Fans need to have patience with Moore and the Front Office. (11 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

What teams give a coach a pass for 5 years? Three is the normal limit in most cases.

I think it all depends on if you are seeing progress towards a vision for the team or if you are seeing regression.

 

[Elvis]

What teams give a coach a pass for 5 years? Three is the normal limit in most cases.

No team gives a coach a pass for 5 years. But a team that is as handcuffed as the Saints are will need to share some of the responsibility for the results over the first couple.

 

[No2DC]

I think it all depends on if you are seeing progress towards a vision for the team or if you are seeing regression.

Okay, so give me the example of 5 years with no winning seasons or playoffs. The common criteria for most teams are winning seasons/division winner/playoffs. Is that correct?

 

[No2DC]

No team gives a coach a pass for 5 years. But a team that is as handcuffed as the Saints are will need to share some of the responsibility for the results over the first couple.

Hypothetical but that's not normally the case. Where has that happened in recent history? I don't disagree that the team is in bad shape but teams normally blame the coach and the GM.

 

[TribuneUK]

Stating an opinion only, but given the inevitable discussion on the state of the QB position, I believe that currently the team (in whatever collective decision making capacity) sees Carr as their best bet for the coming season in terms of WLT. This is likely based on an assessment of the low probability/possibility of FA and/or draft additions that will do better in 2025.

But regardless of any floral tributes being given out, he's a bridge QB for the Saints until he proves otherwise, and the team plans to move on with the best option available to it, as and when that option arises.

So any contract restructure will be designed with that in mind, as much as possible, to give the team future flexibility. Remember that Carr's original Saints contract did not actually commit the team to him a huge amount and effectively gave them the option to walk away from him after two years of the four year deal. I don't get any indication that they are more committed to him now than they were then, based on performance and potential of the team with him as a starter.

 

[St. Widge]

Okay, so give me the example of 5 years with no winning seasons or playoffs. The common criteria for most teams are winning seasons/division winner/playoffs. Is that correct?

Did I say anything about 5 years with no winning seasons or playoffs?

I would think the expectation would be a winning season by year 3. But my point is that if you are seeing slow steady progression of the team instead of regression, he likely keeps his job because your favorite GM in the world is very patient. I think he gets a pass to be in the range of just below .500 for the first two years while he slowly builds the team with the cap limitations. But there will be expectations that he has a winning season or very close to it by year 3.

But, it really is all about progression or regression. For instance, if he somehow wins 9 or 10 this year which likely wins the division, it might not mean he keeps his job for 4 or 5 years if the records gets worse by the year or hovers around 7 or 8 wins. We all know what it looks like when a good coach is trying to build a team, i.e. three straight 7-9 years for Payton) vs. when a bad coach has a mediocre record, i.e. 7-10 and then 9-8 with Dennis Allen. Despite the record getting better with DA, it was clear that the team was regressing.

So, I don't think it's as simple as win/loss record or playoffs or not. You have to look beyond the record.

 

[St. Widge]

Hypothetical but that's not normally the case. Where has that happened in recent history? I don't disagree that the team is in bad shape but teams normally blame the coach and the GM.

Loomis has to get his HC hire right or his job and his legacy are gone. He is going to give Moore every opportunity to succeed for as long as he can pull it off. And that means until the fans have so turned on Moore that Mrs. Benson has to step in and fire him personally.

Loomis has bet his job and legacy in the NFL on Moore. If he hits, then Loomis saves his legacy. If he tanks, then Loomis is thought of as a failed GM that got lucky one time and he loses his job.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Allen had the misfortune of following a successful and charismatic HC in Payton. Where he faltered was not going his own way from jump. Instead he either kept the entire staff in tact or he went after retreads like Doug Marrone.

Kellen gets the benefit of following Allen...he won't have to do much to escape that shadow.

 

[Elvis]

Hypothetical but that's not normally the case. Where has that happened in recent history? I don't disagree that the team is in bad shape but teams normally blame the coach and the GM.

True, but the Gayle isn't the same as a Woody Johnson or Jerry Jones or David Tepper. I think there is a realization internally that they aren't handing CKM an ideal situation where those other owners think they are geniuses and that the roster they have is great.

 

[TalleyHo1]

The way to success is through a rebuild and/or drafting well.

Two things our FO refuses or is not good at.

@me this time next year and I bet we will be having this conversation for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th year in a row.

I understand where you're coming from and see it or try to see it from your point of view. However, re-builds do not guarantee anything. There are alot of teams that have been rebuilding for 20 years. We certainly do not want to be one of those. In the few instances.....rare....that a rebuild has worked....is when that team nailed the HC hire and/or hit on a QB. Several of those teams did draft well each year but still couldn't put it together. They then opted for another re-build.

With all that said, a re-build is what we all want for the most part but while being as competitive as possible. The DA hire and Carr signing was a mistake. "Continuity" was what they tried and most of us were on board. It only took that one year to realize that DA WAS NOT IT but we also knew that. That's when they should have hit the "blow it up" button. Every front office/GM has missed. Yes...the drafting HAS TO BE better going forward.

 

[Seapea]

Damn, we really are a miserable bunch huh?

 

[ozwego15]

i think year 3 will be the indicator of what direction Moore will take this team

 

[St. Widge]

I understand where you're coming from and see it or try to see it from your point of view. However, re-builds do not guarantee anything. There are alot of teams that have been rebuilding for 20 years. We certainly do not want to be one of those. In the few instances.....rare....that a rebuild has worked....is when that team nailed the HC hire and/or hit on a QB. Several of those teams did draft well each year but still couldn't put it together. They then opted for another re-build.

With all that said, a re-build is what we all want for the most part but while being as competitive as possible. The DA hire and Carr signing was a mistake. "Continuity" was what they tried and most of us were on board. It only took that one year to realize that DA WAS NOT IT but we also knew that. That's when they should have hit the "blow it up" button. Every front office/GM has missed. Yes...the drafting HAS TO BE better going forward.

Yep. A tank or tear down is no guarantee of success and often leads to 20 to 30 years of misery. Even teams that hit on the tear down, like the Texans, often end up as mid-range teams. And right now they could go either way. On the other hand, there are teams like K.C. and Philly who stuck around in the middle until they hit on a QB and could quickly build from mediocre.

The key is always getting the right QB and building around them so that you have a shot every year and if you have one great draft, or a couple very good, you end up a contender winning 11 to 13 every year.

Most often you get those QBs by picking high in the draft, but that can either be done by record or by trade up, and sometimes you just get lucky finding those QBs in free agency, after the top of the 1st, or in trade. And even then sometimes teams tread water until they hit in the draft.

 

[St. Geezy]

Yep. A tank or tear down is no guarantee of success and often leads to 20 to 30 years of misery. Even teams that hit on the tear down, like the Texans, often end up as mid-range teams. And right now they could go either way. On the other hand, there are teams like K.C. and Philly who stuck around in the middle until

The key is always getting the right QB and building around them so that you have a shot every year and if you have one great draft, or a couple very good, you end up a contender winning 11 to 13 every year.

Most often you get those QBs by picking high in the draft, but that can either be done by record or by trade up, and sometimes you just get lucky finding those QBs in free agency, after the top of the 1st, or in trade. And even then sometimes teams tread water until they hit in the draft.

Nick and Trip recently made this point on their podcast…that sometimes it’s best to just remain middle of the pack, that way when you finally do get that big breakthrough draft and/or free agent, you’re an instant contender.

Kind of similar to us in the transition from the 2014-2016 hell to the 2017 team.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

I understand where you're coming from and see it or try to see it from your point of view. However, re-builds do not guarantee anything. There are alot of teams that have been rebuilding for 20 years.

Like who? What teams recently have been rebuilding for 20 years?

There's more teams stuck in "purgatory" over/under 3 games .500 than actual tanking teams. Nowadays it only takes a few high pick years in a row to flip the trajectory of your franchise.

Is it a guarantee? No. But it's your best bet.