Closer look at Kellen Moore in the NFCCG today (11 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

Do me a huge favor. When you see my posts, just keep scrolling. I have no desire to engage with you anymore about this stuff. I know your stance and I can agree to disagree. The problem is that you cannot give others the same courtesy. I don't put people on ignore, so I'm not going to do that. But I find you completely full of yourself and trying to control everything everyone else thinks. I'm not interested.

You tell me “You can see straight through me,” effectively accuse me of lying because it doesn’t flow with YOUR narrative and I am the one trying to control what everyone thinks?

 

[No2DC]

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one complaining the Saints didn't do enough during the season to find a new coach. So, you tell me what the Saints should have done that they didn't do.

If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to explain what the Saints should have done during the season that they didn't. If you can't do that, then maybe you should reconsider your opinion.

They've hired coaches, while we keep spinning narratives.
Chicago fired their coach mid-season, are they looking for a coach? No.
LV was seen as having a worse job than ours. Are they looking for a coach? No
The old man in Dallas let his respectable coach go, are they looking for a coach? No.
The Jags needed a new coach. Are they looking for one? No. They even let their GM go so they could hire their preferred candidate.
You guys can continue to spin this narrative that, at this point, is hanging solely on Moore. Now, if he turns us down, it will be clear that we lack a clear vision because, at this point, all the teams have hired the guy they wanted. If we want Mike, what's the holdup? I don't need to reconsider anything; I know Mick is a rudderless GM.

 

[HouseCall]

You guys can continue to spin this narrative that, at this point, is hanging solely on Moore. Now, if he turns us down, it will be clear that we lack a clear vision because, at this point, all the teams have hired the guy they wanted. If we want Mike, what's the holdup? I don't need to reconsider anything; I know Mick is a rudderless GM.

With all due respect, who’s spinning their narrative here? It seems like you have been pushing your personal narrative pretty hard in this thread.

Again, just because it’s what you think is what’s happening with the coaching search - doesn’t make it fact. It’s opinion. Which is fine and clearly you are passionate about your opinion. But that doesn’t make it fact. All the passion in the world for your opinion doesn’t make it fact.

I’m also not saying that EVERYTHING you have posted isn’t going to be at some point proven to be accurate- all I’m saying is that at this point we don’t know anything definitively.

Did the Raiders get their top guy? Nope. Tom Brady spent a chunk of time trying to get Ben Johnson to coach the Raiders and couldn’t even secure an in-person interview. The most decorated QB in NFL history couldn’t swing an interview with Ben Johnson.

The Cowboys hired a guy that I don’t believe anybody else even requested to interview.

So just because all the other teams have hired people, that doesn’t mean that they made good choices. Unless you think guys like Coen and Schottenheimer and Pete Carrol are top-tier.

And again, I’ll add that Johnson and Glenn are no more proven than Kellen Moore and way less proven than McCarthy.

 

[Hubig]

The coach you fired in November has a job before you've filled his vacancy. LOL.

 

[StudioSaint]

They've hired coaches...

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.