Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Fire Ryan Grigson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Not really. They've tried to upgrade the line through both FA signings (Cherilus/Donald Thomas) and through the draft (Thornton/Holmes). There have been other moves, but the Colts offensive line struggles aren't because the Colts didn't have one 1st rd draft pick, it's because really none of the players they've signd/drafted have worked out.
    First round picks are way more valuable than free agent signings or third round (Thornton) and fourth round (Holmes) picks. First round picks are always the most valuable way to upgrade your roster.

    Let's look at some of the most important players on the 2000's Colts, excluding Peyton since picking him was such a unique situation (though not really since the exact same thing happened 14 years later).

    Marvin Harrison - first rounder. Tarik Glenn - first rounder. Edge - first rounder. Reggie Wayne - first rounder. Freeney - first rounder. Dallas Clark - first rounder. Addai - first rounder.

    First round picks are the most valuable asset a team has. If you whiff on them, then it's not a good thing since so many other teams are getting quality production out of their first round pick. Yes, Thorton and Holmes have struggled, but they were third and fourth round picks. The odds of us whiffing on a well scouted and hyped player in the first round would have been much lower. Possible, but lower. A guy like Joel Bitonio will go on to be one of those linemen who is a beast for ten years. Those players are harder to find as you get into the third and fourth rounds. There's a reason that Dallas is so good this year - Jerry has been using first rounders on linemen. Beast linemen who aren't available in round three.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      First round picks are way more valuable than free agent signings or third round (Thornton) and fourth round (Holmes) picks. First round picks are always the most valuable way to upgrade your roster.
      Really, ALWAYS?

      Hypothetical: You have the choice of drafting player A, or signing FA B coming off a pro-bowl year. Two years later, FA B is still making the probowl, player A is sitting on the sidelines watching. Which one would have been more valuable? Your running a different team than the Colts, you can get Andrew Luck for your first rd pick. Do you hold on to the pick or do you trade it for Luck?

      Yes, it's hypotheticals designed to get the answers, "FA B would be more valuable" "You take Luck." But a draft pick doesn't guarantee you a good player, let alone a pro-bowler. A FA is at least some what known.


      The Colts gave up one pick, and the line needs upgraded in 3 different spots (C/RG/RT) Would all three of those positions been fixed with that 2013 1st rd pick? No, so trying to say that's the reason why the line isn't any good, is a rather large stretch.

      The line isn't bad for the lack of trying, or the inability to try, it's bad because they've whiffed so many times.
      Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2014, 12:19 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Really, ALWAYS?

        Hypothetical: You have the choice of drafting player A, or signing FA B coming off a pro-bowl year. Two years later, FA B is still making the probowl, player A is sitting on the sidelines watching. Which one would have been more valuable?

        Yes, it's a pure hypothetical designed to get the answer, "FA B would be more valuable." But a draft pick doesn't guarantee you a good player, let alone a pro-bowler. A FA is at least some what known.


        The Colts gave up one pick, and the line needs upgraded in 3 different spots (C/RG/RT) Would all three of those positions been fixed with that 2013 1st rd pick? No, so trying to say that's the reason why the line isn't any good, is a rather large stretch.

        The line isn't bad for the lack of trying, or the inability to try, it's bad because they've whiffed so many times.
        OK, it's not more valuable 100% of the time, but from a year to year basis over time, the first round draft pick is the most valuable tool a team has. I didn't mean that there has never been a third rounder who is better than a first rounder. The 2000's Colts are the perfect example of this. Minimal free agent additions, but home run first round/early second round draft picks up through 2006. Yes, Darrelle Revis is certainly a better in 2014 than any player the Pats would drafted, but how often does something like that happen for the Colts?

        The Colts with their first rounder would have had the opportunity to draft a MUCH better player than Thornton or Holmes. NFL players have the hell scouted out of them. It's not perfect science, but over time on an average basis, first rounders will certainly be much better than third or fourth players. Losing that first rounder was an extremely big deal. We could have drafted a player who is much better than any of the guys we've added in FA or third/fourth rounders.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

          Unless that first rd pick is so valuable, it can upgrade three positions along the line, it's not valuable enough to fix the Colts line. That one pick isn't the missing key.

          I fully agree that it could have very well been used to get a potential pro-bowler on the line, but it also could have ended up exactly like their other attempts.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Unless that first rd pick is so valuable, it can upgrade three positions along the line, it's not valuable enough to fix the Colts line. That one pick isn't the missing key.

            I fully agree that it could have very well been used to get a potential pro-bowler on the line, but it also could have ended up exactly like their other attempts.

            I've never said that it would fix three positions, but it could have been a major start. But yes, you need to be able to find your diamond in the rough undrafted FA Jeff Saturday to go next to your first round stud Tarik Glenn. Grigs hasn't been able to find anything so far in that department.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Unless that first rd pick is so valuable, it can upgrade three positions along the line, it's not valuable enough to fix the Colts line. That one pick isn't the missing key.

              I fully agree that it could have very well been used to get a potential pro-bowler on the line, but it also could have ended up exactly like their other attempts.
              Which is why offensive line might be one of the hardest positions in football to build. Teams that have bad ones tend to struggle with it for a long time. That's especially true for a line like the Colts, where they don't have one Pro Bowl caliber player on the whole line. Offensive line is weak across the league, so good ones rarely hit free agency. This is subjective, but I also think that there is something to the theory that young offensive linemen tend to play better when lined up next to other good offensive linemen, so that also tends to slow down the development of a line.

              There really shouldn't have been an expectation that the Colts could have built a solid line this quickly. When your three inside players are both all young and none of them are elite prospects, that's a big problem. The Richardson trade seemed to indicate that the Colts thought that he was so elite that he could succeed behind a bad line. At the time they traded for him, they had already lost Thomas last year, so they knew what the situation was inside.

              Plenty of first round linemen bust, so that wouldn't have necessarily been the answer. But if you have a bad line and a bad running game, a 1st round lineman and a 3rd round or less runningback gives you a much better shot of making both better than a 1st round running back and linemen later in the draft. That has been proven by teams over and over again.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                Look at what the Cowboys have done. In three of the last four years, Jerry Jones has taken offensive linemen with his first round pick. The result is that they've had an elite running attack this year. Sure, DeMarcco Murray is obviously an extremely talented RB, but that O-Line has allowed him to play like Barry Sanders.

                2011 - Tyron Smith. Stud

                2013 - Travis Frederick. Immediate producer

                2014 - Zack Martin. Kid out of Notre Dame who is starting as a rookie.

                Now they have an offensive line that will be extremely good for many many years to come. No one single pick will cure your O-Line, but a commitment to using multiple high draft picks on the line over several years gives you a solid chance of success. The types of players the Cowboys drafted are guys who weren't around when the Colts were adding their Thortons and Holmes. Free agency is also very risky for the line because you're giving a lot of money to older players who can breakdown. The best linemen are the 22/23 year old studs who are cheap and healthy.

                For as flashy as Jerry Jones is, he deserves major credit for recognizing that his football team needed to spend premium picks on building through the trenches. It's a major reason that they are 10-4 right now.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                  Sure, I'm just saying that one 1st rd pick isn't the wet blanket on the line.

                  When you look at the context of what the Colts have tried to do, giving up one 1st rd pick is, at least, understandable. They put a lot of resources in the OLine, without that pick. Had they batted .500 on those 4 other players, missing the 1st rd pick wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue. But because they did go 0-4 on them, it makes missing that pick hurt even more.

                  Let's say the Colts had that 1st rd pick, but didn't use it on a linemen. Would we then blame that player? I really, really, really, doubt it, or we'd be talking about Bjorn Werner too.
                  Last edited by Since86; 12-18-2014, 01:05 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Sure, I'm just saying that one 1st rd pick isn't the wet blanket on the line.

                    When you look at the context of what the Colts have tried to do, giving up one 1st rd pick is, at least, understandable. They put a lot of resources in the OLine, without that pick. Had they batted .500 on those 4 other players, missing the 1st rd pick wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue. But because they did go 0-4 on them, it makes missing that pick hurt even more.

                    Let's say the Colts had that 1st rd pick, but didn't use it on a linemen. Would we then blame that player? I really, really, really, doubt it, or we'd be talking about Bjorn Werner too.
                    Werner helps fill a key need that the team has and is not dependent on another position to nearly the extent that Richardson is. That's the big difference. Richardson needs a good offensive line to succeed. But building a good offensive line with the resources the Colts had left was only a dream. Sure, if two of those moves had worked it would be a different story. But looking at the success of free agent linemen and 3rd and 4th round picks, to hit on two of them would have been pretty lucky. So it made no sense to acquire a player who is so dependent on the line when the odds are against a team building a line.

                    Even if Richardson is this good/great player who could be DeMarco Murray if he were behind the Cowboys offensive line, it still wouldn't make sense for the Colts to pay a first rounder for him because of the slim odds of acquiring anywhere near that type of line. The only way it made sense was if Richardson was the somewhat rare type of runningback who could overcome a bad offensive line, which would also give Luck more breathing room to work. And if that's what they were thinking, the last year and a half has at least proved that he's not that type of runningback.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      Werner helps fill a key need that the team has and is not dependent on another position to nearly the extent that Richardson is. That's the big difference.
                      Well sure.

                      But in order to think that the loss of the 1st rd pick is what hampered the upgrade of the OLine, you'd need to operate off the assumption that the pick would be used for OLine. What happens if that pick was used to fill another position of need, like safety? We're in the same boat. Which is exactly what they did with Werner.

                      The loss of the pick is just one aspect in a much larger picture, but we focus on that one aspect because of who the player it was used on is. We don't talk about Donald Thomas' injury, it's impact on the line. We talk about that pick because it was used on Trent, and Trent is the flavor of the year.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        But acquiring him hampered our ability to improve the line. We put the cart before the horse. Joel Bitonio was drafted 35th by the Browns and will be a beast lineman for a decade. We could have had him.
                        That is called 20/20 hindsight. Did you peg Joel Bitonio as a sure-fire beast lineman for a decade at the time of the draft? No, you did not. TY Hilton is arguably one of the 3 best players taken from that 2012 draft, and yet 91 players were picked before him. You cannot use hindsight when it comes to the NFL draft, nor can you say that first round picks are the best way to upgrade your team. This is not how the NFL draft works.

                        Not only that, but it was one draft pick we gave up for TRich. We've had many more draft picks.... and then yet even more FA pickups, and trade opportunities, to upgrade this line. You can not blame our poor offensive line on one said overly picked-on Trent Richardson. People gotta stop saying stuff like this.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 04:42 PM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                          Werner helps fill a key need that the team has and is not dependent on another position to nearly the extent that Richardson is. That's the big difference. Richardson needs a good offensive line to succeed. But building a good offensive line with the resources the Colts had left was only a dream. Sure, if two of those moves had worked it would be a different story. But looking at the success of free agent linemen and 3rd and 4th round picks, to hit on two of them would have been pretty lucky. So it made no sense to acquire a player who is so dependent on the line when the odds are against a team building a line.

                          Even if Richardson is this good/great player who could be DeMarco Murray if he were behind the Cowboys offensive line, it still wouldn't make sense for the Colts to pay a first rounder for him because of the slim odds of acquiring anywhere near that type of line. The only way it made sense was if Richardson was the somewhat rare type of runningback who could overcome a bad offensive line, which would also give Luck more breathing room to work. And if that's what they were thinking, the last year and a half has at least proved that he's not that type of runningback.
                          You're saying that we should've received a 1-of-a-kind running back, a once in a generation RB for what amounted to a late-first round pick. How realistic is that? Answer: not realistic at all. People make this mistake all the time. They think that we gave up a #3 pick because that's where TRich was drafted. We didn't give up a #3 pick -- we gave up a #26 pick --- FROM THIS LAST DRAFT. We basically drafted TRich at #26 this last draft, ie. this last May, which was 7 months ago. We didn't give up a #3 pick --- we gave up a #26 pick. Which means the player we would've gotten would be 14 games into his career, and likely a backup or even practice squad at whatever position we would've taken at that spot. Everyone said Cleveland "fleeced" us on that trade. Riiiight. Manziel really proved that last week, didn't he? Not. TRich might not be putting up Murray numbers, but TRich also doesn't have Murray's o line, and no one here can argue TRich is AT LEAST more functional and serviceable than Manziel, and I'd argue that will likely never change, because I don't think Manziel has much of a future in this league.

                          #26 is roughly where we drafted Donald Brown. And yet no one had "one of a kind", "succeed no matter how bad the line is" expectations for Donald Brown, and yet inexplicably, they do for Trich.

                          And if you look at who we've drafted at that spot the last few years, it doesn't exactly overwhelm you. You are over-valuing draft picks, as do most people. Does Werner receive the lashings that TRich does? He was worthless his first year, and this year has been inconsistent. Going even before Werner back to like 2006... who have we draft in the late part of the first round that has really been this "home run" pick that everything thinks you get at that spot? None of them are still here except for Castonzo. Teams pick up their pieces from all over the draft, not just the first round. They largely build their teams through free agency. From any given draft, you might get two guys who end up having any sort of long-term impact for the team that drafted them. And please do not cite the 2012 Colts draft class; that was a freak outlier of a draft class, that was definitely not the norm, and frankly a job by Grigson that he gets severely not enough credit for.

                          The Colts have had plenty of opportunities to upgrade this line. This is one of my biggest complaints --- every time you see a FA signing, it's rarely anyone of impact on the line. We had very little depth on the line, so who did we bring in? Josh Cribbs. I generally like Grigson, but I just wish for once he'd look for some lineman, and also look outside Cleveland, Philly, and Baltimore for free agents.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 12-18-2014, 06:00 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            That is called 20/20 hindsight. Did you peg Joel Bitonio as a sure-fire beast lineman for a decade at the time of the draft? No, you did not.
                            What do I have to do with anything? I don't get paid to scout college players. Any NFL team zeroing in on linemen before the draft would have been well aware of Bitonio. If the Colts would have had that draft pick and focused on getting a linemen, then Bitonio would have been almost surely been on their radar when the time came.

                            Yes, it was only one draft pick, but it was a first round draft pick. These things don't all have equal value. The odds of us coming up with a quality lineman there had we chose to go that route would have been much greater than guys we got in the third or fourth round.....or FA pickups who have miles on them. It was a horrible trade by an inexperienced GM who got caught up in skill player hype. There's a reason that you pretty much never see NFL teams trading first rounders for running backs in this day in age. Individual running backs just don't have that much value anymore. Even if we had drafted a lineman or defensive player who didn't amount to much, it would still have been a much better move because at least the logic behind the position would have made sense.

                            Tarik Glenn was only one draft pick....but he laid a nice foundation on the line for a decade to come.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                              It's not an argument, Soll. You can't point to one successful pick behind him and say we failed. It's a bad can of worms to open and a no-win argument for any side.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Ryan Grigson

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                It's not an argument, Soll. You can't point to one successful pick behind him and say we failed. It's a bad can of worms to open and a no-win argument for any side.
                                How can the trade objectively classified as anything but a massive failure at this point? It's not an end of the world failure. It's not a failure that should cost Grigs his job.....he's done some good things. But it was a bad trade that we hopefully learn a lesson from. You just don't trade first round picks for running backs in this day and age. Do you see the Patriots or Packers doing that?

                                Marshawn Lynch was traded to the Seahawks for a fourth and fifth round draft pick. Trading a first for T-Rich was an over payment of epic proportions. Not even Marshall Faulk could fetch a first rounder back in the 90's when we traded him. Teams don't trade first rounders for running backs, not even well established ones.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X