Dennis Allen confirms that Mickey Loomis was not in favor of firing him after Panthers loss (2 Viewers)

[BBarnes]

I believe Loomis would’ve brought DA back for his final year of contract. That way he would’ve never had to fire him.

If it was just up to ML and no one else had a say so, I can without a shadow of a doubt say DA would have remained HC for at least one more season.

 

[Randy S]

This is the quote that bugs me the most.

Loomis went on to tell Allen that he was "not really in favor of this move," but Allen was fired anyway.

There's no color to help understand how the message was articulated. Maybe Loomis told DA that he wasn't in favor of it, but the team's performance left him no choice, or maybe Loomis said he was ok if DA just kept doing what he was doing, but Benson made him fire DA.

To me, when you have a discussion with the boss (Benson) about performance and options, that's the time to (fiercely) represent for your coach/team and defend a position of waiting until end of season. Maybe Loomis did this and lost. But, if the decision is made to terminate employment of the head coach, a good leader *owns that decision* and doesn't pass the buck.

Looking forward to a brighter future with a coach that is a leader of men and can inspire a team.

 

[kcirdor]

Dennis Allen inherited a Saints team coming off 5 straight winning seasons.

Virtually no new coach steps into such a position. That's a pretty good hand! The only better situation I could envision in today's NFL involves either Andy Reid's health making him retire, or the Steelers (idiotically IMHO) firing Mike Tomlin. Bowles with the Bucs stepping in for Arians after the latter retired is the only similar new coach situation recently I can think of off the top of my head.

When you are 30% and growing over the Cap. you can't really do to much for roster turnover. You can't afford to sign veteran Back up QBs, you really can't do too much in terms of roster changes. So you are stuck with an aging team. We knew this off-season we were one Oline man injury away from disaster. Couldn't do much, because we had to reign in the excess OTC. Allen had no shot with the hand he was dealt. The cap should have been fixed by now and maybe Allen would have had a shot. "but we missed on draft classes" yea no sheet... we also didn't have any money to supplement that failure.

 

[rlemieux]

I think what was even worse than what we already knew, Mickey wasn't firing DA if his hand wasn't forced was later in the interview the complete denial on getting fired. He says something along the lines of he doesn't think he got fired. Instead the Saints were going in another direction and his direction wasn't what they wanted. Dudes special, I'll tell you that. You got fired. You failed at 2 head coaching jobs and were historically one of the worst all time to do it.

 

[Pocket Hercules]

This is the quote that bugs me the most.



There's no color to help understand how the message was articulated. Maybe Loomis told DA that he wasn't in favor of it, but the team's performance left him no choice, or maybe Loomis said he was ok if DA just kept doing what he was doing, but Benson made him fire DA.

To me, when you have a discussion with the boss (Benson) about performance and options, that's the time to (fiercely) represent for your coach/team and defend a position of waiting until end of season. Maybe Loomis did this and lost. But, if the decision is made to terminate employment of the head coach, a good leader *owns that decision* and doesn't pass the buck.

Looking forward to a brighter future with a coach that is a leader of men and can inspire a team.

This was my first reaction as well. In addition to the valid reason you mentioned, I think that if this gets around it potentially damages one of the primary reasons that a candidate might be interested in the Saints and be willing to overlook our football-related deficits relative to other openings. Loomis has demonstrated a lot of loyalty to coaches and players during his tenure in the face of difficult circumstances (on and off the field). A coach wants to know that the GM has their back and is on the same page with ownership in key organizational decisions. Loomis (if what DA said is true) unnecessarily castrated himself by volunteering that he didn't want to fire DA and was overruled by an owner that doesn't really otherwise meddle in football decisions and is fairly green as it relates to football operations.

I've not been one to jump on the "fire Mickey" bandwagon by any means, and I'm still not there, but making a statement like that offers nothing but downside. He should know better. Hope it doesn't cost us.

 

[St. Widge]

This was my first reaction as well. In addition to the valid reason you mentioned, I think that if this gets around it potentially damages one of the primary reasons that a candidate might be interested in the Saints and be willing to overlook our football-related deficits relative to other openings. Loomis has demonstrated a lot of loyalty to coaches and players during his tenure in the face of difficult circumstances (on and off the field). A coach wants to know that the GM has their back and is on the same page with ownership in key organizational decisions. Loomis (if what DA said is true) unnecessarily castrated himself by volunteering that he didn't want to fire DA and was overruled by an owner that doesn't really otherwise meddle in football decisions and is fairly green as it relates to football operations.

I've not been one to jump on the "fire Mickey" bandwagon by any means, and I'm still not there, but making a statement like that offers nothing but downside. He should know better. Hope it doesn't cost us.

On the other hand, this also demonstrates to potential coaches that Loomis will have their back even if the owner wants to fire them and that it took the owner stepping in to make Loomis fire a coach in his third year on a 7 game losing streak.

Obviously not a good thing that it took this long for Loomis to fire DA or that Benson had to step in. But, from the perspective of a potential coach it sure makes Loomis look loyal to a fault.

 

[Pocket Hercules]

On the other hand, this also demonstrates to potential coaches that Loomis will have their back even if the owner wants to fire them and that it took the owner stepping in to make Loomis fire a coach in his third year on a 7 game losing streak.

Obviously not a good thing that it took this long for Loomis to fire DA or that Benson had to step in. But, from the perspective of a potential coach it sure makes Loomis look loyal to a fault.

I hear you, and obviously one candidate could view it differently from the next I suppose, but one could also take away from it that the GM had DA's back and it didn't matter.

At the end of the day...Loomis should have simply owned the decision rather than throwing Gayle under the bus, IMO.

 

[DSnfla]

Playing Devils Advocate here : This doesn't mean that Loomis wasn't going to part ways in the offseason (I suspect he would've kept DA). But nowhere does this give any hint about Loomis just simply not believe in mid season firings and wasn't planning on moving on from DA after the season.

Underhill disagrees with you , he's said several times he thought ML was going to fire DA at the end of the season

 

[DSnfla]

Dennis Allen inherited a Saints team coming off 5 straight winning seasons.

Virtually no new coach steps into such a position. That's a pretty good hand! The only better situation I could envision in today's NFL involves either Andy Reid's health making him retire, or the Steelers (idiotically IMHO) firing Mike Tomlin. Bowles with the Bucs stepping in for Arians after the latter retired is the only similar new coach situation recently I can think of off the top of my head.

LOL the last season was just 9-8 and 4 of those 5 season we had a HOF QB
I'm in no way saying that DA was a good HC but you need to take context into consideration

 

[GrandAdmiral]

But, from the perspective of a potential coach it sure makes Loomis look loyal to a fault.

That loyalty would be the reason I would fire Loomis. His loyalty was pointed in the wrong direction for a team that's been struggling for years and wasn't going to get better. Hell, I would've fired him for his "loyalty" to continuity knowing the train headed in the team's direction.

Underhill disagrees with you , he's said several times he thought ML was going to fire DA at the end of the season

Doesn't mean it was going to happen.

 

[KCWhoDat]

Allen is a good guy, but he didn't belong as a head coach. Glazer looks bored listening to Dennis.

DA is boring , lol

 

[KCWhoDat]

Pretty unprofessional to leave before addressing the players just because you did not want cameras on you. A professional addresses their subordinates/co-workers personally before leaving.

Reminds me a bit of when the Falcons coach left a note…lol. Remember that ? Not the same circumstances at all but he still snuck out.

 

[sfidc3]

LOL the last season was just 9-8 and 4 of those 5 season we had a HOF QB
I'm in no way saying that DA was a good HC but you need to take context into consideration

I think that 9-8 2023 season should include context.....because these are the facts about that season......

1) the easiest schedule of all teams in the NFL in 2023
2) they played in the worst division in the NFL, the 9-8 Bucs won it....
3) they beat a single team (one) with a winning record, the 9-8 Bucs at the end of the season when they had already clinched the division
4) They got DA's guy at QB in Derek Carr.....
5) Here is the kicker, they had at +11 one of the best turnover ratios in the NFL and still found ways to lose games.....truly a DA trait....

The 2023 season was an abysmal failure, any decent HC would have had the Saints in the playoffs.....The real LOL is that in CSP's last year we were 9-8 and also had more starters miss games than any other team in the NFL, started 4 different QB's and played a tougher schedule.....he should have been in consideration of coach of the year for that.....

Above is context, not just a mention of it....

 

[Kingston]

I know people assume Loomis would have fired DA after the season, but don’t think that would have been a certainty. Especially if you consider DA a “fantastic coach” and the “circumstances created the record”.

I think he would have fired him post season, had he continued to tailspin. There of course would have been the chance he righted the ship and finished with some wins but doubtful because he had clearly lost his locker room some point during the 7 game loosing streak if not before that.

I also think had an elite QB been available at the top of the draft the team never would have fired DA. We would have let him keep doing what he’s doing right on in the rest of the way and been content to finish 2-15 with a crack at a franchise QB.

The gain of moving up in the draft this season wasn’t worth the locker room. You can practically make a case for any of the top 10 guys being the 1st overall.