Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2021 at 7:27 PM, DEFENSE said:

ballard 4 years won 32 lost 32

grigson 5 years won 49 lost 31

ballard 4 years playoff wins 1

grigson 5 years playoff wins 3

and i didnt like grigson

Grigson inherited a dominant team and left a mess behind him.

 

Ballard inherited a mess and has cleaned up Grigson's disaster brilliantly and without sacrificing the future for the present.

 

What Grigson did was flashy and exciting, but completely unsustainable.  He basically burnt Luck out by exploiting him mercilessly without offering him any actual support.  And it wound up destroying Luck completely and leaving the franchise firmly in football purgatory.

 

Ballard is rebuilding the foundation of the franchise for maximum sustainability and WILL see success based on his work in the near future.  If nothing else he's creating a franchise where a few splash moves can make a big difference.

 

If we had not secured Ballard's services the Colts would be in the basement competing for #1 picks right now.  Grigson totally bottomed us out.  It's a pity that Ballard's moves to save Luck came too late, but that's on Grigson's failure to bother with the offensive line.  At the end of the day Ballard gave Luck the best shot he could possibly have to come back.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ballard is a lot better  Nice attempt though 

Grigson had Luck. Ballard has built you an all around better team. 

ballard 4 years won 32 lost 32 grigson 5 years won 49 lost 31 ballard 4 years playoff wins 1 grigson 5 years playoff wins 3 and i didnt like grigson

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Ballard is rebuilding the foundation of the franchise for maximum sustainability and WILL see success based on his work in the near future.

Agreed!!  Why some cannot see or admit this is beyond my comprehension.  If you are a fan of the Colts, why a continual negative attitude towards those attempting and successfully rebuilding this franchise?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I'd be all for taking a risk to move up this offseason.  We have the assets to do it exactly BECAUSE Ballard has carefully hoarded them.  Ballard will take his shot if he thinks he sees an opportunity.  With that said, I'd rather move up for a dominant LB or S, rather than a QB.  those are where our needs are right now, at least assuming Wentz can rebound from 2020.

 

This franchise will win more playoff games if we give our D some love, relative to the offense.  A few more assets in the right place will turn our D from top 10 to top 3, and that in conjunction with a rebound from Wentz is our best hope to become the dominant team we want to be.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Imgrandojji said:

For the record I'd be all for taking a risk to move up this offseason.  We have the assets to do it exactly BECAUSE Ballard has carefully hoarded them.  Ballard will take his shot if he thinks he sees an opportunity.  With that said, I'd rather move up for a dominant LB or S, rather than a QB.  those are where our needs are right now, at least assuming Wentz can rebound from 2020

That is a big assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thebrashandthebold said:

That is a big assumption.

It's an assumption we've already made, at least for 2020.  But if wentz struggles that's all the more reason to stack on on D, if we want to remain competitive

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joecolts said:

Agreed!!  Why some cannot see or admit this is beyond my comprehension.  If you are a fan of the Colts, why a continual negative attitude towards those attempting and successfully rebuilding this franchise?  

Perhaps because the owner that made it necessary to rebuild still has a hand in everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thebrashandthebold said:

Perhaps because the owner that made it necessary to rebuild still has a hand in everything.

I think Ballard has a healthier relationship with Irsay than Grigson had.  Grigson was a yes man, and Irsay is a decent owner but doesn't really understand advanced football theory so he favored the big moves at offensive positions instead of winning the battle in the trenches where the battle is really won.  Grigson didn't have the sense God gave him and wouldn't talk Irsay out of moves that made no sense. 

 

Ballard can reason with Irsay and talk him out of things.  That's clear because the franchise has NOT dismantled itself going for quick fixes, which Irsay constantly forced Grigson to do.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We now have a QB who was taken with the second pick in the 2016 draft.  

We didn't even have to give up all kinds of draft picks and players to move up the next year and take Trubisky.  Then the following year take Josh Rosen.   Then give up the last draft pick we have and go get Daniel Jones.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lennymoore24 said:

Some pretty bizarre discussions going on here.  First of all, I think it is a joke to say that Luck wasn't as good as Watson.  Someone is drinking the Watson kool aid.   Let's break down a few things.  What has Watson ever won in the NFL?  And don't tell me the guy didn't have talent around him. He played with Watt, Hopkins, and Clowney to name a few.  And I will never forget something Venturi said about him.  He said keep Watson on the pocket and he becomes a very average QB.  Everything this year is talking about Watson like it would take 4 #1 picks to get him.  What a joke.  So he puts up a bunch of garbage stats when they are losing?  Wow, that is impressive.  I hope he does he traded, because unless he goes to a team like the Saints, I think he will be exposed.

 

It is stunning in hindsight to see what Luck was working with most of his career. Other than AC at LT, most of the time Grigson had castoffs from other teams in front of him.  Same with the entire defense.  Boom Herron running the ball.  It is amazing how bad Grigson was at bringing in players.  The one time Luck plays under Reich he throws 39 TDs after starting the season slow and not playing the previous year.  And that is with only one good receiver, TY Hilton.  We won playoff games with him we had no business winning.  The other teams were much more talented.  

 

I admit I didn't fully appreciate Luck until after he left and then went back and looked at who he had around him compared to the how the team is now.  Had Luck been on this current team, I think there would have been several SB rings on his fingers.  To say Watson or Wilson is better than him is a joke.  Wilson is another guy that the love to talk up, but the fact is the guy can't consistently move the ball.  He is hit or miss.  He makes one read and then starts running around.  He is the biggest reason why he gets sacked so much.  He has always had really good talent around him. Look at the receivers he played with last year?  A speedster and a superman.  And at times, they still couldn't score points.  They won because of the Legion Of Boom.  Wilson was the caretaker.  Luck was a far superior QB to either of these guys, if you compare what talent they had around them and winning games.

 

But question wasn't whether Luck was as good as Watson...the question was who would a GM take after seeing their NFL film.

 

Luck was my favorite player of all time...but I think NFL GMs would take Watson. You can cherry-pick just about any metric or area (outside of W/L)...and the argument for Watson is pretty definitive. Let's break down the areas you referenced:

 

Offensive Line - The much-maligned area of the Luck era that is really overstated. Here are the adjusted sack rates (DVOA) for both QBs in their respective seasons (it's not even close):

 

Watson: #30 (9.2%), #32 (11.2%), #27 (8.4%), #32 (9.5%)

 

Luck: #17 (6.8%), #6 (5.6%), #7 (4.8%), #16 (6.1%), #28 (7.6%), #2 (4.1%)

 

Luck had ONE season where he got sacked more than 7% of the time. Watson has ONE season below 9%. The disadvantage that Watson has had at OL isn't even comparable. 

 

With all due respect to Coach Venturi...but that is an *ic statement about Watson.

 

Run offense - You alluded to RBs. Here is how their run offenses (DVOA) ranked each season:

 

Watson: #23, #27, #17, #32

Luck: #19, #18, #32, #32, #15, #13

 

Not great for both players, but Watson has definitely had a worse run game to work with...and this is with Watson being much more of a rushing threat than Luck was. If we look at adjusted line yards for RBs, Watson has an even clearer disadvantage:

 

Watson: #20, #27, #21, #27

Luck: #26, #15, #16, #27, #2, #4

 

Defense - From what you said above...it sounds like you are saying HOU had this great defense, or even good defense. Here is how their for defenses ranked:

 

Watson: #19, #5, #22, #30

Luck: #31, #17, #11, #15, #29, #11

 

Pretty similarly bad for both players. But I don't see how one could make an argument that Watson had this great supporting cast on defense...it was arguably worse (outside of one season).

 

Stats - You can call them empty or garbage-time stats I guess, but NFL GMs aren't going to see it that way. Watson has almost universally been a better QB statistically speaking. You can even remove Luck's injured 2015 season and Watson is still higher across:

 

Passer rating, QBR, Completion %, TD %, INT %, Y/A, AY/A, NY/A, ANY/A, EPA/dropback, CPOE (completion % over expected)

 

Here are two QB efficiency charts for EPA/dropback and CPOE (two of the widely-used stats to measure QB play):

 

2017-2020

 

QB_efficiency_Watson.png.89a523ad98dcc9533b71bab580dba906.png

 

See Watson way up in the 1st Quadrant, along with guys like Rodgers, Mahomes, Wilson and Brees. Luck is actually on this chart for his 2018 season...and even in that season...he wasn't as good as Watson has been in his career.

 

2012-2016

 

QB_efficiency_Luck.png.416806e88b5d2aaee895697ba5783e46.png

 

Here is Luck's first 5 seasons. Obviously, 2015 skews a bit...but he is bunched together with guys like Fitzpatrick, Stafford and Cam.

 

We all love Luck...but Luck hasn't had a season as good as Watson just had (at age 25). A confident NFL GM is going to want that QB, who has never had pass protection but has performed at basically a top 5-8 level since coming into the NFL. And Watson is years from his actual prime...so 3-4 1st round picks is definitely on the table for that type of player.

 

As for Wilson...I had just assumed that debate was over. How can anyone make the argument that Wilson hasn't been the better QB? Because he won a SB with a great defense and Marshawn Lynch? Lol.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gspdx said:

 

So how much of the rest of the team are you willing to let diminish while you trade all your draft capital away to get a high enough draft pick to get "your guy?"

 

 

If a rookie Andrew Luck was available in this years 2021 draft and it would take the Colts three first round picks to move up and get him, you would say no thanks?

 

The bulk of this thread is saying Grigson only had success because of Luck and was otherwise a terrible GM. If a great QB alone allowed a terrible/worst ever/career destroying GM like Grigson to get to the AFC title game and win 4 playoff games (i think) then wouldn't you give up literally everything for a great QB because Ballard is light years better than Grigson was?

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

If a rookie Andrew Luck was available in this years 2021 draft and it would take the Colts three first round picks to move up and get him, you would say no thanks?

 

The bulk of this thread is saying Grigson only had success because of Luck and was otherwise a terrible GM. If a great QB alone allowed a terrible/worst ever/career destroying GM like Grigson to get to the AFC title game and win 4 playoff games (i think) then wouldn't you give up literally everything for a great QB because Ballard is light years better than Grigson was?

 

So let's change it a little since we can use hindsight for Luck.  Would you trade three first round picks for Lawrence?  Would Jax even be interested in that trade?  Would they want more?  How far would you go? 

If we had to give up 3 firsts and a couple of seconds would you do it?  

 

And then what draft capital would we have to keep the team going?  The reality is you need to keep reloading every year.  And the only way it is affordable is through the draft.  

 

And there is still no guarantee that "the guy" will do what we need.  I just look at how many QBs have flamed out in this league.  It is very risky.  Anyway - I am not actually disagreeing with you.  I just don't see a sure fire option available to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

 

Offensive Line - The much-maligned area of the Luck era that is really overstated. Here are the adjusted sack rates (DVOA) for both QBs in their respective seasons (it's not even close):

 

Watson: #30 (9.2%), #32 (11.2%), #27 (8.4%), #32 (9.5%)

 

Luck: #17 (6.8%), #6 (5.6%), #7 (4.8%), #16 (6.1%), #28 (7.6%), #2 (4.1%)

 

Luck had ONE season where he got sacked more than 7% of the time. Watson has ONE season below 9%. The disadvantage that Watson has had at OL isn't even comparable. 

 

 

Awful argument.  The fact that one player had it even worse doesn't mean that Luck didn't have it bad.  Saying "We weren't as bad as the Texans" is a deflection at best, dishonest at worst. 

 

The Texans are a textbook case of gross football incompetence on an unimaginable scale, and our goal is not to be slightly better than the absolute worst franchise of this decade, especially in such a critical facet of the game as keeping your quarterback vertical.

 

And before you fall too much in love with this argument check the Hurry rate.  Luck saved himself from sacks by bailing out of the pocket quite a bit, especially in 16 when he nearly led the league in sacks.

 

Bottom line it's absolutely disingenous and borderline dishonest to pretend that because his sack rate was not the absolutely worst in the league, Luck was properly protected.  or to pretend that one of the main reasons Luck isn't still here is the abysmal protection he endured after Grigson let the O-Line fall apart on his watch. 

 

Any GM can coast on the personnel brought in before he got there for the first 1-2 years, the telling thing is what happens after the roster is completely his own, and for Grigson, that started in 15, and the track record for the O-line between 15 and Grigson's last year in 2017 is absolutely inexcusable.  And it absolutely cost one of the most talented QBs of his generation his career

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

 

 

The Texans are a textbook case of gross football incompetence on an unimaginable scale, and our goal is not to be slightly better than the absolute worst franchise of this decade, especially in such a critical facet of the game as keeping your quarterback vertical.

 

 

Hasn't Houston won 4 of the last 6 AFCS titles? 

What does that make the Colts?! Yikes

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

So let's change it a little since we can use hindsight for Luck.  Would you trade three first round picks for Lawrence?  Would Jax even be interested in that trade?  Would they want more?  How far would you go? 

If we had to give up 3 firsts and a couple of seconds would you do it?  

 

And then what draft capital would we have to keep the team going?  The reality is you need to keep reloading every year.  And the only way it is affordable is through the draft.  

 

And there is still no guarantee that "the guy" will do what we need.  I just look at how many QBs have flamed out in this league.  It is very risky.  Anyway - I am not actually disagreeing with you.  I just don't see a sure fire option available to us.

Of course you've got to be as sure of your shot as you can be.  Of course it's risky, that's why you do your due diligence.  The fact of risk, on its own, is a terrible reason to never take one.  

 

I actually believe that if Ballard saw his guy on the draft board he'd make a move to get one.  but I also think that Irsay wants a veteran QB right now given the state of the team.  And I think I agree with him.  We're about 2 years too late in the playoff window IMHO to break in a rookie before everyone gets expensive and this iteration of the team has to break up. 

 

Unfortunately the current plan was built around Luck and we're scrambling to see which square peg requires the least hammering to get into the round hole.  That's just the facts of life for the moment.

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

Hasn't Houston won 4 of the last 6 AFCS titles? 

What does that make the Colts?! Yikes

that makes Watson amazing.  They got that achievement moostly on the strength of Watson-to-Hopkins and a good front 7. .

 

They've already lost Hopkins, their front 7 took a huge hit with the departure of Watt, and they are likely to lose Watson within the next 2 years if not this offseason. 

 

The Texans' bad organizational habits were masked by generational talent.  That's bailed out the Texans in frankly an incredibly mediocre division.  One we would have locked down easily and for years to come if only Luck had stayed healthy  Without those talents, the chickens are coming home to roost.  I don't expect the Texans to peak over .500 again within the next 5 years.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Grigson inherited a dominant team and left a mess behind him.

 

Ballard inherited a mess and has cleaned up Grigson's disaster brilliantly and without sacrificing the future for the present.

 

What Grigson did was flashy and exciting, but completely unsustainable.  He basically burnt Luck out by exploiting him mercilessly without offering him any actual support.  And it wound up destroying Luck completely and leaving the franchise firmly in football purgatory.

 

Ballard is rebuilding the foundation of the franchise for maximum sustainability and WILL see success based on his work in the near future.  If nothing else he's creating a franchise where a few splash moves can make a big difference.

 

If we had not secured Ballard's services the Colts would be in the basement competing for #1 picks right now.  Grigson totally bottomed us out.  It's a pity that Ballard's moves to save Luck came too late, but that's on Grigson's failure to bother with the offensive line.  At the end of the day Ballard gave Luck the best shot he could possibly have to come back.

 

Sigh...this is just an awful post. Grigson inherited a dominant team? Yes...a roster, mostly devoid of young talent (because of crap draft classes) but full of aging, expensive vets coming off a 2-win season was a dominant team.

 

You have no clue about the situation in 2012...or were just too lazy to look it up. After purging back-loaded Polian contracts on past-their-prime vets (Addai, Clark and Brackett)...and having to eat Manning's dead cap hit from his release...Grigs had $37M+ of his $120M salary cap in dead cap hits. And Freeney's contract (who was also past his prime) was so back-loaded that he had the HIGHEST cap hit in the NFL that season ($19M). That's nearly half of the salary cap on an old 4-3 DE (who was now supposed to be a 3-4 OLB) and a bunch of a dead cap hits.

 

Now that was an actual mess. And then Grigs won Exec of the Year because the Colts won 11 games that year for a reason. 

 

Ballard didn't inherit that type of mess...he just inherited a mostly bare cupboard and had to rebuild (like many GMs do). And he was The salary cap was in good shape...Ballard just hasn't really spent any of it until the past year or so. 

 

The stuff about Grigson burning out Luck is just nonsense. He failed in talent evaluation...but he absolutely tried to address the OL. His downfall was the draft...not the overall approach. A couple of picks here and there can alter an entire franchise.

 

And then Luck got hurt...which happens in the NFL. And he made a personal decision to move on. 

 

The irony, of course, is that Luck being out is a big reason why this team currently has players Q, Leonard, Smith and DeFo. If Luck plays in 2017 and 2019, the draft and trades play out very differently. But don't let that stand in the way of a good narrative about how Luck would have multiple rings by now.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

Of course you've got to be as sure of your shot as you can be.  Of course it's risky, that's why you do your due diligence.  The fact of risk, on its own, is a terrible reason to never take one.  

 

I actually believe that if Ballard saw his guy on the draft board he'd make a move to get one.  but I also think that Irsay wants a veteran QB right now given the state of the team.  We're about 2 years too late in the playoff window IMHO to break in a rookie before everyone gets expensive and this iteration of the team has to break up. 

 

Unfortunately the current plan was built around Luck and we're scrambling to see which square peg requires the least hammering to get into the round hole.  That's just the facts of life for the moment.

If the only piece of the puzzle was risk then we wouldn't have gone after Wentz. 

 

That is why you do a risk/reward analysis.  Then you also have to take into account the opportunity cost of the transaction.  The team could potentially being giving up major draft capitol over several years.  And even after all of that you need to find someone to trade with.  As hard as it is to find a true franchise QB how many teams would be willing to trade that away? 

 

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

Awful argument.  The fact that one player had it even worse doesn't mean that Luck didn't have it bad.  Saying "We weren't as bad as the Texans" is a deflection at best, dishonest at worst. 

 

The Texans are a textbook case of gross football incompetence on an unimaginable scale, and our goal is not to be slightly better than the absolute worst franchise of this decade, especially in such a critical facet of the game as keeping your quarterback vertical.

 

And before you fall too much in love with this argument check the Hurry rate.  Luck saved himself from sacks by bailing out of the pocket quite a bit, especially in 16 when he nearly led the league in sacks.

 

Bottom line it's absolutely disingenous and borderline dishonest to pretend that because his sack rate was not the absolutely worst in the league, Luck was properly protected.  or to pretend that one of the main reasons Luck isn't still here is the abysmal protection he endured after Grigson let the O-Line fall apart on his watch. 

 

Any GM can coast on the personnel brought in before he got there for the first 1-2 years, the telling thing is what happens after the roster is completely his own, and for Grigson, that started in 15, and the track record for the O-line between 15 and Grigson's last year in 2017 is absolutely inexcusable.  And it absolutely cost one of the most talented QBs of his generation his career


My entire post was about Watson vs. Luck...not Grigson. It seems like you agree that Watson had more of a disadvantage. But you pulled out one little piece about Grigson so you could post more anti-Grigson rhetoric. Nowhere did I say that Luck had a great (or even good) situation. But his situation vs. Watson’s was definitely relevant to the post I responded to that implied Watson had a better team.
 

Also, Grigson was gone in 2017. Ballard, with a top 15 pick and cap space, did almost nothing to address the OL that offseason. JB got sacked all season. 

 

Ballard is a better GM...no one will argue  otherwise. But your blinding Grigson hatred is so misguided. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, shasta519 said:


My entire post was about Watson vs. Luck...not Grigson. It seems like you agree that Watson had more of a disadvantage. But you pulled out one little piece about Grigson so you could post more anti-Grigson rhetoric. Nowhere did I say that Luck had a great (or even good) situation. But his situation vs. Watson’s was definitely relevant to the post I responded to that implied Watson had a better team.
 

Also, Grigson was gone in 2017. Ballard, with a top 15 pick and cap space, did almost nothing to address the OL that offseason. JB got sacked all season. 

 

Ballard is a better GM...no one will argue  otherwise. But your blinding Grigson hatred is so misguided. 

 

 

The 2017 OL draft was widely viewed as one of the worst OL classes anyone could recall.  I wrote about that here in real time — before the 2017 draft. 

 

Ballard had a whole roster to rebuild.  All of that wasn’t going to happen in one off-season.   He focused on defense in his first draft, and focused on the OL in 2018 with two of his first three picks.    As it is, Ballard is still building the team from what he inherited.  
 

Im only addressing the OL issue.  Fir this discussion, I’m trying to stay out of the GM discussion.   You’ve already noted Ballard’s abilities.   Appreciate that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J@son said:

 

Lolwut? 

Grigson inherited the team after Suck for Luck.  He had the opportunity of a lifetime dropped into his lap with a generational talent at QB and much of Manning's team intact.  5 years later and that QB is gone after a long battle with the injury bug brought on at least in part by mistakes Grigson made. 

 

Grigson's teams weren't terrible but tended to be too soft in the trenches, especially at OL. Luck carried us to wins against average teams and we made the playoffs by preying on the weak, but teams that specialize in trench warfare tended to give us fits throughout that area, especially the Patriots and IIRC the Steelers.  He never fixed that problem, and in fact as elements of Manning's team faded out of the roster it got progressively worse. 

 

That's my memory of Grigson's era, a team that had the ability to explode offensively but was soft, soft, soft, and eventually the lack of emphasis on the trenches put our franchise QB on the line in a way none of us was happy about. 

 

I'm also not happy about the role Grigson played in Deflategate, in my not so humble opinion that fiasco rebounded on us worse than on the Patriots.  Grigson was a major driver of that whole event and I think it hurt us  more than it helped us, especially after losing that game by no small margin.  IMHO it made the whole Colts organization look like sore losers.

 

I don't condone cheating but there's a difference between spotting a problem and alerting the authorities, and whining to the media about it right after the game before any investigation could even take place.  It would have been smarter if Colts personnel had wired their jaws shut an just let the league handle the situation behind closed doors if they suspected funny business, like they usually do when a star is caught doing something he shouldn't.  Instead Grigson forced a trial by media and wound up eating a mudpie and looking like a grade A whiner.  And so did most of the Colts organization with the exception of Luck who, predictably, took the high road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

 

 

That's my memory of Grigson's era, a team that had the ability to explode offensively but was soft, soft, soft, and eventually the lack of emphasis on the trenches put our franchise QB on the line in a way none of us was happy about. 

 

 

My memory is mostly of a team that was very shallow.   Not deep at all.  I think Ballard has done a good job of correcting that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

Grigson inherited the team after Suck for Luck.  He had the opportunity of a lifetime dropped into his lap with a generational talent at QB and much of Manning's team intact.  5 years later and that QB is gone after a long battle with the injury bug brought on at least in part by mistakes Grigson made. 

 

Grigson's teams weren't terrible but tended to be too soft in the trenches, especially at OL. Luck carried us to wins against average teams and we made the playoffs by preying on the weak, but teams that specialize in trench warfare tended to give us fits throughout that area, especially the Patriots and IIRC the Steelers.  He never fixed that problem, and in fact as elements of Manning's team faded out of the roster it got progressively worse. 

 

That's my memory of Grigson's era, a team that had the ability to explode offensively but was soft, soft, soft, and eventually the lack of emphasis on the trenches put our franchise QB on the line in a way none of us was happy about. 

 

I'm also not happy about the role Grigson played in Deflategate, in my not so humble opinion that fiasco rebounded on us worse than on the Patriots.  Grigson was a major driver of that whole event and I think it hurt us  more than it helped us, especially after losing that game by no small margin.  IMHO it made the whole Colts organization look like sore losers.

 

I don't condone cheating but there's a difference between spotting a problem and alerting the authorities, and whining to the media about it right after the game before any investigation could even take place.  It would have been smarter if Colts personnel had wired their jaws shut an just let the league handle the situation behind closed doors if they suspected funny business, like they usually do when a star is caught doing something he shouldn't.  Instead Grigson forced a trial by media and wound up eating a mudpie and looking like a grade A whiner.  And so did most of the Colts organization with the exception of Luck who, predictably, took the high road.

I don't recall grigson talking to the media about it.  I don't recall any member of the Colts talking to the media about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Imgrandojji said:

I'm also not happy about the role Grigson played in Deflategate, in my not so humble opinion that fiasco rebounded on us worse than on the Patriots.  Grigson was a major driver of that whole event and I think it hurt us  more than it helped us, especially after losing that game by no small margin.  IMHO it made the whole Colts organization look like sore losers.

It made a bunch of patriots fans mad, I don't see how that tangibly hurt the team though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I want to say that I would take Ballard over Grigson 100 out of a 100 times. It's really not close.  I think Ballard has drafted better, has signed better FAs to better contracts, has made better trades, hired better coaching staff... Under almost every single criteria he's a much better GM than Grigson. The roster now has MUCH more talent now than at any point during the Grigson's tenure.

 

BUT... it's still true that the team has had relatively similar success under both. This to me is such a great argument for the importance of positional value and especially the importance of the QB position. Yes, Grigson was horrible, but he drafted Luck and rode on his coattails for years. He also made a great pick in TY in that first draft too(probably his best decision ever, since Luck really was a no brainer pick). Those are two increidble picks at premier positions giving incredible value and raising the floor for the team. Ballard on the other hand has made all the right moves on the margins, has drafted well consistently It's really hard to fault him for the job he's done building this team to contention... but his work still has one significant blemish - positions of value. He's failed securing long-term solutions at the most important positions in football - QB, WR, CB, EDGE. (hopefully this changes with Wentz and Pittman but it's still TBD)

 

So, so far... Ballard's teams have peaked at about the level Grigson's teams peaked and for completely different reasons. It's a testament to both the importance of having stability and excellence at QB(and the other important positions) and to the importance of having good overall roster with all around talent. QB can mask a ton of problems and Luck did that in the Grigson years... but even a generational type of talent like Luck needs a solid roster to be a serious contender when you go to the playoffs and most teams have similarly good QBs and in addition, the best of them have great supporting cast. 

 

So yeah... Grigson's entire argument lies on drafting Luck. Something I think about 99% of GMs in the NFL would have done. Luck was a no brainer and I give him no credit for that. I believe if Ballard had the same choice he would make it too. With that said... at the end of the day GMs are judged by their results and Ballard will be judged by his too and if he keeps failing with QBs and CBs and EDGE and WR, the chickens will sooner or later come home to roost. At some point he needs to start hitting at those positions or this team will fail when the now cheap great players at low-value positions become expensive and our margin for error evaporates. 

 

I still trust Ballard and I would much rather him be our GM than Grigson, but... yeah... it's time for him to make some high value position hits. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stitches said:

First of all, I want to say that I would take Ballard over Grigson 100 out of a 100 times. It's really not close.  I think Ballard has drafted better, has signed better FAs to better contracts, has made better trades, hired better coaching staff... Under almost every single criteria he's a much better GM than Grigson. The roster now has MUCH more talent now than at any point during the Grigson's tenure.

 

BUT... it's still true that the team has had relatively similar success under both. This to me is such a great argument for the importance of positional value and especially the importance of the QB position. Yes, Grigson was horrible, but he drafted Luck and rode on his coattails for years. He also made a great pick in TY in that first draft too(probably his best decision ever, since Luck really was a no brainer pick). Those are two increidble picks at premier positions giving incredible value and raising the floor for the team. Ballard on the other hand has made all the right moves on the margins, has drafted well consistently It's really hard to fault him for the job he's done building this team to contention... but his work still has one significant blemish - positions of value. He's failed securing long-term solutions at the most important positions in football - QB, WR, CB, EDGE. (hopefully this changes with Wentz and Pittman but it's still TBD)

 

So, so far... Ballard's teams have peaked at about the level Grigson's teams peaked and for completely different reasons. It's a testament to both the importance of having stability and excellence at QB(and the other important positions) and to the importance of having good overall roster with all around talent. QB can mask a ton of problems and Luck did that in the Grigson years... but even a generational type of talent like Luck needs a solid roster to be a serious contender when you go to the playoffs and most teams have similarly good QBs and in addition, the best of them have great supporting cast. 

 

So yeah... Grigson's entire argument lies on drafting Luck. Something I think about 99% of GMs in the NFL would have done. Luck was a no brainer and I give him no credit for that. I believe if Ballard had the same choice he would make it too. With that said... at the end of the day GMs are judged by their results and Ballard will be judged by his too and if he keeps failing with QBs and CBs and EDGE and WR, the chickens will sooner or later come home to roost. At some point he needs to start hitting at those positions or this team will fail when the now cheap great players at low-value positions become expensive and our margin for error evaporates. 

 

I still trust Ballard and I would much rather him be our GM than Grigson, but... yeah... it's time for him to make some high value position hits. 

I'm not sure I totally agree with that.   He brought in Rivers who won 11 games even without much training camp and pre season.   Now he brought in Wentz, a former 2nd pick in the draft.   I wouldn't give Ballard a "fail" for that.  

Pittman looks like the real deal at WR.   Campbell is an unknow that I think will be very good in 2021.   I give Ballard credit for finding Pascal on the scrap pile.  Hilton, Campbell, Pascal and Pittman isn't a bad WR core.   I wouldn't give it a "fail".  Not an "A" either though.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm not sure I totally agree with that.   He brought in Rivers who won 11 games even without much training camp and pre season.   Now he brought in Wentz, a former 2nd pick in the draft.   I wouldn't give Ballard a "fail" for that.  

Pittman looks like the real deal at WR.   Campbell is an unknow that I think will be very good in 2021.   I give Ballard credit for finding Pascal on the scrap pile.  Hilton, Campbell, Pascal and Pittman isn't a bad WR core.   I wouldn't give it a "fail".  Not an "A" either though.  

yeah... maybe it was bad choice of words specifically about the QB position. Agree with your objection here pretty fully. It's more about us not having a long-term solution. Hopefully Wentz is that, but if he's not... this IMO will be serious hit on Ballard's (and Reich's) resume.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, stitches said:

yeah... maybe it was bad choice of words specifically about the QB position. Agree with your objection here pretty fully. It's more about us not having a long-term solution. Hopefully Wentz is that, but if he's not... this IMO will be serious hit on Ballard's (and Reich's) resume.

 

I would agree that if Wentz doesn't perform well, it'll be a knock on Ballard.  I think the odds of him being good with the Colts is pretty good.   Outside of last season with the Eagles (no O-line, no WR's and no TE's for several games), he's been good.   He's always had a great TD/INT ratio.  81/21 from 2017-2019.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth in all of this is closer to the middle. Like the Fall of Rome, the Fall of Luck was due to many circumstances. Not just one. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, stitches said:

First of all, I want to say that I would take Ballard over Grigson 100 out of a 100 times. It's really not close.  I think Ballard has drafted better, has signed better FAs to better contracts, has made better trades, hired better coaching staff... Under almost every single criteria he's a much better GM than Grigson. The roster now has MUCH more talent now than at any point during the Grigson's tenure.

 

BUT... it's still true that the team has had relatively similar success under both. This to me is such a great argument for the importance of positional value and especially the importance of the QB position. Yes, Grigson was horrible, but he drafted Luck and rode on his coattails for years. He also made a great pick in TY in that first draft too(probably his best decision ever, since Luck really was a no brainer pick). Those are two increidble picks at premier positions giving incredible value and raising the floor for the team. Ballard on the other hand has made all the right moves on the margins, has drafted well consistently It's really hard to fault him for the job he's done building this team to contention... but his work still has one significant blemish - positions of value. He's failed securing long-term solutions at the most important positions in football - QB, WR, CB, EDGE. (hopefully this changes with Wentz and Pittman but it's still TBD)

 

So, so far... Ballard's teams have peaked at about the level Grigson's teams peaked and for completely different reasons. It's a testament to both the importance of having stability and excellence at QB(and the other important positions) and to the importance of having good overall roster with all around talent. QB can mask a ton of problems and Luck did that in the Grigson years... but even a generational type of talent like Luck needs a solid roster to be a serious contender when you go to the playoffs and most teams have similarly good QBs and in addition, the best of them have great supporting cast. 

 

So yeah... Grigson's entire argument lies on drafting Luck. Something I think about 99% of GMs in the NFL would have done. Luck was a no brainer and I give him no credit for that. I believe if Ballard had the same choice he would make it too. With that said... at the end of the day GMs are judged by their results and Ballard will be judged by his too and if he keeps failing with QBs and CBs and EDGE and WR, the chickens will sooner or later come home to roost. At some point he needs to start hitting at those positions or this team will fail when the now cheap great players at low-value positions become expensive and our margin for error evaporates. 

 

I still trust Ballard and I would much rather him be our GM than Grigson, but... yeah... it's time for him to make some high value position hits. 

 

I agree with everything you said. Ballard is obviously the far superior drafting GM and has a better eye for talent. Though I think coaching plays a massive role in that as well. The difference between the 2017 and 2018 draft classes is undeniable. And Ballard had said in the past that he lets the coaching staff have a strong say on the types of players they want. So moving on from Pagano (who reportedly was pretty rigid for his scheme) and his staff to the much improved coaching staff they have now has played a significant role in how they scouted and drafted (especially since many of the scouts have been here for years). 

 

And of course Irsay made the call on Luck. But I really don't buy this idea that Grigson gets no credit because he had success with Luck, meanwhile not having Luck (aside from one season) has put this massive caveat/context on Ballard's results so far. Seems like a double standard when both GMs are benefitting tremendously from Luck. And let's say Luck comes back in 2018 and stays...and the Colts win the equivalent of 33 games (from 2018-20) and (3) playoff games. Nobody is going to give Luck all of that credit...if anything...Ballard is probably even more of a hero. And yes this is me being presumptive...but we all know this is likely the case.

 

To get Luck, it required a terrible roster AND using the #1 overall pick. And because they started winning right away, there was immediate pressure to build a contender around Luck on his rookie deal. This was absolutely the correct path...but it also meant there wasn't a rebuilding year with a high draft pick/s (like there was at the beginning of the Polian era). 

 

Or like there after 2017 when the Colts got the #3 overall pick that became the #6 pick and (3) 2nd round picks (because Luck was out). IF Luck is gone or if QB was a huge need (like it was in 2012)...who knows how the famous 2018 draft plays out. 

 

So I just think it's disingenuous when people say "well if they had Luck...", because if Luck is playing the past 4 years, there would have been huge trade-offs somewhere. They might have still been a SB contenders with Luck, but it would not have been the same team. Can't have it both ways. 

 

Ultimately, Grigson still had to put together teams that won a lot of games. And the metrics and the results point to a good team that had really good results...at least in those first 3 seasons before Luck got hurt. And Luck certainly didn't do it on his own. I know we both agree that having a great QB is paramount...but as we have seen...they alone don't alone win games. And let's not pretend that Luck was great in the playoffs either...and the Colts still won (3) playoff games.

 

But the chasm between how people view Ballard and Grigson has become so unnecessarily wide. People abhor Grigson (in spite of results) and adore Ballard (with results TBD). Yet it is possible for Ballard to be a great GM and for Grigson to not be one of the worst GMs ever (as people make him out to be). It's pretty telling (at least to me) that John Schneider (a successful GM who built SB teams) and Andrew Berry (a rising star exec who actually worked under Grigson in Indy) have both brought him into advisor roles.

 

I don't know...I just don't think he's quite the villain that many people think (or want him to be). And I think it's also reasonable to want to see more results of this current era before making any declarations about how great this team or Ballard is. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

I don't recall grigson talking to the media about it.  I don't recall any member of the Colts talking to the media about it. 

 

That's probably because it didn't happen. I can't find any quotes made right after it happened. Grigson did later acknowledge (at his Combine presser) that he sent an email to the league office prior to the AFCG in regards to the balls and the integrity of the game...and said the investigation would have more specifics...but that was about it.

 

Irsay was silent on it until the week after the AFCG when he sent out some tweets that said the investigation was ongoing, but he congratulated NE on being the AFC Champion.

 

Just a dumb thing all-around...and probably very likely that it happened. But I don't remember a single person in the Colts org. taking to the media right after...let alone hinting that it had any impact on the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

I agree with everything you said. Ballard is obviously the far superior drafting GM and has a better eye for talent. Though I think coaching plays a massive role in that as well. The difference between the 2017 and 2018 draft classes is undeniable. And Ballard had said in the past that he lets the coaching staff have a strong say on the types of players they want. So moving on from Pagano (who reportedly was pretty rigid for his scheme) and his staff to the much improved coaching staff they have now has played a significant role in how they scouted and drafted (especially since many of the scouts have been here for years). 

 

And of course Irsay made the call on Luck. But I really don't buy this idea that Grigson gets no credit because he had success with Luck, meanwhile not having Luck (aside from one season) has put this massive caveat/context on Ballard's results so far. Seems like a double standard when both GMs are benefitting tremendously from Luck. And let's say Luck comes back in 2018 and stays...and the Colts win the equivalent of 33 games (from 2018-20) and (3) playoff games. Nobody is going to give Luck all of that credit...if anything...Ballard is probably even more of a hero. And yes this is me being presumptive...but we all know this is likely the case.

 

To get Luck, it required a terrible roster AND using the #1 overall pick. And because they started winning right away, there was immediate pressure to build a contender around Luck on his rookie deal. This was absolutely the correct path...but it also meant there wasn't a rebuilding year with a high draft pick/s (like there was at the beginning of the Polian era). 

 

Or like there after 2017 when the Colts got the #3 overall pick that became the #6 pick and (3) 2nd round picks (because Luck was out). IF Luck is gone or if QB was a huge need (like it was in 2012)...who knows how the famous 2018 draft plays out. 

 

So I just think it's disingenuous when people say "well if they had Luck...", because if Luck is playing the past 4 years, there would have been huge trade-offs somewhere. They might have still been a SB contenders with Luck, but it would not have been the same team. Can't have it both ways. 

 

Ultimately, Grigson still had to put together teams that won a lot of games. And the metrics and the results point to a good team that had really good results...at least in those first 3 seasons before Luck got hurt. And Luck certainly didn't do it on his own. I know we both agree that having a great QB is paramount...but as we have seen...they alone don't alone win games. And let's not pretend that Luck was great in the playoffs either...and the Colts still won (3) playoff games.

 

But the chasm between how people view Ballard and Grigson has become so unnecessarily wide. People abhor Grigson (in spite of results) and adore Ballard (with results TBD). Yet it is possible for Ballard to be a great GM and for Grigson to not be one of the worst GMs ever (as people make him out to be). It's pretty telling (at least to me) that John Schneider (a successful GM who built SB teams) and Andrew Berry (a rising star exec who actually worked under Grigson in Indy) have both brought him into advisor roles.

 

I don't know...I just don't think he's quite the villain that many people think (or want him to be). And I think it's also reasonable to want to see more results of this current era before making any declarations about how great this team or Ballard is. 


Among the reasons Grigson is so hated here include....

 

*** Bad drafting

*** Bad Free Agent Signings

*** Bad handling of his coaches.  Including his terrible relations with Pagano.  Telling his coaches who to play.  Hiring the wrong OC’s.

*** Bad handling of players.  He was hated by his own team.  Wayne hated him.  McAfee hated him.   I think AV was not a fan.  Doubt Luck was a fan, based on the famous comment about Luck’s contract prevented him from building a better roster. 
 

Are there other areas where Grigson did well?

Aren't the four areas I noted the four biggest parts of his job?   I suppose I could add another...  Grigson didn’t treat the local media or the fans with much respect.   Ballard does. 
 

I’m not saying Grigson shouldn’t have a job in football.   But he has to be more of a soldier and not the General.   He can give his input, but he can’t make big decisions.  That’s just a non-starter. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

Sometimes comments are pointless and unnecessary. 

This is true but is there one thing in this thread that hasn't been hashed over and over before? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:


Among the reasons Grigson is so hated here include....

 

*** Bad drafting

*** Bad Free Agent Signings

*** Bad handling of his coaches.  Including his terrible relations with Pagano.  Telling his coaches who to play.  Hiring the wrong OC’s.

*** Bad handling of players.  He was hated by his own team.  Wayne hated him.  McAfee hated him.   I think AV was not a fan.  Doubt Luck was a fan, based on the famous comment about Luck’s contract prevented him from building a better roster. 
 

Are there other areas where Grigson did well?

Aren't the four areas I noted the four biggest parts of his job?   I suppose I could add another...  Grigson didn’t treat the local media or the fans with much respect.   Ballard does. 
 

I’m not saying Grigson shouldn’t have a job in football.   But he has to be more of a soldier and not the General.   He can give his input, but he can’t make big decisions.  That’s just a non-starter. 

If Reggie hates you,   that's all I need

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 11:43 PM, Imgrandojji said:

Grigson inherited the team after Suck for Luck.  He had the opportunity of a lifetime dropped into his lap with a generational talent at QB and much of Manning's team intact.  5 years later and that QB is gone after a long battle with the injury bug brought on at least in part by mistakes Grigson made. 

 

Grigson's teams weren't terrible but tended to be too soft in the trenches, especially at OL. Luck carried us to wins against average teams and we made the playoffs by preying on the weak, but teams that specialize in trench warfare tended to give us fits throughout that area, especially the Patriots and IIRC the Steelers.  He never fixed that problem, and in fact as elements of Manning's team faded out of the roster it got progressively worse. 

 

That's my memory of Grigson's era, a team that had the ability to explode offensively but was soft, soft, soft, and eventually the lack of emphasis on the trenches put our franchise QB on the line in a way none of us was happy about. 

 

I'm also not happy about the role Grigson played in Deflategate, in my not so humble opinion that fiasco rebounded on us worse than on the Patriots.  Grigson was a major driver of that whole event and I think it hurt us  more than it helped us, especially after losing that game by no small margin.  IMHO it made the whole Colts organization look like sore losers.

 

I don't condone cheating but there's a difference between spotting a problem and alerting the authorities, and whining to the media about it right after the game before any investigation could even take place.  It would have been smarter if Colts personnel had wired their jaws shut an just let the league handle the situation behind closed doors if they suspected funny business, like they usually do when a star is caught doing something he shouldn't.  Instead Grigson forced a trial by media and wound up eating a mudpie and looking like a grade A whiner.  And so did most of the Colts organization with the exception of Luck who, predictably, took the high road.

Actually when Grigson inherited the team, 60% of the team was different compared to 2011 and we were in total rebuild. We got rid of a lot of players from 2011. We kept key guys like Reggie, Robert Mathis, and Adam V but a lot of the players were different on that 2012 team. Freeney was on his last leg here. Just by drafting Luck and keeping Reggie and Mathis kept us relevant and luckily TY Hilton had a good rookie season. You plug in most rookie QB's on that 2012 team we would've been lucky to go 8-8, Luck had the 'IT' factor his rookie season and in 2013 and 2014.

  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...