Was Loomis Taken out of Context By His Remarks (Comparing DA to Coaching Greats) (1 Viewer)

[Saintman2884]

That's not a good sign when you have to dig into football archives to justify your support. He's comparing coaches from totally different eras. In today's game, it's unheard of for a losing coach to get past three years (if that). Just say we still support Dennis and stop gaslighting the fans.

I wasnt exactly giving Allen a huge amount of support. I was making an argument that historically, among the names Loomis listed as HC's who were terrible in their first tenures became great somewhere else, only Belichek succeeded in his second attempt and 85-90% of that unprecedented success was largely due to Tom Brady. Belicheck was a great DC for New York Giants in the 1980's while winning two Super Bowls but those werent his teams, they were Parcells squads.

Again, Allen, IMHO, is a poor man's Haslett, except that DA was and still is a better DC than Haslett ever could hope to be here in 1996 with Mora, in Pittsburgh from 1997-99, or in Washington under Mike Shanahan.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

We all know the gist of what Loomis was saying is “We think we have a good coach, we just need to be patient because greatness takes time to cultivate“

If you disagree you disagree. End story

 

[Saintman2884]

So you’re saying that Raiders front office was/is stable. That’s hard to believe.

That doesn't mean that Allen's failures there should be over-looked or his lack of leadership, "take-charge" mentality, or complete lack of success in Oakland from 2012-2014 should be over-looked. The Raiders actually improved somewhat after Allen departed and Jack Del Rio took over, albeit for a few seasons and other past HC's like Jon Gruden succeeded in spite of Oakland's FO being a chaotic mine field and autocratic dictatorship under Al Davis.

 

[Cajun Mike]

He compared apples to oranges and then gave us apple juice when we asked for orange juice.

Or prune juice

 

[St. Widge]

He compared apples to oranges and then gave us apple juice when we asked for orange juice.

I have never have gotten this saying. You can compare apples and oranges. They are both roundish, they are both fruits, they both grow on trees, etc.

You can also contrast them. One is orange the other is either red, green or yellow, etc.

Just because there are some differences, even major differences, between two things doesn't mean you can't compare them.

And, I don't think Loomis was comparing DA to those coaches. He was just saying that just because a coach has a bad record for his first few years, it doesn't always mean they will turn out to be a bad coach.

I personally think DA should be gone but Loomis is incredibly patient and that patience sometimes pays off. I don't think it will this time, but I hope it does.

 

[Semper]

When he compared DA having similar starts in his first two seasons as a coach compared to Chuck Knoll, Bill Walsh, Belichick, and Tom Landry, I don't think he meant that Allen would have a similar rise.

It was more of saying what can happen when teams are patient with their HCs when they are first starting.

I have seen a lot of people on Saints Twitter, Saints FB Groups, podcasts, and even the local media that were not too pleased by what ML said.

Thoughts?

Well that doesn’t fit the outraged narrative at all…. I think many people are taking it out of context.

To me he meant that those guys didn’t start out as geniuses. Let’s wait a little longer and see what happens.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

I have no idea what Loomis was trying to say. He was defensive and uncomfortable throughout the press conference and made several statements that he possibly can't believe. His comments mentioning Landry, Noll and Walsh were planned and should not have been made.

 

[PHSaint518]

No, his remarks were not taken out of context. All he had to do was say something along the lines of “I think Dennis Allen is a good coach, we had a winning record and there are plenty of examples of HCs having success after a disappointing first two seasons”.

Whilst most of us would have disagreed it’d have been a completely fair answer. Once you start reeling off the names of HOF coaches then you sound absurd and antagonise an already frustrated fan base further.

 

[Saintman2884]

I have never have gotten this saying. You can compare apples and oranges. They are both roundish, they are both fruits, they both grow on trees, etc.

You can also contrast them. One is orange the other is either red, green or yellow, etc.

Just because there are some differences, even major differences, between two things doesn't mean you can't compare them.

And, I don't think Loomis was comparing DA to those coaches. He was just saying that just because a coach has a bad record for his first few years, it doesn't always mean they will turn out to be a bad coach.

I personally think DA should be gone but Loomis is incredibly patient and that patience sometimes pays off. I don't think it will this time, but I hope it does.

It's the taste and textures that make them different and what has always lead to being a apt compare/contrast analogy. Apples tend to be sweet-tasting, softer on the inside while oranges have a crustier, tougher exterior, are tangier, have a sour, if not much sweeter taste to them that has more of a bigger "kick" to it especially when it comes to drinking them.

Pears are one fruit, IMHO, that tend to have a better comparison with apples. Their softer, smaller, but kind of look like and have the taste of apples.

 

[St. Widge]

I have no idea what Loomis was trying to say. He was defensive and uncomfortable throughout the press conference and made several statements that he possibly can't believe. His comments mentioning Landry, Noll and Walsh were planned and should not have been made.

You didn't like what Loomis had to say and will make sure it is seen in the worst possible light? I for one am shocked by this.

It's strange several of the reporters who were at the press conference said that Loomis looked relaxed and excited to get started on building for next season.

 

[Rexman100]

When he compared DA having similar starts in his first two seasons as a coach compared to Chuck Knoll, Bill Walsh, Belichick, and Tom Landry, I don't think he meant that Allen would have a similar rise.

It was more of saying what can happen when teams are patient with their HCs when they are first starting.

I have seen a lot of people on Saints Twitter, Saints FB Groups, podcasts, and even the local media that were not too pleased by what ML said.

Thoughts?

it sounded like blasphemy. He could've made his point with lesser accomplished coaches. Instead, he chose the most arrogant argument because he knows he's safe and can be as Zany as he wants, without retribution. (im not hating ML, im just pointing out what im seeing)

 

[No2DC]

I wasnt exactly giving Allen a huge amount of support. I was making an argument that historically, among the names Loomis listed as HC's who were terrible in their first tenures became great somewhere else, only Belichek succeeded in his second attempt and 85-90% of that unprecedented success was largely due to Tom Brady. Belicheck was a great DC for New York Giants in the 1980's while winning two Super Bowls but those werent his teams, they were Parcells squads.

Again, Allen, IMHO, is a poor man's Haslett, except that DA was and still is a better DC than Haslett ever could hope to be here in 1996 with Mora, in Pittsburgh from 1997-99, or in Washington under Mike Shanahan.

This is where he's out of touch; both Landry and Walsh's first pro-jobs were with the same team. Yes, they had success after the first few years, but that was a totally different era, and Walsh was a winner at Stanford. Tom Brady and Brock Purdy were both late-round picks, and one expects teams to stop picking QBs at the top of the draft. I get what Lucky is trying to say he just picked some very poor examples. Absolutely no one expects Allen to turn into a HOF coach. This guy has four full years as a coach and the best he's achieved is one game above .500.

 

[perret318]

When he compared DA having similar starts in his first two seasons as a coach compared to Chuck Knoll, Bill Walsh, Belichick, and Tom Landry, I don't think he meant that Allen would have a similar rise.

It was more of saying what can happen when teams are patient with their HCs when they are first starting.

I have seen a lot of people on Saints Twitter, Saints FB Groups, podcasts, and even the local media that were not too pleased by what ML said.

Thoughts?

It's a common logical fallacy. Yes, that happened with that set of HoF coaches. But HoF coaches are rare for a REASON. What about the VASTLY higher percentage of coaches that don't get astronomically better after those first few years? Basically, all that statement really says is "Hey, DA has a greater-than-zero chance of getting better." Well no duh, ML.

ML knows this. Hell, he's a numbers guy, he's literally an expert in statistics. And that's what makes it infuriating, is that he was trying use that statement purposefully to, at best, give a wildly optimistic comparison, and at worst, completely mislead and misdirect the line of questioning (which he did constantly in that interview).

 

[Que Que 6]

When he compared DA having similar starts in his first two seasons as a coach compared to Chuck Knoll, Bill Walsh, Belichick, and Tom Landry, I don't think he meant that Allen would have a similar rise.

It was more of saying what can happen when teams are patient with their HCs when they are first starting.

I have seen a lot of people on Saints Twitter, Saints FB Groups, podcasts, and even the local media that were not too pleased by what ML said.

Thoughts?

DA has proven to be completely irrational. So yes, he was dead arse.