Rebuilding strategy, forty-niners or saints?

[Elvis]

I prefer the 49ers method. It’s far more self reflective of their current reality at any given time and it moves on from players (and dumps their salaries) a little early rather than too late.

No method is a guarantor of success, but theirs leaves more room to pivot in another direction if the last one didn’t work. The Saints have to double down on what didn’t work just to reduce dead money in the current year. Someone will undoubtedly respond to that as “they really believe in” such and such player or even the entire roster. But I don’t believe that to be true. If teams were able to wipe dead money off the board, I believe ours would look very different.

 

[Treybad]

Anyone feel like these moves are just to help this team get out of the top 15 in the draft... I am not seeing a playoff team with basically the same talent...
Granted with the right draft picks we might ba able too.... would probably take a better draft than 2006

 

[St. Widge]

That's fair. Your view is Super bowl or bust then.


Not even. I completely understand it's not a guarantee that it will work. Just that this FO has shown they are incapable of building through drafting in the mid to late rounds. The higher you draft it significantly increases odds of drafting pro bowl/all pro talents. If we drafted well currently I would think different.

I agree it's not the only way. You can draft normally and turn around but that requires elite talent evaluation which we have shown we do not have.

It'll be interesting to see how the Pats vs Saints futures play out.

I'm not Super Bowl or bust, but I think if I'm going to have to have a team that sucks for at least 3 or 4 years, the project needs to end with a Super Bowl otherwise, what is the point? And while I thik Super Bowl or bust has to be the goal if you tear it down, at least being a long term contender would be necessary for it to be worth it.

On the other hand, if you maintain a 9 or 10 win team long term waiting for the moment that you do hit on that franchise QB (K.C.) or end up with a great roster that lets you win without a true franchise QB (Philly) then I think it's more okay to miss the ultimate goal because at least you get to enjoy a winning team for the long term. But, I also think long term this gives you just as good of a chance of winning Super Bowls and you don't have to deal with really sucking for 3 to 20 years.

Beyond that, I think mediocre team is a step in the process of building a great team so if you are already there, why go back to ground zero?

Anyway, I think we have agreement that either way can work. We just disagree on which we would prefer to do. You have valid reasons for wanting to do it your way, but I just prefer the method that does not involve tanking.

 

[TribuneUK]

They did though. The saints chose to sign players to extensions, restructuring aging players, and spending 40min on mid tier QB like Carr in the hopes of competing.

Our situations are completely different.

I think you're using a broader frame of reference than I was, TBF, so I don't think I disagree with your point. I was thinking in terms of both teams taking a retread vet QB as their best immediate option at the position - whether they internally considered them the future or only a bridge is something we can't definitively say, but I think it's more likely the Saints saw Carr as having a 2+ year viability than the Pats saw in Newton.

I didn't have a view on the restructuring aspect when I commented and I think you're absolutely right there. The Pats tended to move on, rather than extend players.

 

[St. Widge]

I prefer the 49ers method. It’s far more self reflective of their current reality at any given time and it moves on from players (and dumps their salaries) a little early rather than too late.

No method is a guarantor of success, but theirs leaves more room to pivot in another direction if the last one didn’t work. The Saints have to double down on what didn’t work just to reduce dead money in the current year. Someone will undoubtedly respond to that as “they really believe in” such and such player or even the entire roster. But I don’t believe that to be true. If teams were able to wipe dead money off the board, I believe ours would look very different.

I certainly agree that there is room to do it either way and valid upside and downside to both. The thing that I dislike the most about what the 49ers are doing is they are betting on a big contract for a mediocre QB much like the Saints did with Carr. The difference is that the Saints kept the base of the roster and then tried to build around Carr, which isn't working so far but it has a better shot than what the 49ers are doing IMO. It just seems it is going to be more difficult to do for the 49ers when they have to build from the bottom with the same issues with paying big money for a mediocre QB.

As far as the Saints with Johnson and Young, I'm not a huge fan of bringing back Johnson, but only really because I think it's a year too long and a million or so AAV too high for Johnson. Although, if you look at the contract, it looks like it's really a 2 years deal with an out for the Saints before the third year.

As far as Young, I think that's the price they had to pay for missing on Davenport, Turner, and Foskey. Void years or not, they had not choice but to sign a relatively expensive DE in free agency and the void years, age, and upside made Young a better option than others. The deal is a year too long and maybe a little too high on AAV, but that's the price they had to pay for bad drafting at the Edge position.

Which brings me to what I think is the bottom line here. You can choose either option but both fail or succeed based on how well you draft.

 

[Saintstigerking]

The 49ers are losing a lot of good players so they can over pay an average at best qb. Not a great strategy. I agree with resetting their cap. But then why over pay Brock?

 

[Rexman100]

But HOW did the Commanders land their franchise QB?

They drafted him. But how you got him doesn’t change the plan. The plan is to get one. Such as the Saints did w/ Drew. Take a chance on an injured Qb1 w/ a mega high ceiling. Other Qb needy teams at the time, didn’t want to gamble on Drew’s shoulder.

If you’re trying to make the point that we have to draft one, I agree, you’re more than likely going to draft Qb1 than finding a retread with a new attitude. However, with that said, and like I said about Baker Mayfield, that it’s just a matter of time before he is franchise material. I think Daniel Jones, now with Indy, is ready for the next step. At the time with Carr, Carr was already close to the top of the ladder, just two steps short…we figured the plan to be, put a solid team around him w/ a solid D, and the loving touch of Mrs Benson, and boom. Done. Nope, didn’t happen. Those two steps needed are like a short wire you put over a doorway to train a puppy not to go in a room. Carr is like that puppy, but now a dog, still staring at that one foot high wire, not able to step over and grab a Lombardi. By Lombardi I mean, a playoff win.

Maybe we take a shot on Shadeur if he falls, I’m sure CKM can develop him. Let him sit behind Carr for 2 years. Or 1. And let he and Rattler battle it out…then by year 3 Shadeur could be Qb1. The way it’s going now, we’re probably a 7 win team. So we should consider him at 9 becaue we won’t have a top ten pick for awhile

 

[St. Widge]

But HOW did the Commanders land their franchise QB?

By trying for 20 or 30 years to find one and then finally getting lucky by being bad in the right year when the Bears chose a lesser QB over Daniels.

Frankly, the Saints got really unlucky by being accidentally bad in a year where 5 wins only gets you the #9 pick and there are no QBs worth the #9 pick. In most years 5 wins gets you a top 5 pick and there is usually a QB there or in your range to trade up that is worth a top 5 pick.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Which brings me to what I think is the bottom line here. You can choose either option but both fail or succeed based on how well you draft.

That's really all it boils down to. There's no wrong way to eat a reeses...but when you don't draft well you get exposed no matter what you do.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

I'm not Super Bowl or bust, but I think if I'm going to have to have a team that sucks for at least 3 or 4 years, the project needs to end with a Super Bowl otherwise, what is the point? And while I thik Super Bowl or bust has to be the goal if you tear it down, at least being a long term contender would be necessary for it to be worth it.

On the other hand, if you maintain a 9 or 10 win team long term waiting for the moment that you do hit on that franchise QB (K.C.) or end up with a great roster that lets you win without a true franchise QB (Philly) then I think it's more okay to miss the ultimate goal because at least you get to enjoy a winning team for the long term.

Winning 10 games a year as you look for your franchise QB is borderline impossible and an almost ridiculous standard to hope for. Saints haven't won 10 games since Brees left and we also had multiple sub 10 win seasons with Brees.

Much more realistic to win 6-8 games a year and be stuck in purgatory like the majority of teams.

Beyond that, I think mediocre team is a step in the process of building a great team so if you are already there, why go back to ground zero?

Because our issue is not just that we are a mediocre team. We are a mediocre team that is incredibly expensive and old.

Anyway, I think we have agreement that either way can work. We just disagree on which we would prefer to do. You have valid reasons for wanting to do it your way, but I just prefer the method that does not involve tanking.

Agree with you on this one. There really isn't one way that works better than the other. Everything centers around drafting well. Which despite our tragic drafting the last 5ish years I believe Fuaga was a great start.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

By trying for 20 or 30 years to find one and then finally getting lucky by being bad in the right year when the Bears chose a lesser QB over Daniels.

Sure but they had to be in the position to draft JD5.

2020: 7-9
2021: 7-10
2022: 8-8-1
2023: 4-13
2024: 12-5

Only took one year to flip everything. Granted they need a dance partner in a QB worthy of being a top pick.

 

[los226]

It’s mostly about the results of the draft with either direction. The Saints had a legendary 2017 draft and with the combo of Sean Payton and Drew Brees it turned into three straight 13-3 seasons

 

[Taker597]

And again, tanking for Tua didn't actually turn into a great result. They are a mediocre team and have been since they got Tua which is what the tank is supposed to be avoiding.

If they are a mediocre team with two playoff berth and a double digit win season in the last three years then what does that make us?

 

[St. Widge]

Sure but they had to be in the position to draft JD5.

2020: 7-9
2021: 7-10
2022: 8-8-1
2023: 4-13
2024: 12-5

Only took one year to flip everything. Granted they need a dance partner in a QB worthy of being a top pick.

Sure, but for every JD 5 there is a Jalen Hurts, Lamar Jackson, or Jordan Love that falls in the draft to a spot where you could take him even if you do have a mediocre record. And I mention those 3 because the Saints could have/should have drafted all 3 even when they were having double digit win seasons. Even with Mahomes they would have been able to draft him either had Payton not blabbed how good he was to Andy Reid or had they done the Saints thing and traded up to draft him. And that was coming off of a 7 win season while trying to win 10.

The Saints problem isn't that they have never been in position to draft a franchise QB to replace Brees, it's that they have refused to take those shots for the last 40 plus years and in particular in the last 10 or so years. The Saints have vastly under-invested in the QB position in the draft.