Head Coach if there is no GM change
No, you didn't say he was an ignorant dumbarse, but that is how your initial post came off. Whether or not his post was his opinion doesn't matter, it was the scoffing, dismissive & rude nature of your initial response that I took issue with.
Agree with you Andrus. Not sure that was what the poster intended, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's how it came across to me also.
IMO, we have WAY too much of this on this forum lately. And it revolves around a fundamental lack of clarifying questions to understand, such as: what do you mean my that? or "how did you arrive at that conclusion?" or "do I understand you correctly that.....", or something similar?
Instead, we get a WHOLE LOT of "i believe you said something I disagree with...what you said is wrong and/or stupid...here is my eloquent rebuttal."
And I haven't asked any questions (yet) either, but I'm not sure what the disagreement is about. I honestly think both sides are saying the SAME thing! The OP indicates that, IMO, the perceived "top candidates" will find other franchises to be more appealing destinations. If we take off our B&G glasses for a moment, we'd realize the best attributes for the Saints organization are ownership's willingness to spend and/or provide the necessary tools, and stability for tenure. Other teams can provide that also (not all, but some). But we have no franchise QB to build around; we don't have a high pick to draft one; we have numerous holes in the roster and almost NO depth; we haven't traditionally provided/acquired many draft assets crucial for a reset/rebuild; and we have minimal cap space to mitigate with FA.
None of this means the Saints won't acquire a good coach! It just means the most desirable/sought candidates (cough, cough...Ben Johnson) will likely have better options on the table. THAT is what the OP was saying, and I think that is an apparent conclusion. And to be perfectly clear, I'm not even sure Ben Johnson will be a good HC. JMO.
And the rebuttals are right too. Just because the Saints aren't likely to land the most popular candidates doesn't mean they won't land a GOOD HC. It is well known that CSP wanted the Green Bay job, but when his agent called him in the middle of the Saints interview process to tell him Green Bay was hiring Mike McCarthy (who also had connections and familiarity with the Saints organization as QB coach and/or OC under Haslett), he fell in our lap. I don't know if CSP was our top choice, or consolation prize; but we were clearly HIS consolation prize. (side note...anyone remember who we interviewed besides CSP?) And to be perfectly honest, I don't care. It's empirical evidence that your backup choice isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, might be the best thing to happen to the Saints since CSP and DB9.
In conclusion, the rebutters are also right...someone is going to JUMP at their opportunity with the Saints organization. There are only 32 of these jobs in the world, and even the highest estimates project there are likely to be less than 6-8 opportunities this hiring cycle. 6-8 guys are going to get hired, with EVERYONE ELSE passed over. And the OP is also right....we're likely not going to attract the most "in demand" candidates. But NEITHER of these statements indicate we won't be able to hire a GOOD HC candidate!
So if both sides are right, what exactly IS the argument? 🤷♂️