Closer look at Kellen Moore in the NFCCG today
The first coaches hired were last week. The Saints had to pause interviews for last week, because the snow storm disrupted travel and other things. That had nothing to do with the Saints "not starting soon enough and not doing enough."
...,while we keep spinning narratives.
Who's we?
Chicago fired their coach mid-season, are they looking for a coach? No.
They hired their coach last week. The Saints had to pause everything last week do to weather disruptions. If the Saints hire someone this week, then they are on the same effective time frame as the coaches who hired people last week.
Furthermore, the Saints may already have a deal in place with someone as far as we know. Not announcing a hire is not the same as not hiring.
LV was seen as having a worse job than ours. Are they looking for a coach? No
Did you want the Saints to hire Pete Carrol? Unless you wanted the Saints to hire Pete Carrol, the Raiders hiring him is irrelevant to the Saints.
The old man in Dallas let his respectable coach go, are they looking for a coach? No.
Did you want the Saints to hire Schottenhemier? Unless you did, the Cowboys hiring him is irrelevant to the Saints.
The Jags needed a new coach. Are they looking for one? No.
Did you want the Saints to hire Coen? Unless you did, the Jaguars hiring him is irrelevant to the Saints.
They even let their GM go so they could hire their preferred candidate.
Bold strategy. Let's see how that works out for them.
You guys can continue to spin this narrative that, at this point, is hanging solely on Moore.
Who's "you guys?" I know they're not me, because I don't "spin narratives." I just say what I think, while being aware of the difference between what I think and what I actually know.
You don't know that things are "hanging solely on Moore." You only think that, but you seem to mistakenly think you know it.
McCarthy and Rizzi are still also in consideration. You may not like them, but the fact is things are not just "hanging solely on Moore."
Now, if he turns us down, it will be clear that we lack a clear vision...
That is 100% perception and opinion on your part.
If we want Mike, what's the holdup?
I can think of a whole bunch of possible reasons both positive and negative for the hold up. What I know is that no one outside of the hiring committee and McCarthy knows the actual reason.
I expect you assume it's for the most negative possible reasons.
I don't need to reconsider anything; I know Mick is a rudderless GM.
And there it is. You've formed a rigid opinion and stated it publicly, so you're perceiving everything in a way that confirms and defends the opinion you rigidly formed and publicly stated.
There's nothing wrong with that and you're entitled to whatever opinion you want. Just don't get it twisted and think that you're viewing anything about Loomis from a factual and objective point of view.