Grigson talks to Peter King

[Superman]

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

Why are you complaining about us taking a 4th string quarterback with our first 7th rounder, when we took an offensive lineman with that pick?

[wordofmouth]

I would think, after last year, that some people would veiw QB depth as a GOOD thing.

[Gavin]

Why are you complaining about us taking a 4th string quarterback with our first 7th rounder, when we took an offensive lineman with that pick?

oops one pick off it was the Fugger pick I meant, i do love the name though

[bmax71]

I too am really liking Grigson more and more. I'll have to give it to Irsay I think he got the GM call right and we should be able to have him for quite a long time also which is important in my mind.

[Superman]

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

From everything I've read, Chapman is considered the better player in comparison with Ta'amu. The only reason Chapman lasted past the second round is because of his surgery.

And yes, you take the running back if you think he's the better player. You take the quarterback if you think he's the better player. Especially at the end of the draft. You can take the corner you like, and he winds up not making the team because he's not as good a player, or you take the running back, and if he's good enough to make your final 53, you just upgraded the team.

I don't know anything, but I feel like I'd have done something different in the 3rd round and in the 5th round. But then again, I didn't spend weeks on the road at pro days, and weeks setting up a board with 400 prospects on it. It's hard for me to criticize the decisions of someone who is deciding who the 170th best player in the draft is, and whether we'd have been better going with a corner than a running back. I don't think we did anything monumentally stupid (like drafting a punter in the 3rd round, or drafting a tweener end in the 1st round when there are more impactful players on the board).

And, more importantly to me, I like that Grigson has the fortitude to stare anyone in the face who disagrees with his draft and explain to them why he made the decisions he did. Whether his decisions work out or not, it makes me feel better now that he put in the work and stuck to his guns, regardless of perceived need.

It also helps that I like almost every player he drafted.

[Superman]

oops one pick off it was the Fugger pick I meant, i do love the name though

Why are you complaining about us taking a defensive end/linebacker in the 7th round, as if we don't have a need for players at that position?

And again, Dennard was recently arrested for hitting a police officer. It's strange that you would fight so hard (no pun intended) in his behalf when he showed that kind of judgment, knowing that he was in the middle of the most important job interview of his career. Everything about this guy sounds troubling. No doubt the talent is there for a mid-round pick, but the question is whether he can stay on the field at this point. He's made a series of bad choices over a relatively short period of time. One thing we don't need on the team right now is a reclamation project.

On top of that, he's not THAT good. He's a 3rd or 4th round talent, probably good enough to be in our four or five man rotation, but not really starting material. Not according to the ratings he got before the draft. He's not rated as high as Jenkins, another troubled cornerback prospect. If we were a contender, like the Patriots, I'd take a flier on a guy like this. If we had an embarrassment of riches in picks at the top of the draft, like the Rams, I'd take a flier on a guy like this. But for us, I prefer taking guys who can not only compete for final spots, but also can be a part of a long-term strategy with the team. And most importantly, they can be trusted to stay out of handcuffs between now and training camp (the Rams are having someone check in with Jenkins on a daily basis, basically babysitting him).

Just give me the best players on the board. And if you take some troubling character guys off your board, regardless of talent, I understand that at this point. There were a few guys in this draft that I wanted no part of. Dennard was one of them. Burfict was another, and surprise! he winds up with the Bengals. No thank you.

[CopenhagenColt]

Overall, I'm pretty pleased about the result of the draft. I think Grigson did a good job.

I like Grigson and how he handles himself. He seems to be very detail-oriented and knows every little thing about every single prospective player. At least he stays true to his board and gets what he thinks is the BPA for the future.

It would be interesting to get a glimpse into what he had preferred to draft, had the options been there in round 3 and on, but that'll never happen and he needs to stay true to and support the kids that we got.

I also like what he did in free agency, something that in my opinion is at least as important as the draft, if not more so.

Can't wait for the season to start, and I'm already curious about next years free agency and draft.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I would think, after last year, that some people would veiw QB depth as a GOOD thing.

QFT. Polian, (and quite possibly, even Peyton Manning) would still have a job as a Colt if he would have addressed the backup QB with real prospects with some skills rather than space filler and pulling guys out of retirement. Especially if he had the coaches gameplan to their strengths and not have them "Do what we do", Peyton style. I ok with getting the best backup QB's on the roster. Besides, not wanting such, but you never know when the next Brady replaces an injured Bledsoe remake takes place. After the JHets game when we we're 14-0, I knew I didn't want Painter as backup, yet...

[BleedingBlue]

its a two year draft in a 3-4 year rebuilding process.

getting andrew luck in and comfortable is the first and apparently only priority.

the lack of a defense pretty much secures picks next year, which his part of the plan.

if you have an owner saying to the fans to be patient, then there is probably no sense of urgency in the FO or locker room either.

in essence, expect a lot of zone defense with corners playing 5 yards off the line of scrimmage.

[jskinnz]

oops one pick off it was the Fugger pick I meant, i do love the name though

Wow. This is like your 3rd swing and miss in this thread alone.

[Superman]

its a two year draft in a 3-4 year rebuilding process.

getting andrew luck in and comfortable is the first and apparently only priority.

the lack of a defense pretty much secures picks next year, which his part of the plan.

if you have an owner saying to the fans to be patient, then there is probably no sense of urgency in the FO or locker room either.

in essence, expect a lot of zone defense with corners playing 5 yards off the line of scrimmage.

We have the players for a 3-4 defense already, with some depth concerns. It helps that we're not going to be a full-time 3-4.

Also, are you going to run back to the forums to declare that Irsay doesn't want us to win any games next season the first time you see us play a zone defense in preseason? Have you watched any recent Ravens games to see how often they play zone defense with corners five yards off?

[BleedingBlue]

We have the players for a 3-4 defense already, with some depth concerns. It helps that we're not going to be a full-time 3-4.

Also, are you going to run back to the forums to declare that Irsay doesn't want us to win any games next season the first time you see us play a zone defense in preseason? Have you watched any recent Ravens games to see how often they play zone defense with corners five yards off?

would you play man with our corners? so we'll see lots of zone to which i reserve the right to cry conspiracy. ;)

[Gavin]

No way do we play alot of Man

[jskinnz]

No way do we play alot of Man

Do you think they will blitz much?

[Gavin]

Do you think they will blitz much?

dont have alot of choices I dont see Mathis and Freeny covering much until they have to (versus the Patriots), Im sure we will, if we can stop the run we may be fine except versus teams with real good tight ends, Im not trying to be negative I just see those problems sticking out like sore thumbs, of course we wont know for sure until the games or played but I would have loved to go for Upshaw and try to trade Freeny for a mid round pick 4th or 5th and got a Guard in the process such as Brandon Washington, My opinion is if a player has a natural position and does it very well, ya dont go fixing what dont need to be fixed but in our case we are obviously in the process of fixing our whole defense, of which Freeney is on the team this year but not in future plans his age alone can tell you that

[Fr33UpFr33ney]

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 still don't understand how a colts fan, having gone through what we have gone through with injuries, wouldn't be for drafting a QB for debt every draft LOL.

[Gavin]

I still don't understand how a colts fan, having gone through what we have gone through with injuries, wouldn't be for drafting a QB for debt every draft LOL.

depth has little meaning unless its quality depth, unless a team is just putting a player in to fill the position, Id rather have Orlovsky over Stanton at this point

[Rich Cannon]

As much as I want to give Grigson credit for the draft its still to early drafts should be judged at least 3 years down the road when those drated players are veterans. I def like the guys intensity and fire, but we just have to wait and see.

[jskinnz]

dont have alot of choices I dont see Mathis and Freeny covering much until they have to (versus the Patriots), Im sure we will, if we can stop the run we may be fine except versus teams with real good tight ends, Im not trying to be negative I just see those problems sticking out like sore thumbs, of course we wont know for sure until the games or played but I would have loved to go for Upshaw and try to trade Freeny for a mid round pick 4th or 5th and got a Guard in the process such as Brandon Washington, My opinion is if a player has a natural position and does it very well, ya dont go fixing what dont need to be fixed but in our case we are obviously in the process of fixing our whole defense, of which Freeney is on the team this year but not in future plans his age alone can tell you that

If they are blitzing then they will absolutely be playing more man to man.

[Nadine]

As much as I want to give Grigson credit for the draft its still to early drafts should be judged at least 3 years down the road when those drated players are veterans. I def like the guys intensity and fire, but we just have to wait and see.

agree

[NagelHausForge]

I still don't understand how a colts fan, having gone through what we have gone through with injuries, wouldn't be for drafting a QB for debt every draft LOL.

I understand that... but we have 2 other QBs on the roster right now... one which we traded the Jets for!

[Gavin]

If they are blitzing then they will absolutely be playing more man to man.

then we may be >>>ed and likely are

[Smonroe]

I too am really liking Grigson more and more. I'll have to give it to Irsay I think he got the GM call right and we should be able to have him for quite a long time also which is important in my mind.

I agree, I really like the direction the team is taking - at this point. However, until we actually see it on the field I'll keep reminding myself of the Mike Tyson quote: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

We're going to get punched in the mouth a lot this season. Let's hope we're still liking the plan then.

[Superman]

would you play man with our corners? so we'll see lots of zone to which i reserve the right to cry conspiracy. ;)

The Ravens play plenty of zone, and use plenty of zone blitzes. They also use cushions on the outside from time to time. They also mix in man coverage. This leads me to believe that we're going to do plenty of the same. You think that's going to be evidence that we're not playing the defense Pagano wants to play, and it just won't be the case.

By the way, yes I would play man from time to time with our cornerbacks. Our corners made a number of plays last season in man coverage. They looked worse playing deep zone coverage, which makes me wonder why we used that deep zone coverage so much.

[jskinnz]

then we may be >>>ed and likely are

Maybe but that is not the point. You said they better not be playing more man to man but then acknowledged more blitzes are in store for this defense. Those are kind of opposing thoughts.

[Superman]

dont have alot of choices I dont see Mathis and Freeny covering much until they have to (versus the Patriots), Im sure we will, if we can stop the run we may be fine except versus teams with real good tight ends, Im not trying to be negative I just see those problems sticking out like sore thumbs, of course we wont know for sure until the games or played but I would have loved to go for Upshaw and try to trade Freeny for a mid round pick 4th or 5th and got a Guard in the process such as Brandon Washington, My opinion is if a player has a natural position and does it very well, ya dont go fixing what dont need to be fixed but in our case we are obviously in the process of fixing our whole defense, of which Freeney is on the team this year but not in future plans his age alone can tell you that

I'm beginning to think you think the coaches we have are incompetent. Would any competent NFL coach use Freeney and Mathis in coverage against the Patriots?

Pagano has already said that any coverage drops by either of those two will be rare. He's also said that we're not going to be a full-time 3-4 defense, which means that Freeney and Mathis will still be rushing from a three-point stance a considerable amount of time. It really perplexes me why people think we're going to be a full-fledged 3-4 defense, and Freeney and Mathis are going to be running downfield trying to cover Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez.

[BleedingBlue]

which makes me wonder why we used that deep zone coverage so much.

see.

[Superman]

Maybe but that is not the point. You said they better not be playing more man to man but then acknowledged more blitzes are in store for this defense. Those are kind of opposing thoughts.

I disagree. A lot of so-called aggressive, blitzing defense play a lot of zone coverages, like the Steelers. The Ravens also, for several seasons. They both use a healthy amount of zone-blitzes. It's not either/or. I do think we'll play more man coverage than we have in the past.

[Superman]

see.

What?

[bavanlan]

By the way, yes I would play man from time to time with our cornerbacks. Our corners made a number of plays last season in man coverage. They looked worse playing deep zone coverage, which makes me wonder why we used that deep zone coverage so much.

We used to use a lot of Cover-3 shells so we could stick an extra safety in the box. Bethea can't cover the deep zones sideline to sideline.

[BleedingBlue]

lol even you are wondering why we played a deep zone so much.

just saying....

edit: ignore bavanian's reply. its too logical for the conspiracy theory.

[jskinnz]

I disagree. A lot of so-called aggressive, blitzing defense play a lot of zone coverages, like the Steelers. The Ravens also, for several seasons. They both use a healthy amount of zone-blitzes. It's not either/or. I do think we'll play more man coverage than we have in the past.

I did not say either or hence the use of "kind of." But if they are blitzing more, ultimately there will be more man to man coverage.

[Andy]

I did not say either or hence the use of "kind of." But if they are blitzing more, ultimately there will be more man to man coverage.

That's not true at all...

[Superman]

We used to use a lot of Cover-3 shells so we could stick an extra safety in the box. Bethea can't cover the deep zones sideline to sideline.

There's a lot of different ways to play a Cover 3 shell. But usually, if your corners give up more catches and yards in a Cover 3 than they do in a Man-1 or Man-2, it would seem like you'd use less Cover 3 and more Man-1 or Man-2.

What we did on defense last season is completely indefensible, which is why I stopped defending Coyer and Caldwell last season.

[Superman]

lol even you are wondering why we played a deep zone so much.

just saying....

edit: ignore bavanian's reply. its too logical for the conspiracy theory.

I don't think you really believe your conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to argue against it anymore.

[Superman]

I did not say either or hence the use of "kind of." But if they are blitzing more, ultimately there will be more man to man coverage.

I'm nitpicking, but that's not necessarily true. Technically, every blitz could be a zone-blitz. I think that's a false premise.

[jskinnz]

I'm nitpicking, but that's not necessarily true. Technically, every blitz could be a zone-blitz. I think that's a false premise.

Zone blitz is different and I understand what you are saying. I think overall the defense will be infinitely more agressive than in the past - blitzes in which they bring 5 or more rushers and in those instances, the corners will be asked to use more man coverage. Would you agree with that?

[BleedingBlue]

I don't think you really believe your conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to argue against it anymore.

I believe that people will game the game. And I believe that it is possible to do.

[Superman]

Zone blitz is different and I understand what you are saying. I think overall the defense will be infinitely more agressive than in the past - blitzes in which they bring 5 or more rushers and in those instances, the corners will be asked to use more man coverage. Would you agree with that?

I agree that we will blitz and use man coverage behind blitzes, some of the time. I don't think we'll use man coverage every time we blitz.

Also, when I say blitz, I'm usually talking about bringing 5 or more, like you said. But some people refer to a blitz as anything more than the down linemen coming. You can drop 8 in coverage, but bring your nickelback, and some would call that a blitz. Technicalities, of course. Just noting.