Grigson talks to Peter King

[Superman]

http://sportsillustr...p&sct=hp_t11_a0

I'll give Ryan Grigson credit: He stands firmly behind the Colts' draft, which is a trait I'd want in the guy who picks my players.

Grigson, the Colts' rookie GM, inherited a team switching to a 3-4 defense, a team that gave up 27 points a game last year. But eight of the 10 players in his first draft class play offense. The first defensive player he took, Alabama defensive tackle Josh Chapman, in the fifth round, had surgery to repair a torn ACL in January, and his status for 2012 -- at least the beginning of the season -- is murky.

Grigson did set the Indy offense up well, surrounding top pick Andrew Luck. In come the first two tight ends on their board, Coby Fleener and Dwayne Allen, and a speed receiver, T. Y. Hilton, to help replace the missing pieces that walked out the door at the same time as Peyton Manning. At the end of the draft, late Saturday night, Grigson would have loved to see the draft fall differently for the Colts. But he had no regrets.

"I've been in a lot of draft rooms,'' Grison said, "and I've seen people reach way down, into the bowels of the draft board, to fill a need position. Then, once they come in and get in pads and they start playing, you figure

you really haven't solved the problem you needed to solve

. So we targeted some [defensive] guys, but when we couldn't get them, we had players on our board we knew could help us, and help us now.

"There are teams I've followed over the years and admired. Baltimore stays true to its principles and drafts smart. I've looked up to Ozzie Newsome, and he doesn't force things, even when I'm sure he feels the temptation to fill glaring needs. Instead of emotion getting in the way, he follows his board. Look where the Ravens are. They contend every year for the Super Bowl.

"All the days you spend on the road. All the hotels, all the flights, all the workouts, all the Pro Days ... It's late at night, and I'm having my Ruby Tuesday burger somewhere, thinking I've just seen a player I really like, and you start to think about how he might fit into the board. I mean, it's night after night.

You feel confident you've got the players in the right order. And then because the board falls differently, you want to change all of that? I won't do it

.''

A tight end like Fleener, Grigson said, "might not come out for another three years. I'm not going to turn down a player like that, with great value staring us in the face and a quarterback who can use the tight end so well. And Allen -- the tight end's an in-vogue thing now in NFL offenses.''

Considering the Colts signed a tight end, Dominique Jones, from Reading of the Indoor Football League this spring, the need was obviously there. Time will tell if those Grigson passed on were smart decisions.

The Colts are better, obviously, with Luck and two security blankets. But unless some incumbent 4-3 defenders -- Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis will be first-time outside linebackers this year after careers at end -- can make a smooth transition to the new defense, Luck's going to have to be as explosive a rookie as Cam Newton was a year ago for Indianapolis to be consistently competitive this year.

"This is not a one-day job,'' Grigson said. "I'm fortunate to have a coach and owner who trust me, and we're fortunate to have a quarterback now. We're chipping away.'

I like his thinking on this, especially the bolded parts.

[21isSuperman]

The more I read and see of Grigs, the more I like. He seems like he really knows what he is doing. Irsay picked a good one! With that said, we have to wait a few years before being able to accurately evaluate his decisions/picks

[Superman]

Absolutely. But any criticism I make of him in a few years will have to come with the caveat that I mentally co-signed almost all of his decisions. I could nitpick some of the draft decisions this weekend, but not really. We had ten picks, and probably about 450 players to evaluate. No way in the world that any two people could see that situation exactly the same. At the end of the day, I feel good about the guy making the decisions. I like that he trusts himself enough to roll with his instincts, but he doesn't come across as standoffish or arrogant. Even when I think maybe he should have done something else, I get why he does things the way he does.

I'll also say, there's a difference from maybe reaching for a low third round cornerback at the top of the third round, knowing that the player is good enough to contribute, and reaching for a potentially undrafted cornerback in the 6th round, when there's a chance that the player won't even make it through camp. Certain players in certain spots, it's okay to reach.

[Voir Dire]

Honestly, I'm glad to see that Grigson seems to have a long term view and didn't feel the need to just draft players to fill "need" slots. The only thing that really remains to be seen is exactly how good he is at evaluating talent. BPA is a great approach but only IF you are talented at player evaluation and actually get players that really were the "best available." It only takes one look at the various experts' draft boards to see that there is a lot of variability in who is considered "best" remaining at any given time.

I'm eager to see how his draftees do in camp and on the field. I'm also looking forward to seeing how stubborn he is about "his picks" if one of them doesn't work out. On the one hand, it is good for GM's to back a guy they have faith in. On the other, nothing is worse than keeping a guy that isn't working out just because he was YOUR guy.

[GrizzColt]

I don't know. I'm thinking he never reaches unless Irsay tells him to do so. He seems like that kind of guy. He is looking at long term while a lot of us are looking short term.

[Superman]

Honestly, I'm glad to see that Grigson seems to have a long term view and didn't feel the need to just draft players to fill "need" slots. The only thing that really remains to be seen is exactly how good he is at evaluating talent. BPA is a great approach but only IF you are talented at player evaluation and actually get players that really were the "best available." It only takes one look at the various experts' draft boards to see that there is a lot of variability in who is considered "best" remaining at any given time.

I'm eager to see how his draftees do in camp and on the field. I'm also looking forward to seeing how stubborn he is about "his picks" if one of them doesn't work out. On the one hand, it is good for GM's to back a guy they have faith in. On the other, nothing is worse than keeping a guy that isn't working out just because he was YOUR guy.

That's the thing, though. There are no questions about the players we picked, except maybe Ballard. Chapman was a great value in the 5th round. Allen is considered by most to be the second best tight end in the draft. Everyone has a high rating universally.

The question has been about whether we should have spent more picks on defense, not whether the players we picked were picked in the right spots. It's a need vs. BPA debate.

[chad72]

A couple more things in this article that come later:

Worst pick, defense: The Colts passing on CB Trumaine Johnson to take TE Dwayne Allen with the first pick of the third round. Indy was crying out for secondary help. No team in the league last year was as generous in the secondary as the Colts, who allowed opposing passers to complete 71.2 percent of their throws. And they didn't draft one cornerback.

Rabbit ears of the weekend: Indianapolis owner Jim Irsay. The Colts, who allowed the 28th-most points in the league last year, have the added construction problem of changing from a long-time 4-3 defense to the heavier-front 3-4, with many needs. They had four picks in the first two days of the draft and used none on defense, which I noted in an incredulous tweet late Friday night. To which Irsay, using his @JimIrsay Twitter account, responded Saturday: "Hey Peter King, we had NO defense, unlike now, in 1998, n B Polian took 4 Offensive picks n looking back at ur comments then, u said Great Draft!''

I think that means Irsay disagreed with my opinion. But I am honored he remembered my post-draft words of 14 years ago.

[Gavin]

We had a good draft the first three rounds and if Chapman heals nicely we got a steal at nose tackle, I would have liked a Guard and we could have gotten Dennard, But one thing he needs to realize, its ok to reach to get the guy you want that can help your team, Im still baffled over the quarterback signing, How many do we have now?

[The Peytonator]

I have no complaints from the first 6 or 7 picks of the draft, and I'm really liking this Grigson guy........

but if we suck, I'll be the first to hold up my 'Fire Grigson' sign at the Luke.

We're a finicky bunch us fans.

[NagelHausForge]

The only pick I dont understand was the QB at the end... We already have 2 other QBs on the roster... Unless he is thinking this QB may have trade value or something... But it just seems like a wasted pick I guess.

I am very excited about this season coming up!

[Superman]

Worst pick, defense: The Colts passing on CB Trumaine Johnson to take TE Dwayne Allen with the first pick of the third round. Indy was crying out for secondary help. No team in the league last year was as generous in the secondary as the Colts, who allowed opposing passers to complete 71.2 percent of their throws. And they didn't draft one cornerback.

And at that point, the question becomes "who is the better player?" And if it's Allen, then Grigson's pick makes sense. However, that's a spot where everyone's board probably falls differently. You'll probably get half of the guys in the league who would rate Allen higher than Johnson, and the other half the opposite. So do you go with your supposed need (which I don't think is as much of a need as it's made out to be), or do you go with the BPA? I think it's six in one hand, five in the other, and the remainder is yet to be decided.

[haseo15]

I kinda like the QB at the end can grow with Luck and can play in a Tebow style in arians offense in different packages if he choses to have in his offense. Can't be any worse then painter and San Diego wanted him, so he must have something to his game that people like.

[haseo15]

I wonder how much our secondary may improve when our CB's dont give a 7-10 yard cussion on 3rd and 5.

[Gavin]

One thing is for certain, we will certainly see what our needs are this year, I do like the fact that he said he missed on some players that he was going for at least he didnt try to sugar coat that like some other GM's or former GM's do, but sometimes you have to reach for a good player that you really want that can help your team.

[Voir Dire]

That's the thing, though. There are no questions about the players we picked, except maybe Ballard. Chapman was a great value in the 5th round. Allen is considered by most to be the second best tight end in the draft. Everyone has a high rating universally.

The question has been about whether we should have spent more picks on defense, not whether the players we picked were picked in the right spots. It's a need vs. BPA debate.

I thought I was pretty clear in my first sentence that I fell on the "BPA" side when I said I was glad to see he wasn't drafting for need. The rest of my post was more about Grigson's evaluation ability in general and not this specific draft. Basically, if he is a great evaluator (and has good scouting around him) then a BPA approach should build a strong team over the long term, making us all very happy. Unfortunately, we can't really know if he is a great talent evaluator until a few years down the road. I agree with you that in this draft his picks look solid and were highly rated by many. This is a good sign for the future, but we can't really KNOW until later. My outlook on his approach and ability is positive after this draft.

PS. I'm enjoying the conversation, but likely won't be responding if you reply to this because I'm a new poster almost up against my newbie daily posting limit. Nice jawing with you. Go Colts!

[southwest1]

To fair to GM Ryan Grigson, it will take about 3 draft to judge his ability to pick draft studs or duds. Yes, I know he has scouting experience from St. Louis & Philadelphia, but his GM chops are still being honed at this time. I love his mindset though "We're chipping away.' That's right Grigson keep knockin' away the rough edges, fill our voids, & always remember: The Empire of Rome wasn't built in 1 day either.

[Superman]

I thought I was pretty clear in my first sentence that I fell on the "BPA" side when I said I was glad to see he wasn't drafting for need. The rest of my post was more about Grigson's evaluation ability in general and not this specific draft. Basically, if he is a great evaluator (and has good scouting around him) then a BPA approach should build a strong team over the long term, making us all very happy. Unfortunately, we can't really know if he is a great talent evaluator until a few years down the road. I agree with you that in this draft his picks look solid and were highly rated by many. This is a good sign for the future, but we can't really KNOW until later. My outlook on his approach and ability is positive after this draft.

PS. I'm enjoying the conversation, but likely won't be responding if you reply to this because I'm a new poster almost up against my newbie daily posting limit. Nice jawing with you. Go Colts!

I didn't know there was a daily limit for new posters. I guess we'll hear from you tomorrow.

Anyways, I wasn't really arguing with you. Just commenting on all the gruff over the weekend about us not taking any corners, and how that fits with your comments about him as a talent evaluator. You're right, we won't know for at least a couple years how the talent comes around, but as of right now, there's no reason for pause when it comes to the players we took. All were rated very favorably by the so-called experts.

[jskinnz]

We had a good draft the first three rounds and if Chapman heals nicely we got a steal at nose tackle, I would have liked a Guard and we could have gotten Dennard, But one thing he needs to realize, its ok to reach to get the guy you want that can help your team, Im still baffled over the quarterback signing, How many do we have now?

My goodness that is funny. Why don't you ring him up and tell him where his thought process is off base.

[Larry Horseman]

We had a good draft the first three rounds and if Chapman heals nicely we got a steal at nose tackle, I would have liked a Guard and we could have gotten Dennard, But one thing he needs to realize, its ok to reach to get the guy you want that can help your team, Im still baffled over the quarterback signing, How many do we have now?

The only pick I dont understand was the QB at the end... We already have 2 other QBs on the roster... Unless he is thinking this QB may have trade value or something... But it just seems like a wasted pick I guess.

I am very excited about this season coming up!

I have been assuming that the Colts are planning on carrying three QBs next year. Luck, Stanton, and? They must feel that Mr. Irrelevant can be the third...

[Gavin]

My goodness that is funny. Why don't you ring him up and tell him where his thought process is off base.

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

[Larry Horseman]

One thing is for certain, we will certainly see what our needs are this year, I do like the fact that he said he missed on some players that he was going for at least he didnt try to sugar coat that like some other GM's or former GM's do, but sometimes you have to reach for a good player that you really want that can help your team.

So you believe that need is a better way to draft than BPA? No offense, but I totally disagree. All good GM's place BPA over need. Many said Polian reached on players (Angerer for example), but they weren't a reach based on Polian's draft board. Polian was notorious for BPA, so while many media guys and fans said his picks were reaches, they were really just BPA based on Polian's own board (the Colts were very independent in the scouting department and many times had different rankings than most teams and media). Grigson has a philosophy and stuck to it....we will see how solid it is in the coming years, but I am happy that he is willing to stick to his guns and not fold because of perceived need from the fans, media, front office, and coaching staff.

[jskinnz]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

1) Did it occurr to you that maybe they did not think those guys could help the team?

2) There is a great deal of difference between who you think can help and who the actual front office thinks can help.

3) And btw, why would the Colts have drafted Whalen when they were freaking able to sign him as an UDFA. That would have been a monumental waste off a pick.

4) Owasu was not drafted because teams had concussion fears for the guy. Many teams took him off their board altogether. He was also an UDFA.

5) Reaching is a bad thing. It is like Poker. You may decide to play 7 & 2 off suite and the flop may hit you perfectly and you have a full house no one suspects. But play that hand enough times and you will lose.

[DG1]

We had a good draft the first three rounds and if Chapman heals nicely we got a steal at nose tackle, I would have liked a Guard and we could have gotten Dennard, But one thing he needs to realize, its ok to reach to get the guy you want that can help your team, Im still baffled over the quarterback signing, How many do we have now?

When a team gets 90 players for camp - you are going to have a lot of players in every position.

[jskinnz]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

And BTW - what makes you think Harnish will be 4th string? Does Vittoe or however you spell his name have a stranglehold on the job?

[Fatboyslim11]

This is Grigson's first draft as GM. I like his preparation and instinct in picking the players that will be the foundation for rebuilding, at least on offense. I will not attempt to grade or assess this draft before our first team meeting, but I am stoked to see how we do in Year 1 of rebuilding.

[Coltman51]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

Nice thing is we still ended up getting Whalen. Once the draft was over, the FO didn't sit back on their laurels and say good job. Last time I checked the listing, we had 14 UFA added after the draft including Whalen and 4 CB, maybe not the top ones but lets see what they can do. Maybe the found a diamond or two in the ruff

[SteelCityColt]

5) Reaching is a bad thing. It is like Poker. You may decide to play 7 & 2 off suite and the flop may hit you perfectly and you have a full house no one suspects. But play that hand enough times and you will lose.

Not a bad analogy, the draft is based on educated guesses on a players projected ability just like pre-flop hand value, keep playing the odds correctly and long term you win. Very simplistic view I know, and of course players can't be quantified so easily. However you have to allow also for the FO to see something in a guy that no one else does, then you get some real gems.

[mvbighead]

If people are griping about the last pick in the draft, does that mean the rest of it was perfectly fine? Serious question. We picked up a guy that was passed on 250+ times. Not only that, but we picked a guy that, from the sounds of it, already had a contract on the table with another team. Sounds to me as if we weren't the only interested party in him, and the use of a draft pick was necessary to secure him.

And, it's not like we used a 4th round pick on the kid like Washington did. Yeesh, people are disappointed with the last pick in the draft... talk about being whiny.

[Fx Stryker]

Polian stood firmly behind his draftees. A lot you didn't like that. So what if Grigson does the same?

replace the missing pieces that walked out the door at the same time as Peyton Manning

They were more showed the door than walked out,

[GAColt]

The only pick I dont understand was the QB at the end... We already have 2 other QBs on the roster... Unless he is thinking this QB may have trade value or something... But it just seems like a wasted pick I guess.

I am very excited about this season coming up!

Wonder if Texan fans were upset when they took Yates in the 5th round last year? I believe that 3rd string rookie led them to a playoff victory.

[BOTT]

1) Did it occurr to you that maybe they did not think those guys could help the team?

2) There is a great deal of difference between who you think can help and who the actual front office thinks can help.

3) And btw, why would the Colts have drafted Whalen when they were freaking able to sign him as an UDFA. That would have been a monumental waste off a pick.

4) Owasu was not drafted because teams had concussion fears for the guy. Many teams took him off their board altogether. He was also an UDFA.

5) Reaching is a bad thing. It is like Poker. You may decide to play 7 & 2 off suite and the flop may hit you perfectly and you have a full house no one suspects. But play that hand enough times and you will lose.

but 7-2 suited is the bomb......

[jskinnz]

but 7-2 suited is the bomb......

I hope to meet you at a casino soon.

[Gavin]

And BTW - what makes you think Harnish will be 4th string? Does Vittoe or however you spell his name have a stranglehold on the job?

are we will talking about a 3rd string quarterback at best?

[GAColt]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

Wasn't the answer to a lot of the criticism of Luck is that he didn't have good WR's to throw to? If that's true why would we want to draft one of them?

[chad72]

I do wonder if we have more free safety kind of bodies if we will go with 2 hybrid guys that can play free safety or CB in the nickel package.

Thus the roster will have 4 CBs, 2 "star" or "hybrid" free safeties, 4 other safeties. I am sure some teams in the NFL do that to give them more flexibility given the popularity of more receiving TEs. You are fast enough to cover those "slightly smaller but faster receiving" TEs but big enough to hold up vs those receiving TEs should they be employed in a run play.

[Gavin]

Wasn't the answer to a lot of the criticism of Luck is that he didn't have good WR's to throw to? If that's true why would we want to draft one of them?

Dennard, Whalen or Owusu would have been a wiser decision, why? familiarity, even if those players are depth players, at least those are players he is familiar with. also the Lavon Brazil pick I question when we could have gotten Brandon Washington, yeah we missed late, from the second 5th round pick on down is all questionable at best and maybe even that second 3rd round pick we gave up a pick for

[Superman]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

Why are you so in love with Dennard? Do you really think he's that good? I think every team in the league had major questions about him after he punched a police officer a few days before the draft.

This is what Grigson was saying: You spend all this time scouting and making visits and watching film, and at the end of the day, everything you've seen and learned goes into the way you set your board. So now your board is set, and because you feel you have a need a certain position and a player you like is available, should you waver from your board that you spent so much time and energy on? Does it make sense to do that for a player that isn't certain to fill the need you perceive you have, and then if he doesn't pan out, you have to go use additional resources to fill that need. And you lost out on the player your evaluation process told you was the best player available at the time. Why scout at all, if you're just going to throw your reports away when you're in the draft room?

I really feel like even mentioning Whalen is wasted energy, considering the fact that we signed him anyways.

I agree that sometimes, it makes sense to reach for a perceived need rather than sticking rigidly to BPA. If your board tells you that a running back is BPA, and you have a corner rated slightly lower, but you need a corner more than a running back, I understand taking the corner instead. But that doesn't mean that taking the running back is a bad decision, because your scouting has told you that he's a better player, regardless of your need. And when the time comes for him to contribute, he'll be more effective at his job than the other player who was rated lower. So what's wrong with taking the better player? That's why you set up a board in the first place.

[DarkHorseColts]

well it was off base enough to waste a pick on a 4th string quarterback in the 7th round when Dennard was still available and I believe whalen was to, one of the two stanford receiver, whalen or owusu, reaching isnt a bad thing if its to get the player you want that can help the team

Dennard was already gone by the time the Colts picked Harnish (Pats took him at #224). Argument may still hold, but it would have had to have been one of the first 2 7th rounders.

Whalen signed with the Colts as an UFDA, as noted by Supes.

[Gavin]

Why are you so in love with Dennard? Do you really think he's that good? I think every team in the league had major questions about him after he punched a police officer a few days before the draft.

This is what Grigson was saying: You spend all this time scouting and making visits and watching film, and at the end of the day, everything you've seen and learned goes into the way you set your board. So now your board is set, and because you feel you have a need a certain position and a player you like is available, should you waver from your board that you spent so much time and energy on? Does it make sense to do that for a player that isn't certain to fill the need you perceive you have, and then if he doesn't pan out, you have to go use additional resources to fill that need. And you lost out on the player your evaluation process told you was the best player available at the time. Why scout at all, if you're just going to throw your reports away when you're in the draft room?

I really feel like even mentioning Whalen is wasted energy, considering the fact that we signed him anyways.

I agree that sometimes, it makes sense to reach for a perceived need rather than sticking rigidly to BPA. If your board tells you that a running back is BPA, and you have a corner rated slightly lower, but you need a corner more than a running back, I understand taking the corner instead. But that doesn't mean that taking the running back is a bad decision, because your scouting has told you that he's a better player, regardless of your need. And when the time comes for him to contribute, he'll be more effective at his job than the other player who was rated lower. So what's wrong with taking the better player? That's why you set up a board in the first place.

the board is subject to change you dont take a player just for depth heck he is competing with 3 other running backs just to be the 3rd stringer its illogical, and 4 quarterbacks on the team? are we really having a guy compete to be the 3rd string quarterback?, tons of questions about this draft for sure, the first 3 picks are great, I question the Hilton over Ta'amu pick or Brandon Thompson even and Hosley, the Chapman pick I understand and if he recovers from the ACL nicely it will prove to be a good pick in my opinion but Ta'amu would have been the smarter choice given he wasnt just coming off a surgery

[Gavin]

Dennard was already gone by the time the Colts picked Harnish (Pats took him at #224). Argument may still hold, but it would have had to have been one of the first 2 7th rounders.

Whalen signed with the Colts as an UFDA, as noted by Supes.

Im talking about the 1st 7th round pick we got