Head Coach if there is no GM change (9 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

The fact is that the organization is in shambles and has been for years now. He is responsible for that. It comes with the GM job. I think the game has passed him by. From coaching to scouts he's hiring the wrong guys to do the jobs that needs to be done and the results have proven that. I don't want to "look beyond the results" anymore than I wanted them to "keep doing what we're doing".

Very fair. This is a results based business and ultimately he needs to do a better job.

I just don’t agree that this isn’t something he’s capable of fixing or that we need to have someone else course correct. I think his path works, it just hasn’t worked with this iteration of the team.

We hired the wrong HC, and things spiraled from there, along with the absurd number of injuries we have faced severely handicapping our already-compromised situation.

I mean, the man is in year 23 of a GM tenure in a league whose design structure virtually dictates that every team faces a level of good play, average play, and bad play over a span that long, and things have been mostly good to average, with no truly bad until now (and the Katrina year).

That’s what I mean when I say the guy has earned “Tenure Privileges” of sorts. There are going to be peaks and valleys over a span of that long, and when you have a Super Bowl winning GM that oversaw the winningest time period of our franchise’s history over a long span of time, some periods of misfires should be expected and he should be given the opportunity to course correct it.

It is next to impossible to be good in this business for 20+ years, outside of maybe the anomaly that is the Pittsburgh Steelers, and even they have been mostly average to above average during that span with a small handful of dominant seasons, similar to us, with only 2 rings to show for it which came a long time ago. 2 rings is better than our 1 of course, but I’d imagine you’d agree that we had one flat-out stolen from us.

JMO.

 

[Treybad]

Waist of time if Loomis is still the GM

 

[Hedon James]

Andrus,

To be clear, this was no news report or insight based on some superior knowledge of the team’s situation. This was just a person’s opinion about the caliber of coach our job could attract based on the GM’s continued employment…pure speculation, conjecture based on his feelings on the pulse of several different individual coaches who are in fact trying to fulfill a goal and finally land their highly coveted dream job and life changing money.

All off-season long there was a tone set by moderators that needless negativity would not be tolerated, and here we are with a post bashing Loomis about a hypothetical scenario based on someone’s opinion, just fanning the flames of hatred. In other words, “Another reason you all should hate Mickey” was thought up and created, then posted on the forum, and it was indeed a notion I found to be a bit contrived and silly.

I have seen moderators themselves be dismissive towards posts like this in this same manner and tone I used when it comes to disrespect or negativity levied towards members of the Saints staff or players.

This to me was a very normal forum interaction up until the point a couple of people, including yourself, began characterizing it as if it was some HUGE show of disrespect and slap to the face at someone you like and began attributing words and very harsh insults to me that I never once stated or expressed about the guy.

I understand people’s bloods are boiling about the team more than anyone and know emotional posts/scenarios are being created and negative “what if” hypotheticals are being discussed, that doesn’t mean I think the guy is some sort of idiot, and I don’t believe any of the people that agreed with the post even thought I was expressing anything near that sort of tone.

That's not what we said, and this is the root of the problem in this discussion. You're citing what you WANTED to hear, so now I'm questioning whether you just don't "get it" or are being purposely obtuse in defense of yourself. What was ACTUALLY said, by several of us (including the man who owns & operates this forum), is that we think you ARE expressing that tone. As stated earlier, if I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm not sure you MEANT to, but that's how it came across to ME. (see the difference? it's action versus intent!) I can't speak to others perspective, but it APPEARS I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

With that said, I'm not sure what your perceived persecution of ML is. I don't hate ML...the man brought CSP, a Superbowl, and 15 years of being a relevant franchise and a THREAT in the playoffs...serious RESPECT and GRATITUDE for that! But with that being said, the past 4 seasons have been a sheet-show, with ML calling the shots. SOMETHING has changed, and if I'm giving him credit for those 15 years of greatness, then he also gets the blame for the past 4. This is no different than Bill Belichick and New England. An all-time great run whose time ran out and came to an end. It appears the same has happened to ML.

What is this perceived "hypothetical scenario" that you are referring to? I think there is enough hard evidence to support my assertion that, in spite of his 15 years of greatness, ML has seriously mismanaged and bungled the franchise over the past 4 years. That, in itself, is grounds for dismissal. Just ask Bill Belichick and/or Robert Kraft. So why are you so focused on a "hypothetical scenario" that so few (maybe only you?) perceive? Is it your assertion that if the perceived hypothetical scenario is dismissed, then the hard evidence of mismanagement goes away also? Speaking only for myself, I don't care if the hypothetical scenario is true or false....if true, it's simply 1 more domino in favor of moving beyond ML; and if it's false, the existing, hard evidence to move beyond ML still outweighs the false hypothetical. That is MY OPINION.

I'm not looking for ML to be fired in disgrace. ML has earned the right to step away with grace and gratitude for all he has accomplished and all he has done for the organization. If he wants to stay with the organization in another capacity, I'd say he's earned that too. I just believe, in the simplest terms possible, it is time for a new vision and a new GM to take the Saints back to being a relevant threat. That's not "ML hate". That's recognition that the team has steadily deteriorated for 4 seasons now, under ML's watch. DA trotted out tired old cliches like "keep chopping wood" and "keep doing what you're doing"; ML trotted out the ridiculous cliche of "look beyond the results". If we're going to reduce our outlooks to cliches, here's mine...."when you find you have dug yourself into a deep hole, STOP DIGGING!"

 

[Hedon James]

Very fair. This is a results based business and ultimately he needs to do a better job.

I just don’t agree that this isn’t something he’s capable of fixing or that we need to have someone else course correct. I think his path works, it just hasn’t worked with this iteration of the team.

We hired the wrong HC, and things spiraled from there, along with the absurd number of injuries we have faced severely handicapping our already-compromised situation.

I mean, the man is in year 23 of a GM tenure in a league whose design structure virtually dictates that every team faces a level of good play, average play, and bad play over a span that long, and things have been mostly good to average, with no truly bad until now (and the Katrina year).

That’s what I mean when I say the guy has earned “Tenure Privileges” of sorts. There are going to be peaks and valleys over a span of that long, and when you have a Super Bowl winning GM that oversaw the winningest time period of our franchise’s history over a long span of time, some periods of misfires should be expected and he should be given the opportunity to course correct it.

It is next to impossible to be good in this business for 20+ years, outside of maybe the anomaly that is the Pittsburgh Steelers, and even they have been mostly average to above average during that span with a small handful of dominant seasons, similar to us, with only 2 rings to show for it which came a long time ago. 2 rings is better than our 1 of course, but I’d imagine you’d agree that we had one flat-out stolen from us.

JMO.

I can respect this argument and this response. You're entitled to your opinion, based on your outlook. You may even be correct?!

I can agree with everything you said here, with the sole exception that I now question whether he's capable of fixing the franchise. He has made a series of "bad" decisions, and it has spiraled out of control from there. If he had "owned" those bad decisions and "course corrected" from there, I'd be inclined to believe he could fix the situation. Instead, he doubled down on the DA hire and insulted the intelligence of the fanbase by comparing DA to HOF coaches Chuck Noll and Bill Walsh. Those coaches took over downtrodden perennial-loser franchises and built them into dynasties. According to ML at the time of hire, all DA had to do was maintain continuity of culture. It was apparent to many of us after Year 1 that DA wasn't doing that; it was apparent to most of us after Year 2. Somewhere along the line, ML lost touch with the locker room. One of the GM's main responsibilities, IMO, is to have his finger on the pulse of the team. I think ML failed to do that. The fiasco with Gayle Benson firing DA seems to confirm that. But ML maintains it was an "organizational" decision, despite stating numerous times prior that the organization doesn't believe in mid-season dismissals. And even after the dismissal, he sang the praises of DA as an outstanding coach. I certainly didn't expect him to bash DA, but to sing his praises after the fact made it pretty clear that ML didn't agree with the organizational decision. He seems to be out of touch with the locker room; out of touch with the fan base; and now out of touch with "the organization".

To be fair, it's possible that ML is the only one who knows what he's doing, but surrounded by incompetence. But ML has hired most of those folks over his 20+ year tenure. With that said, he has the power to unilaterally fix that, but hasn't. I'm inclined to believe that the "common element" in multiple issues IS the root cause of said issues. Reference back to my last sentence in prior paragraph. This is why I no longer believe ML is capable of fixing the franchise.

It appears our differences in opinion are solely based on our beliefs of ML is capable of in 2025 and going forward. I'd like to see a new GM, with STRONG personnel background. If ML remains with the team in another capacity, I'm fine with that....he's earned that right. I just question his abilities on the football side, and is ability to "read the team" as relates to coaching & personnel. But if ML stays with the team in his current capacity as GM, I sincerely hope you are correct and he NAILS the HC hire, planting the seeds for a second dynasty of Saints football. I'd be good with that also, and I'll eat my crow however you want to serve it.

 

[St. Geezy]

That's not what we said, and this is the root of the problem in this discussion. You're citing what you WANTED to hear, so now I'm questioning whether you just don't "get it" or are being purposely obtuse in defense of yourself. What was ACTUALLY said, by several of us (including the man who owns & operates this forum), is that we think you ARE expressing that tone. As stated earlier, if I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt I'm not sure you MEANT to, but that's how it came across to ME. (see the difference? it's action versus intent!) I can't speak to others perspective, but it APPEARS I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

With that said, I'm not sure what your perceived persecution of ML is. I don't hate ML...the man brought CSP, a Superbowl, and 15 years of being a relevant franchise and a THREAT in the playoffs...serious RESPECT and GRATITUDE for that! But with that being said, the past 4 seasons have been a sheet-show, with ML calling the shots. SOMETHING has changed, and if I'm giving him credit for those 15 years of greatness, then he also gets the blame for the past 4. This is no different than Bill Belichick and New England. An all-time great run whose time ran out and came to an end. It appears the same has happened to ML.

What is this perceived "hypothetical scenario" that you are referring to? I think there is enough hard evidence to support my assertion that, in spite of his 15 years of greatness, ML has seriously mismanaged and bungled the franchise over the past 4 years. That, in itself, is grounds for dismissal. Just ask Bill Belichick and/or Robert Kraft. So why are you so focused on a "hypothetical scenario" that so few (maybe only you?) perceive? Is it your assertion that if the perceived hypothetical scenario is dismissed, then the hard evidence of mismanagement goes away also? Speaking only for myself, I don't care if the hypothetical scenario is true or false....if true, it's simply 1 more domino in favor of moving beyond ML; and if it's false, the existing, hard evidence to move beyond ML still outweighs the false hypothetical. That is MY OPINION.

I'm not looking for ML to be fired in disgrace. ML has earned the right to step away with grace and gratitude for all he has accomplished and all he has done for the organization. If he wants to stay with the organization in another capacity, I'd say he's earned that too. I just believe, in the simplest terms possible, it is time for a new vision and a new GM to take the Saints back to being a relevant threat. That's not "ML hate". That's recognition that the team has steadily deteriorated for 4 seasons now, under ML's watch. DA trotted out tired old cliches like "keep chopping wood" and "keep doing what you're doing"; ML trotted out the ridiculous cliche of "look beyond the results". If we're going to reduce our outlooks to cliches, here's mine...."when you find you have dug yourself into a deep hole, STOP DIGGING!"

What do you mean I am citing what I want to hear? The “perceived” hypothetical I am citing is this idea that we will be left with choosing from the scrap heap of coaches due to the GM, which I still think is a silly notion. Read the post; it’s right there.

I don’t believe I am digging any “hole.” It’s clear though that I am not allowed to express myself as freely as some others though without there being an immediate prejudgment and shift going directly to me calling the guy names like ignorant and such. It is ironic to me that I am the one being accused of seeing what I want to see. It is also ironic that I, the one not being super negative and not liking an overly negative post am the one being treated like the angry bad guy.

Even RebelMax himself has liked one of my earlier posts in this thread and I presume he understands I wasn’t calling him some ignorant buffoon or something. Moderators have even liked the initial post. I am just not that guy but apparently I need to be for some people for whatever reason. I feel like I am being picked on here at a level others haven’t been with similar discourse regarding negativity, including discourse from leadership when it comes to needless negative posts. If I was just some random poster no one has heard of and the OP was just a random poster no one has heard of, this wouldn’t even be a topic point.

 

[Hedon James]

What do you mean I am citing what I want to hear? The “perceived” hypothetical I am citing is this idea that we will be left with choosing from the scrap heap of coaches due to the GM, which I still think is a silly notion. Read the post; it’s right there.

I don’t believe I am digging any “hole.” It’s clear though that I am not allowed to express myself as freely as some others though without there being an immediate prejudgment and shift going directly to me calling the guy names like ignorant and such. It is ironic to me that I am the one being accused of seeing what I want to see. It is also ironic that I, the one not being super negative and not liking an overly negative post am the one being treated like the angry bad guy.

Even RebelMax himself has liked one of my earlier posts in this thread and I presume he understands I wasn’t calling him some ignorant buffoon or something. Moderators have even liked the initial post. I am just not that guy but apparently I need to be for some people for whatever reason. I feel like I am being picked on here at a level others haven’t been with similar discourse regarding negativity, including discourse from leadership when it comes to needless negative posts.

That's not what the OP said. you are correct, it's right there...read the post. you heard what you wanted to hear so you could rebut. And "digging a whole" was a reference to ML, not you, so not sure why you feel that was directed at you. if that was your perception, I apologize....I feel I was clearly referencing ML in a paragraph about ML. I perceive that you have moved the focus from your dismissive and condescending attitude back to the original post. you're too busy defending yourself and your opinions to even consider what's being said to you.

others have pointed it out, I have pointed out, the owner of the forum has pointed it out....and you keep justifying and defending yourself. Consider what I said in prior post....if you're the common element in multiple issues, perhaps the common element is the problem. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's not what you say, it's how you say it. See it...don't see it...but when multiple posters are telling you the SAME thing, over and over, you might want to spend more time to consider what's being said, and less time doubling-down on your position. We're trying to help you here.....good luck.

 

[St. Geezy]

That's not what the OP said. you are correct, it's right there...read the post. you heard what you wanted to hear so you could rebut. And "digging a whole" was a reference to ML, not you, so not sure why you feel that was directed at you. if that was your perception, I apologize....I feel I was clearly referencing ML in a paragraph about ML. I perceive that you have moved the focus from your dismissive and condescending attitude back to the original post. you're too busy defending yourself and your opinions to even consider what's being said to you.

others have pointed it out, I have pointed out, the owner of the forum has pointed it out....and you keep justifying and defending yourself. Consider what I said in prior post....if you're the common element in multiple issues, perhaps the common element is the problem. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's not what you say, it's how you say it. See it...don't see it...but when multiple posters are telling you the SAME thing, over and over, you might want to spend more time to consider what's being said, and less time doubling-down on your position. We're trying to help you here.....good luck.

Explain to me exactly what it is I am misinterpreting with the OP. The English looks clear to me and the beef here has been more so about my initial reply being taken as disrespect and an outright insult equated to harsh insulting words, not my interpretation or feelings about his post.

Multiple posters may be telling me one thing (most of whom are strongly on the fire Loomis side and fight tooth and nail with anyone that says otherwise, which hurts that argument IMO), and there are multiple posters agreeing with my post by evidence of the likes, including at least one from a moderator. Doesn’t make either side right. It’s a discussion board.

Like I said though, it’s clear to me that my words are going to be characterized a certain type of way that’s different from other posters I have seen, and I will adjust accordingly.

 

[Hedon James]

Explain to me exactly what it is I am misinterpreting with the OP. The English looks clear to me and the beef here has been more so about my initial reply being taken as disrespect and an outright insult equated to harsh insulting words, not my interpretation or feelings about his post.

Multiple posters may be telling me one thing (most of whom are strongly on the fire Loomis side and fight tooth and nail with anyone that says otherwise, which hurts that argument IMO), and there are multiple posters agreeing with my post by evidence of the likes, including at least one from a moderator. Doesn’t make either side right. It’s a discussion board.

Like I said though, it’s clear to me that my words are going to be characterized a certain type of way that’s different from other posters I have seen, and I will adjust accordingly.

Appreciate you saying that. I don't want to go back and rehash this thread, and reopen arguments. You may have a valid point regarding fair vs. unfair, and I can certainly understand your perspective on that. But what I heard from Andrus is that standards have gotten a little lax on the forum; but he owned it, and seemed to indicate he'll be renewing focus to restore the standard. Maybe I misunderstood him, but that's what I heard. And it's welcome. Enforcement has to start somewhere, sometime, regardless of what was overlooked yesterday. There has been too much antagonism on this board, IMO, and I'll be glad to see a higher level of discourse restored and enforced. Seek first to UNDERSTAND, then to be understood. (that's not directed at you specifically, but a collective membership of posters)

In fairness to you, I've seen a lot of your posts, and your posts have never stood out to me as being of the overly negative and antagonistic variety. JMO. But you really came off that way in THIS thread. So I don't think it was your intent, you just stepped in something here. When Andrus alludes to the issue, consider it valid, IMO; and maybe don't double down on justification that "others do it too" or "others are worse".

Regardless, I generally find your takes on situations to be thoughtful, informative, and thought-provoking. All welcome adjectives, IMO, and I hope that continues. I only know you from SR.com and I've got no beef with you personally. Seem like the kind of guy I could drink a beer with and talk about our favorite football team. You just accidentally stepped in something....scrape it off your shoe, move along, and watch where you step moving forward. JMO...

 

[BigDSaintsFan]

I think the fact that Miss Benson stepped in when DA was fired means that a front office shake up is coming next week. I don't know what kind of shake up, but there will be one.

 

[Hubig]

I think the fact that Miss Benson stepped in when DA was fired means that a front office shake up is coming next week. I don't know what kind of shake up, but there will be one.

It will happen fast if Loomis wants to step down. I don't think he's getting fired or forcefully moved. At some point, he's a 68 year old man that is looking at a 2-3 year process if everything goes right. Everyone that covers the team and has covered the team for a long while pretty much all say the same thing, its his job as long as he wants it.

 

[Saint KayBee]

So now that that’s all shaken out…

What GM wants to come here and be the Cap Cleaner-Upper? The team is hamstrung by futures borrowing and if the logic goes that a quality coach won’t come here, which quality GM will want to bother cleaning up this mess?

I’ve proposed that Loomis’ status in the Benson will means he’d have the be in a role I made up called the Chair of the C-suite, whereby he’s over the partners in the Saints/Pelicans/associated businesses portfolio in a less hands-on role than that of the traditional general manager of a football team.

But that’s rich folks’ business, and I’m working-class. They’ll figure it out

 

[Hedon James]

So now that that’s all shaken out…

What GM wants to come here and be the Cap Cleaner-Upper? The team is hamstrung by futures borrowing and if the logic goes that a quality coach won’t come here, which quality GM will want to bother cleaning up this mess?

I’ve proposed that Loomis’ status in the Benson will means he’d have the be in a role I made up called the Chair of the C-suite, whereby he’s over the partners in the Saints/Pelicans/associated businesses portfolio in a less hands-on role than that of the traditional general manager of a football team.

But that’s rich folks’ business, and I’m working-class. They’ll figure it out

Oh boy....stirring the hornet's nest, are we? LOL!

You've actually asked the very question I've been thinking of. First and foremost, I don't think ML is going anywhere. I'd like a new GM, but I'm afraid we're stuck with him until he decides to part under his own terms. JMO. But IF he leaves and we're looking for a new GM, that would certainly impact the HC candidates, IMO.

Before we get into that.....I don't know where this conclusion that "a quality coach won't come here" has gotten such traction? All I've seen (and specifically in this thread), is that the Saints are unlikely to land one of the more popular/in demand candidates. I guess that means Ben Johnson(?). I think it's simple supply/demand economics that the most popular/in demand candidates are going to be able to "cherry pick" their destinations....the teams that are perceived to offer the highest chance of sustained success the quickest. And that's not the Saints. We've got solid & stable ownership, with a history of providing the HC whatever he asks for to build a team, and a history of giving him enough time to demonstrate the results. But that's about it. We also offer: no franchise QB (yet?); holes throughout the roster; questionable depth across the entire roster; lack of cap $ for FA; limited number of draft picks, and a history of "burning" picks for "need". I seriously doubt the most popular/in demand coaches are going to see the Saints as the preferred choice. But that DOES NOT mean a quality coach won't come here!!!

If the most popular/in demand coaches are considered "tier 1", our new HC will likely come from "tier 2". Coach candidates are a lot like draft picks....a bit of a crapshoot whether you're getting the HOF-er, the perennial All-Pro, the average starter, or a bust. Round selected is no guarantee of outcome. Same with coaches...tier selected from is no guarantee of outcome. It looks like there will be 6-8 new HC selected this cycle. Each team will likely interview 3-5 of their "top candidates", on average. That means there will LIKELY be between 18 (6 teams x 3 interviews) and 40 (8 teams x 5 interviews) "top candidates" for 6-8 positions! (There will obviously be some "crossover" between teams, but no way all teams will be interviewing the same 3-5 candidates!) We are going to get one of the top 6-8 candidates! There are only 32 of these jobs in the WORLD, and only 6-8 available in 2025! I'm confident a quality coach WILL come here. Maybe not the guy that every team wants, and maybe not the guy that the loudest voices in the fandom want, but we're going to be able to get one! Let's not forget that CSP wanted the Green Bay job in 2006 hiring cycle...the Saints were his "fallback" choice. When his agent called him to say that Green Bay was hiring McCarthy, CSP got serious about the Saints offer REAL QUICK. (side note...wasn't McCarthy on the Saints radar in 2006, due to previous familiarity? Isn't it possible McCarthy was our "top" candidate in 2006, but we pivoted to CSP when McCarthy accepted the Pack's offer?! We'll probably never know, but it certainly fits the Saints historical MO.) Regardless of how it actually happened, I'd say that 2006 hiring worked out VERY well, despite the Saints not being CSPs first choice. I can't remember with 100% clarity on this, but wasn't McCarthy the "hot" candidate in 2006? I know it wasn't CSP! With all that said, the only question in my mind, is whether the Saints organization will be able to accurately identify him?!

With that myth dispelled, I think the GM argument is dispelled for like/same reasons. So back to KB's original question...which I think is infinitely more interesting than the coaching discussion...who should be considered in the event of GM change? Coaching trees are easy to identify from game-day experiences. GMs....not so much. Assistant GMs and Directors of Scouting....even less so. I know I can't name any names! But I can look to other franchises' sustained success over long periods and recognize their competitive relevance, despite different QBs and different HCs. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, & Baltimore are best in class...."tier 1", IMO. All have changed HCs and QBs in the past decade or two, and yet continue to churn out winning seasons and challenge for playoff spots and division titles. What assistant GM and/or Scouts in THOSE franchises are ready for their opportunity? I don't know, but that's where I'd start my search. Who's in "tier 2"? IMO, it's the teams who have assembled the right combination of HC and QB, and are sustaining that success. Buffalo, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Minnesota, Detroit, and probably SF & LA Rams. I'd consider "tier 2" candidates also. (I would've put the Saints in "tier 2 before CSP left)

"Tier 3" consists of teams that have experienced success with the right coach and QB, but the jury is still out regarding sustainability over long term. Teams like Washington, Houston, Denver, San Diego. This is a "transition tier", and teams in this tier will either rise to Tier 2, given time and experience, or fall back into Tier 4. Tier 4 doesn't appear to have the right HC, or the right QB, or neither; and traditionally hover around .500 or worse....it's "everyone else". Saints are Tier 4, IMO. While the ultimate goal is to build a franchise culture that reaches Tier 1, we first need to get to Tier 3 (competitive success and challenger). If we can sustain it, we'll get to Tier 2. But we need to sustain it for lengthy periods...across QB changes, and coaching changes....to get to that elite Tier 1. The best and most logical way to get there, IMO, is to poach the right guy from Green Bay, Pittsburgh or Baltimore who is ready to take the next step and build HIS vision of a dynasty in New Orleans. But that's the easy part....broad brush. Specifics will be the challenge. Who fits that description in these organizations? Does ANYONE on this forum have a clue, because I sure don't!

 

[St. Widge]

So now that that’s all shaken out…

What GM wants to come here and be the Cap Cleaner-Upper? The team is hamstrung by futures borrowing and if the logic goes that a quality coach won’t come here, which quality GM will want to bother cleaning up this mess?

I’ve proposed that Loomis’ status in the Benson will means he’d have the be in a role I made up called the Chair of the C-suite, whereby he’s over the partners in the Saints/Pelicans/associated businesses portfolio in a less hands-on role than that of the traditional general manager of a football team.

But that’s rich folks’ business, and I’m working-class. They’ll figure it out

I think it's a good point about the GM position. The truth is that if Loomis moves on/is fired/ is promoted out of the GM role, etc. the most likely replacement is someone that is already with the team. That likely means either Khai Harley, Dave Ziegler, Randy Mueller, or Jeff Ireland would get the job. Maybe they would do a better job, but none of them would be the type of complete overhaul that many are calling for.

I do think Mueller would be an interesting option if only because he felt like he was starting to build something here before the Haslett fiasco cost him his job. He wasn't great in Miami, but he always felt like a guy who could identify talent and knew how to best use the draft. He also seemed to value adding draft picks though I will admit that I haven't looked closely as how many trade downs/trade ups he has done.

But, whoever it would be is going to be someone with a lot of NFL experience because I think Mrs. Benson and Dennis Lauscha place high value of being able to hire a GM with experience that they can just let do his job without having to be too involved. They aren't going to hire the next hot shot young GM. They are going to hire someone with years of experience doing the job.

 

[sfidc3]

People saying they want an “alpha dog “ style of HC and then mentioning Joe Brady haven’t done their homework. I really like Brady but his personality is the polar opposite of “alpha dog”.

I don’t know that much about Glenn’s personality but based on what I’ve seen during Lions coverage, he also seems pretty cerebral as well.

Sean Payton was/is an alpha dog type of coach. If that’s what folks want, then someone like Vrabel should be near the top of your list.p, assuming he’s interested.

Not necessarily, you have no idea what Brady will look like as a HC, as he has never been in that role, do you know him personally?

And TBH, there have been successful coaches that haven't been "alpha dog" types.....Andy Reid comes to mind....

I never liked Vrabel, think he is a meathead conservative defensive minded coach, I want a young offensive minded coach willing to take chances.....

 

[sfidc3]

Literally read his post as conjecture. I just don’t agree with the assessment and still believe it is based on the official SR forum witch hunt of Mickey Loomis.

It's curious to me that as a GM with likely recently expanded roles (immediately after CSP left) who is supposedly in charge of a team that has literally been destroyed by bad decision after bad decision and is now likely the worst team in the NFL, would be immune from criticism.....I think at this point ML deserves some witch hunting.....I'm amazed how folks are still defending him, similar to how I felt when many of the same folks defended DA the last few disastrous seaseons