Well this is a complete load of nonsense. That is not the reason the Saints dealt him--you simply made that up.
Most of you guys don't know what you're talking about. You're either rewriting history, or it's purely a case of not know what you were looking at on the field.
Swilling did NOT rush upfield on every play. He was not the weakest of the three linebackers. He did play the run very well, and he was good in pass coverage. He was an outstanding player. An outstanding weakside linebacker who rushed upfield because he was great at it, and because that's what the Saints scheme asked of him.
Swilling had peaked as a player when he was traded to Detroit. It was Finks who decided that his value was worth unloading him. It's not a philosophy that everyone agrees with, but that was Finks decision. There is little question that his true talents were based on uncanny quickness and speed, and that he had begun to lose his edge--in the same way that Laroi Glover had lost his edge when he was traded. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a great player for the Saints.
Swilling, as I recall, suffered some personal problems the season he went to Detroit--I believe the unexpected death of his mother--and apparently became both distracted and disinterested in football for a year of more. He subsequently suffered some leg injuries as well. He was never the same player that he had been in New Orleans, but he was still productive.
I agree that he has no chance of making it to the HOF, but not based on the complete revisionist foolishness that a lot of you are spewing.