Curious as to What Underhill and Triplett Are Saying about Organizational Change (2 Viewers)

[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).

 

[Saint KayBee]

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.

I just want to put this part of your post on repeat because this fan base just DOES NOT GET IT. Three mediocre years before the wheels fell off and this fan base is acting like it’s part of a union and entitled to good football.

Teams lose sometimes. Teams have bad seasons sometimes. Teams have bad decades sometimes. I am really not understanding the spoiled snotty children behavior when one of the hallmark traits of Greater New Orleans/South Louisiana people is our very resilience and capability of rolling with the punches. Others from all over the world love that about us as people but are watching how this fan base is acting and wondering which side is the real us.

 

[Dallas_Saint73]

Haven't listened to them yet, but listened to Ross Jackson last night and he thinks an overhaul is much needed at all coaching positions; HC, DC, and OC.

 

[Saint KayBee]

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

Yet on this very board, after every draft pick a poll goes up about the selection, and if too many people take the “let’s wait and see” option the thread discussing the player devolves into a callout session at the people who chose to wait and see.

Y’all want to be hypers (or haters).

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

The same thing that everyone who's emotionally exasperated is saying -

Tear the entire thing down, though Tripp is less emotionally engaged than Nick so his takes are a bit more nuanced. Same thought process but less doomsday prophecy i suppose.

 

[St. Widge]

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).

Maybe I have overstated it saying that you have called for Loomis' head for 15 or 20 years, but you have certainly been one of if not his most vocal and active critic for 15 or so years on this board. Which of course is your right.

My perspective is that Loomis did a good to great job from 2005 to about 2020. But, the last 4 years has not been good so I would prefer it if we got a new GM. At the same point, I realize that is unlikely to happen and I don't think all hope is lost if Loomis remains the GM.

At any rate, you and I clearly look for different things from the sports media. Which is again your right.

 

[St. Widge]

The same thing that everyone who's emotionally exasperated is saying -

Tear the entire thing down, though Tripp is less emotionally engaged than Nick so his takes are a bit more nuanced. Same thought process but less doomsday prophecy i suppose.

Nick does appear to be uncharacteristically more emotional than usual about this. But, I guess to some extent his livelihood could be on the line if the team is bad for an extended period of time so it's understandable. But I suspect his views will get a bit more nuanced as time goes on.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Nick does appear to be uncharacteristically more emotional than usual about this. But, I guess to some extent his livelihood could be on the line if the team is bad for an extended period of time so it's understandable. But I suspect his views will get a bit more nuanced as time goes on.

lol Nick is Nick, he's always emotionally engaged. It's why he didn't stay in New England, he didn't feel that emotional connection w/ the city like he does here in New Orleans. He's a fan too, yet like much of us...I agree, his takes will become more subdued once he escapes the season.

However, I've noticed that typically my emotional reactions during the season...were very accurate and having time to cool down, while it brought a more logical thought process, it also gave more time for the negative to seem less negative...which is dangerous when you're deciding.

Whatever this team looks like the last 2-4 games of the season should be exactly what you measure them on. They are not detail oriented, they're making dumb mistakes, they have no depth, and a lot of guys aren't being used correctly. They don't like creativity and the defense in particular has trouble facing more modern offenses. They can't run block worth a crap and the playcalling typically s**** after the first half and so does the energy.

Those are their problems.

 

[rsmith2783]

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.

That was actually MCMan who called the women whores. Maybe Buddy shouldn't have reported it?

The appeal of asking tough questions are valid when you have fans paying their hard earned money to either go to the game or buy a subscription, and the organization continually makes bad choices or doesn't do anything to make things better. That was the case during the Meacom days and Buddy (because he was a reporter and had the voice) held people accountable.
Back then there wasn't Twitter, or videos shown over the internet. So from a fan's perspective you had to depend on the newspaper, new segments and Radio to get information on the team, etc.

You're right, I don't listen to Underhill, let alone pay for subscription. Ross Jackson, Underhill, Mike, even WWL radio folks tend to stay in the middle with their reporting. If you carefully listen to Bobby, he'll give his opinion but you can tell that he's held back on what he really thinks. Personally I stopped listening to a lot of those guys when I saw the same trend with their reporting.

I don't follow Underhill but his Tweets would show up on my feed at times. I had my own opinion regarding the Saints going into the new season, so I didn't listen to any of the radio programs, TC reports or anything. I had my doubts regarding the Offensive Line, lack of WRs (even though I assumed Perry would be apart of the mix), and scheme. Once they started 2-0 and looked great, I was completely shocked (along with everyone else).

It was either during or after the Dallas game, I saw one of Underhill's Tweets saying that he told everyone that the Saints offense looked good. I assumed that he was talking about TC because I definitely didn't see it during preseason.
During the Eagles or Falcons game, I saw Underhill tweet out that the Saints can't hide it anymore. Well, where was the same energy when they were looking great?? I love Mike D but i've noticed similar trends from him as well.

 

[rsmith2783]

Haven't listened to them yet, but listened to Ross Jackson last night and he thinks an overhaul is much needed at all coaching positions; HC, DC, and OC.

It's easy to say that now after some major embarrassing losses. Most people (outside of the major hypers) saw this sheet coming as soon as Loomis decided to retain DA.

Yet on this very board, after every draft pick a poll goes up about the selection, and if too many people take the “let’s wait and see” option the thread discussing the player devolves into a callout session at the people who chose to wait and see.

Y’all want to be hypers (or haters).

Yes, you will get dragged out if you immediately question a draft choice or have a different opinion about the player. After we drafted Zach Baun, I was accused of being a hater because I started basically questioning his "fit". It was mainly due to his size and looking at previous players like him that we drafted.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

It's easy to say that now after some major embarrassing losses. Most people (outside of the major hypers) saw this sheet coming as soon as Loomis decided to retain DA.


Yes, you will get dragged out if you immediately question a draft choice or have a different opinion about the player. After we drafted Zach Baun, I was accused of being a hater because I started basically questioning his "fit". It was mainly due to his size and looking at previous players like him that we drafted.

Good DC’s adapt their scheme to fit the player. Biggest issue w/ Baun is he had two players ahead of him at off ball LB that he couldn’t supplant. While also being too small to play edge full time.

We got it right by turning him into an off ball LB tho