount of times they will be tested and the fact none are going to even get in the facility with even a slight cough until they are tested the chances of it spreading is pretty small. Yes initially there will be some. I don’t even believe there are all these asystematic  cases. I think there are a lot of false positives. Which is why the nfl has a different protocol for them.
  • Members

    • ClaytonColt

      ClaytonColt 499

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 8,940

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JPPT1974

      JPPT1974 930

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jmac_48

      jmac_48 524

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Architects08

      Architects08 306

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...