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

Randy S said

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.

Click to expand...

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.