Curious as to What Underhill and Triplett Are Saying about Organizational Change (3 Viewers)

[DerrickB]

I might be a little old school but you're not going to get "straight talk" from folks like Nick, Mike, etc. The last straight shooter was Buddy and he's been gone for awhile now.

At one point Eric Asher appeared to be the guy, but since he's now on TV,he's limited on what he can say.

Your best bet is to find one of these podcasts that haven't blown up yet.

Listen to him on the radio. He goes in on everything.

 

[rsmith2783]

Listen to him on the radio. He goes in on everything.

Who..Eric, Nick or Mike?

 

[DerrickB]

Who..Eric, Nick or Mike?

Eric bruh
Nick and Mike have a pod

 

[St. Widge]

it doesnt directly, you are correct.

What it does do is bring an element of accountability when there is a definite sense of "complacency" setting in by those in charge.

Not unlike Zurich and S&WB or any other municipal or governmental agency that has gotten fat, bloated and content with status quo. ( instead of improvement )

and indirectly, accountability leads to change which can lead to contention.

And yet, the S&WB still sucks and is corrupt. "Asking the hard questions" isn't going to change how the team is run and isn't going to get any further information. These guys get more information from having access to players and staff who become their sources. Nobody is going to get anything out of Loomis or any other member of the organization in a press conference and asking "tough questions" gets zero results. Those questions are met with silence or derision. All they do is satisfy the desire of fans to punish those who they think are responsible for having a sheetty football team.

If fans want to change things in the organization then stop showing up for games and stop buying tickets and/or merchandise. That's really the only way we can influence how the organization acts.

 

[rsmith2783]

Eric bruh
Nick and Mike have a pod

Nice, I didn't know that he was still on the radio. I'll have to check him out. Back in the day, he was Very direct!

 

[St. Widge]

I might be a little old school but you're not going to get "straight talk" from folks like Nick, Mike, etc. The last straight shooter was Buddy and he's been gone for awhile now.

At one point Eric Asher appeared to be the guy, but since he's now on TV,he's limited on what he can say.

Your best bet is to find one of these podcasts that haven't blown up yet.

The revisionist history for Buddy D is over the top these days. He was a loud mouth who knew next to nothing about the game. This is the guy who campaigned for Mike Ditka to be the head coach. He was a personality, not a serious journalist. And that was great for him because his job was to get ratings by creating controversy on the radio.

ESPN has ruined what people expect and want from sports reporters. People want rage, controversy, hot takes, and calling teams and players out. They don't want actual news or information. They want to hear their displeasure repeated by people in the media. They want their feelings validated by the media regardless of if they have any basis in reality or not.

 

[rsmith2783]

The revisionist history for Buddy D is over the top these days. He was a loud mouth who knew next to nothing about the game. This is the guy who campaigned for Mike Ditka to be the head coach. He was a personality, not a serious journalist. And that was great for him because his job was to get ratings by creating controversy on the radio.

ESPN has ruined what people expect and want from sports reporters. People want rage, controversy, hot takes, and calling teams and players out. They don't want actual news or information. They want to hear their displeasure repeated by people in the media. They want their feelings validated by the media regardless of if they have any basis in reality or not.

He admitted he was wrong and apologized for lobbying for Ditka. Prior to radio, he was a journalist. There's an old story that Doug Atkins was going to throw him off the plane because of the questions that he was asking. At some point after that Mecom decided to ban him from the team plane.

Buddy may have not been an X & O guy, but he wasn't afraid to ask tough questions and point out when something wasn't well. Nearly every year I see the same trend:

• Reporters hype up every hire or player signing
• Every draft pick is amazing
• The team looks awesome during TC, etc

When things don't work out, some of these guys are like "well i told you so". I don't recall Buddy ever being a hype man.

How do you get banned for life and 10 years? Lol

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Disagree totally about Buddy. Did he champion Mike Ditka? Absolutely. Was he wrong? Absolutely. (And incidentally I dropped my season tickets when the Saints hired Saints.) Was he a personality? Yes. But he also considered himself a serious member of the news media who said and wrote what he believed because he believed that was the right thing to do. He was not one, like so many sportswriters generations ago in the tabloid newspapers or today, who said or wrote the controversial because it sold newspapers or generated clicks. Yes, he wore a bag over his head on the air. The bag wearing was entertainment. But the message sent by the bag wearing was powerful and honest.

Call Mike Detillier and Ken Trahan on their radio show today and ask what they thought of Diliberto's integrity as a sports journalist. Were Pete Finney alive, I would say ask him as well.

And what hard questions to ask and how they should be asked is an art. I concede that sometimes it is a waste of time to ask certain questions. In fact, given the non-responsive cliches offered by so many in sports to so many questions, the utility of asking any questions to a losing coach is small. But reporters do need quotes for their stories. They are in a sense representatives of the fans and can ask questions the fans would like to ask. And sometimes the absurdly vacuous answer given to a challenging question is revealing.

 

[St. Widge]

He admitted he was wrong and apologized for lobbying for Ditka. Prior to radio, he was a journalist. There's an old story that Doug Atkins was going to throw him off the plane because of the questions that he was asking. At some point after that Mecom decided to ban him from the team plane.

Buddy may have not been an X & O guy, but he wasn't afraid to ask tough questions and point out when something wasn't well. Nearly every year I see the same trend:

• Reporters hype up every hire or player signing
• Every draft pick is amazing
• The team looks awesome during TC, etc

When things don't work out, some of these guys are like "well i told you so". I don't recall Buddy ever being a hype man. How you get banned for life and 10 years? Lol

I mean, he lost his TV gig for essentially calling the women of New Orleans whores.

I guess I just don't get the appeal of "asking the hard questions" when they never get real answers. Real information comes from developing sources in the organization and a reporter needs access to develop those sources and get that information. It's why Underhill and Trip get inside information and why Buddy D didn't get any information. All he had were rants. I know people love him for being the "voice of the fans" but if I want to hear the voice of the fans, I'll talk to fans. I don't want rants from a guy who really knew nothing about the game.

And if you think guys like Underhill and Triplett hype ever signing, call every pick amazing then you aren't really reading what they write or listening to them. Which I guess is understandable since it's a pay site. But too many say these things without ever listening to them. Do they like some moves? Sure and sometimes they are wrong about the stuff they like. But they don't do it to hype anything. Yes, they said the team looked great in camp. And they later admitted that they did look good in camp but they were wrong that it was a good team because they failed to take into account the lack of competition they were going against and the fact that they knew what plays were coming.

They are just giving legitimate opinions. Some turn out right and some turn out wrong. They just don't go on anger fueled rants. Which is a lot of why I like what they do. Now, if you want to say that Jeff Duncan carries the team's water, I'm right there with you. Duncan is a hoe.

And frankly, Buddy D was a poor replacement for Hap Glaudi who did a great job on the Point After but never felt the need to rant or carry the team's water.

 

[St. Widge]

Disagree totally about Buddy. Did he champion Mike Ditka? Absolutely. Was he wrong? Absolutely. (And incidentally I dropped my season tickets when the Saints hired Saints.) Was he a personality? Yes. But he also considered himself a serious member of the news media who said and wrote what he believed because he believed that was the right thing to do. He was not one, like so many sportswriters generations ago in the tabloid newspapers or today, who said or wrote the controversial because it sold newspapers or generated clicks. Yes, he wore a bag over his head on the air. The bag wearing was entertainment. But the message sent by the bag wearing was powerful and honest.

Call Mike Detillier and Ken Trahan on their radio show today and ask what they thought of Diliberto's integrity as a sports journalist. Were Pete Finney alive, I would say ask him as well.

And what hard questions to ask and how they should be asked is an art. I concede that sometimes it is a waste of time to ask certain questions. In fact, given the non-responsive cliches offered by so many in sports to so many questions, the utility of asking any questions to a losing coach is small. But reporters do need quotes for their stories. They are in a sense representatives of the fans and can ask questions the fans would like to ask. And sometimes the absurdly vacuous answer given to a challenging question is revealing.

Buddy was a serious journalist when it came to horse racing and boxing. He knew next to nothing about football.

 

[Hedon James]

The revisionist history for Buddy D is over the top these days. He was a loud mouth who knew next to nothing about the game. This is the guy who campaigned for Mike Ditka to be the head coach. He was a personality, not a serious journalist. And that was great for him because his job was to get ratings by creating controversy on the radio.

ESPN has ruined what people expect and want from sports reporters. People want rage, controversy, hot takes, and calling teams and players out. They don't want actual news or information. They want to hear their displeasure repeated by people in the media. They want their feelings validated by the media regardless of if they have any basis in reality or not.

i find your take to be right on...BULLSEYE! and I HATE it. everyone seems to want to be louder and more obnoxious than Stephen A Smith, or more contrarian than Skip Bayless. I quit watching a long time ago. I want FACTS and INFORMATION not blowhard hot takes and opinions. Seems like the best place to get my facts and information is right here on SR.com. It's not perfect, but it's the best I can get my hands on up here in south-central PA.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Again, a different take. Hap Glaudi had the worse sports show on television--he didn't have time to give major league scores because of the time he spent on birthday announcements and CYO scores. And the one time Glaudi did offer a strong opinion, he was opposed to the state building the Superdome. And his radio show on the WWL was worthless because he too often had little to offer and allowed callers with nothing to say to dominate the air time.

I have little idea what Underhill has said or written over the past six months. Before that time, I found Triplett more critical of the organization than Underhill. And from the day Payton stepped down to, say, six months ago, I do not know in the local media of a bigger supporter of Mickey Loomis and his major decisions than Nick Underhill. I cannot say why he was wrong in his big-picture judgment, only that he was wrong. And incidentally, what is Underhill saying today as to what changes, if any, the Saints need to make in the front office and how high those changes should be made? Is he calling for Loomis to be replaced or to step down?

 

[UptownSaintsFan]

The revisionist history for Buddy D is over the top these days. He was a loud mouth who knew next to nothing about the game. This is the guy who campaigned for Mike Ditka to be the head coach. He was a personality, not a serious journalist. And that was great for him because his job was to get ratings by creating controversy on the radio.

ESPN has ruined what people expect and want from sports reporters. People want rage, controversy, hot takes, and calling teams and players out. They don't want actual news or information. They want to hear their displeasure repeated by people in the media. They want their feelings validated by the media regardless of if they have any basis in reality or not.

It is insane. He was awful. He knew nothing and was not insightful at all.

Underhill puts more work into analysis than any reporter we've ever had in new orleans. Every other reporter just made articles by getting a few quotes and linking them together. Very few of the sports reporters we have had even know what they were looking at.

Also, the thought that a media person wouldn't write a bad article about the saints for fear of not getting an invite to Antoine's christmas lunch is laughable.

 

[St. Widge]

Again, a different take. Hap Glaudi had the worse sports show on television--he didn't have time to give major league scores because of the time he spent on birthday announcements and CYO scores. And the one time Glaudi did offer a strong opinion, he was opposed to the state building the Superdome. And his radio show on the WWL was worthless because he too often had little to offer and allowed callers with nothing to say to dominate the air time.

I have little idea what Underhill has said or written over the past six months. Before that time, I found Triplett more critical of the organization than Underhill. And from the day Payton stepped down to, say, six months ago, I do not know in the local media of a bigger supporter of Mickey Loomis and his major decisions than Nick Underhill. I cannot say why he was wrong in his big-picture judgment, only that he was wrong. And incidentally, what is Underhill saying today as to what changes, if any, the Saints need to make in the front office and how high those changes should be made? Is he calling for Loomis to be replaced or to step down?

I don't recall Hap on TV. I only recall him doing the Point After.

You are wrong about Underhill supporting Loomis. Underhill never gave an opinion on Loomis and I think that is still true today. He told people how Loomis handled the cap and how he would get things done under the cap. He never said whether that is the way he would do it or not. He even discussed the advantage and disadvantages of how Loomis handles the cap. If you didn't hear that, then that is on you.

Underhill isn't likely to call for or ask for any specific changes. What he has said is that things have to change and the fans deserve better. I take that to mean that he thinks changes need to be made in the front office and on the coaching staff.

I know you want people to call for Loomis' head. You have wanted that for 15 or 20 years. But that's not really the kind of content Nick or Mike do and it's part of the reason I respect their work.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

If someone is going to represent my opinions over the years, I would hope he would strive for accuracy, though I suppose I should be pleased if someone remembers reading my posts 15 to 20 years ago.

I have never called for Loomis's head over the last 15 to 20 years. I have repeatedly given Loomis credit for the team's success during the Payton years--for hiring Payton, for signing Brees, for setting aside ego when working with Payton, and for creating an organizational process that allowed Payton to be the architect of the team to be built and acting as the contractor in building the structure Payton wanted to build. I have written many times that Payton was the de facto general manager. It was meant as a compliment to Loomis that he could preside smoothly over an organization where the head coach exercised such power.

I was critical of Loomis with Bountygate--especially if the NFL had earlier warned the Saints and other teams about bounties. I have often been highly critical of the Saints in moving up in the draft and trading away draft picks. My serious criticism of our drafting began with the Davenport selection. I was also highly critical of the 2022 pre-draft trade with Philadelphia. I did believe a serious rebuild should have begun much earlier. I was not admirers of Dennis Allen and Derek Carr. I believe I was strongly opposed to our efforts of trying to sign Deshaun Watson. On many of these issues, my memory is that Underhill endorsed, and at times was in lockstep with, what Loomis was doing. But regarding commentators, to each his own. I concede Underhill spends more time watching film and trying to break down what happened during games than most in the media with the notable exception of Deuce.

Regarding the views of other forum members, I think the spirit of this forum and courtesy suggest that I not discuss their past views and that I allow them to state their opinions. Additionally, I do not keep track of what people wrote on the forum a year ago (though it seems over the years I have myself agreeing with much of what Guillermo has written).