Offline
It’s good that she stepped in and fired Allen but she needs to evaluate Loomis the same way
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe this is Step 1. If so, she needs to have a new GM in place well before the draft, and that GM MUST be someone totally averse to trading up.It’s good that she stepped in and fired Allen but she needs to evaluate Loomis the same way
You are right. Touchy subject. I will refrain from bringing that up in the future. Sorry.Let’s stop this debate right now. It belongs on the EE Board. If you want to continue it, please take it there. The OP was talking about the move made by Gayle Benson to decide to fire Dennis Allen. Period.
Well, one thing is -- despite the gangbusters way we started -- you can't say she did it TOO soon. This way, there's no second guessing. We eventually want winning again but mostly right now, we just want different.We can say she should have done this sooner, or that she should never have hired Allen at all. But she also could have played the part of a genteel business woman without a football background, who lets the football people make the football decisions.
This move gives me hope that she can. Don't know if she will but we know she can.It’s good that she stepped in and fired Allen but she needs to evaluate Loomis the same way
I had no doubt she would do it if the players wanted it done. When SVG was the coach of the Pels, everyone said he would never be fired after just 1 season. She took feedback from the players that they didn’t like him and didn’t want to play for him and she replaced him after 1 season. If she did it for the Pels, why wouldn’t she do it for the Saints?I questioned whether she had it in her to do it. Had nothing to do with being female, or being disinterested because she "inherited" the team instead of "earning" it, or because she "didn't know football." I think I just described 3/4 of NFL ownership (other than the female part). But that is why I questioned her. I believed she would simply follow the advice of those in her employ, and choose their suggested course of action.
Can't express how happy I am for her to prove me wrong. She did the GMs job FOR him, investigated the locker room, got her fingers on the pulse of the team, and made the (easy) decision to implement change. She didn't have to do that, but she did. I'm sure she listened to her GM, but then she attempted to corroborate his conclusion, but couldn't.
I read an article recently that Mrs. Benson wants to run the team in the same manner that Tom Benson would have. I hadn't thought of it like that before, but that made perfect sense. TB would stay out of the way and have his lieutenants "steer the ship"; but the moment he saw a rocky shoreline and a storm brewing, he stepped in to steer for calmer waters and, once that job was done, typically dismissed whomever steered too close to the rocks. So Mrs. B wants to run this team using a similar mindset...."what would Tom Benson do?", which I'm going to call WWTBD.
WWTBD? I think you just did it! Kudos Mrs. B!
This all day.Very happy for what she did, hope she makes a few more changes
Very classy response!You are right. Touchy subject. I will refrain from bringing that up in the future. Sorry.
She got rid of D.A. It is a start.