Head Coach if there is no GM change (14 Viewers)

[RJ in Lafayette]

Jon Gruden is an interesting candidate if he wants to return to coaching. A few issues with Gruden:

1. He is 61. Does he have the passion to return to coaching?

2. He would want the same control over personnel that he had in Las Vegas.

3. How would the league react?

4. My belief is that next season will be difficult and the Saints are not a quick turnaround. Does he have the patience to go through two tough seasons before contending?

 

[Pkessling]

Just say no.

 

[Pkessling]

What article?

NFL Insider

 

[St. Widge]

Jon Gruden is an interesting candidate if he wants to return to coaching. A few issues with Gruden:

1. He is 61. Does he have the passion to return to coaching?

2. He would want the same control over personnel that he had in Las Vegas.

3. How would the league react?

4. My belief is that next season will be difficult and the Saints are not a quick turnaround. Does he have the patience to go through two tough seasons before contending?

And then there is the fact that he hasn't had a winning season since 2008 and had a record of 22-31 in his last 4 years in Oakland/Las Vegas.

Oh and then there is this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...ruden-resigns-over-racist-homophobic-n1281295

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...-after-racist-comments-surface-about-n1281162

Regardless of if you think the comments were racist or homophobic, or even if you are okay with racist or homophobic statements, there are huge question marks regarding whether modern day NFL players will want to play for him.

 

[St. Widge]

NFL Insider

I'm unfamiliar with that. What site is it on?

If Loomis is really looking at Gruden as a top candidate for the HC job, he should be fired now. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not if Gruden is among his top choices for the job.

 

[St. Geezy]

Fair enough...all good points. But my perspective is different obviously.

1. True, but it's not like the GM couldn't see this coming. We all saw DB9 deteriorating from his superhuman abilities, and compensating with experience; and CSP game planning and scheming to accommodate the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. I feel like a GOOD GM woulda/coulda/shoulda saw this coming and made moves to alleviate/mitigate. The moves made were reactive in nature, rather than proactive, IMO.

2. Completely agree. Don't like it, and wish it weren't so, but dealing in reality, I believe you are correct.

3. Agree with you to an extent. Can't control injuries, so I don't blame ML for that, but that is what depth is for. ML decisions and strategies have gutted this team of DEPTH , which is needed to mitigate the injury fiasco. I feel like allowing the depth to be gutted was a voluntary and unnecessary exposure to the whims of the injury bug. For sure, every team goes through injury woes, but it's an EXPECTED part of the game. Admittedly, this the worst season of injury history I can remember. But another poster on this forum (can't remember name to give credit...sorry) indicated the team with the most "lost games to injury" for starters is.....DETROIT! The 14-2 Lions with an opportunity this weekend to lock up NFCN Division Title and homefield advantage throughout playoffs. That sounds like a team with DEPTH, and solid coaching of backups and/or scheming to accommodate the backups. I want that from the Saints GM, but can't have it due to our GMs philosophies.

I don't think ML forgot how to do his job. I think he's gotten too comfortable in his role, and is probably used to doing it a certain way and has failed to adapt quickly enough to the changing circumstances (see point #1 above). I'm not sure he can fix what he broke, or it wouldn't have broken in the first place. And something is definitely broken. That is MY OPINION, and that is how I arrived at that opinion.

You may be right, and time will tell if you are, because I absolutely think you are correct about #2. You just have WAY MORE faith in ML than I do. I have lost confidence in him, through his actions over the past 4-5 offseasons. Since I think a continued tenure of ML is inevitable, I sincerely hope you are correct and I am wrong. And again, I will gladly eat my crow however you want it served to me.

Fair points. Only thing I strongly don’t agree with is the notion that our cap management is what has led to poor depth. Our cash budget there is similar to most other teams. We just have the wrong guys via poor drafting, and too much depth on the field at once due to injuries.

Most teams’ depth looks like ours. We could probably use a better backup QB, but I think that’s a function of the way the drafts fell more than anything financial.

And then there is the fact that he hasn't had a winning season since 2008 and had a record of 22-31 in his last 4 years in Oakland/Las Vegas.

Oh and there there is this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...ruden-resigns-over-racist-homophobic-n1281295

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports...-after-racist-comments-surface-about-n1281162

Regardless of if you think the comments were racist or homophobic, or even if you are okay with racist or homophobic statements, there are huge question marks regarding whether modern day NFL players will want to play for him.

I don’t think the guy is racist at all. He may have said some off-putting things about Smith, but I’d be lying if I was to say I have never commented on how huge they are. lol

I think the media created a headline and story arc at a time where racial tensions were high, and it gave the guy a bad rep.

To me, I thought it was very telling that none of our players, or even former players, had anything negative to say about Gruden during his visits with the club, and many of his former players have come to his defense over the years.

 

[St. Widge]

I don’t think the guy is racist at all. He may have said some off-putting things about Smith, but I’d be lying if I was to say I have never commented on how huge they are. lol

I think the media created a headline and story arc at a time where racial tensions were high, and it gave the guy a bad rep.

To me, I thought it was very telling that none of our players, or even former players, had anything negative to say about Gruden during his visits with the club, and many of his former players have come to his defense over the years.

I don't know that it matters if he is or isn't racist. The problem is that some players will think he is and that can cause locker room issues and make it difficult to sign some free agents and re-sign some players.

While the players didn't say anything about Gruden in public, it was made clear by Underhill that they talked to the players before doing it and they were okay with it, but only because it was as an advisor and not as the OC or an assistant coach. And, given the turnover that is needed on this team, it's not just guys on this team that matter and younger players may only know him by reputation and have no idea that he was ever considered a good coach.

But, even if we ignore all that, he was 22-31 in the last job he had.

I just don't think he's a good enough coach at this point to risk the serious downside.

 

[sfidc3]

I'm unfamiliar with that. What site is it on?

If Loomis is really looking at Gruden as a top candidate for the HC job, he should be fired now. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not if Gruden is among his top choices for the job.

Agreed, a Gruden hire would be a disaster.....no thanks....

 

[GeneHansen]

Some of the things people are coming up with to bash Loomis are becoming silly. Just thinking up weird hypotheticals out of thin air. Come on man.

For real.

“It’s terrible for a young HC to have a GM with ample years of knowledge, experience and league wide connections.”

 

[St. Geezy]

I don't know that it matters if he is or isn't racist. The problem is that some players will think he is and that can cause locker room issues and make it difficult to sign some free agents and re-sign some players.

While the players didn't say anything about Gruden in public, it was made clear by Underhill that they talked to the players before doing it and they were okay with it, but only because it was as an advisor and not as the OC or an assistant coach. And, given the turnover that is needed on this team, it's not just guys on this team that matter and younger players may only know him by reputation and have no idea that he was ever considered a good coach.

But, even if we ignore all that, he was 22-31 in the last job he had.

I just don't think he's a good enough coach at this point to risk the serious downside.

Yeah I should have made it clear…I do think we can do a lot better than Gruden, regardless of the P.R. part of it.

Just trying to put myself into the mind of ML.

He may even think Gruden could be the Carr fixer.

 

[Plow]

Jon Gruden is an interesting candidate if he wants to return to coaching. A few issues with Gruden:

1. He is 61. Does he have the passion to return to coaching?

2. He would want the same control over personnel that he had in Las Vegas.

3. How would the league react?

4. My belief is that next season will be difficult and the Saints are not a quick turnaround. Does he have the patience to go through two tough seasons before contending?

61 isn't that old

Andy Reid (Kansas City Chiefs) – 66 years old
John Harbaugh (Baltimore Ravens) – 61 years old
Mike McCarthy (Dallas Cowboys) – 60 years old
Todd Bowles (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) – 60 years old
Jim Harbaugh (Los Angeles Chargers) – 60 years old
Sean Payton (Denver Broncos) – 60 years old

 

[Cajun Mike]

Perhaps after having full control for three seasons Loomis has figured out that sure, with control comes credit, but also blame. At this point, unless his ego has become overinflated, he might be thinking that he was better off with a coach like Payton making the personnel decisions. At least that is my hope. Sure the team has been limited by an inordinate amount of injuries, but they have also been drafting and signing an inordinate amount of players with injury histories.


Read again: Max wrote.... "IMO if there is no move in the front office we will hire a Head Coach that had no possible other options to be a NFL Head Coach.

Think someone like Joe Brady."

Emphasis on "Someone LIKE Joe Brady". I'm trying to figure out what it is that you are arguing.

I think that you upset members, including me, by scoffing at, or dismissing Max's post as if he's some ignorant dumbarse, which we all know isn't the case, as he is a highly valued and respected contributor to the discussions,

If I am a potential head coach weighing my options and I look at the Saints situation regarding personnel and the cap... well... let's just say that the Saints sure wouldn't be my first option. Sad, but true.

I think Loomis feels untouchable!

 

[St. Widge]

Yeah I should have made it clear…I do think we can do a lot better than Gruden, regardless of the P.R. part of it.

Just trying to put myself into the mind of ML.

He may even think Gruden could be the Carr fixer.

I really hope Loomis isn't basing the HC decision on fixing a soon to be 34 year old QB with only two years left on his contract. I'd rather take a chance on a young OC like Brady or Coen or even an experienced guy like Kingsbury, if we can't get Ben Johnson. I'd also go with Glenn, Flores, or even Rizzi over Gruden. Not sure how far down the list I would get before Gruden would be an option to me.

 

[SweetT]

Andrus's post prompted me to take a closer look at this thread to see what I was missing out on.

Though I am not privy to private messages that might be sent, I have not seen any bias by the moderators against or in favor of Loomis or current management. Some hypotheticals posed are not helpful--if Bill Belichick were 60 years old, should we hire him. A belief that without major front-office changes, the Saints will have greater difficulty signing the coach they want does not strike me as fanciful but as a legitimate topic for discussion.

I have no formal role with governing discourse on these forums, but all posters can play a role in maintaining the high level of discussion we see on SSF. As members of the forum, we can defuse discussions that seem to be spinning out of control by what we say and especially by how we say it. Here are three suggestions for posting, which I at least try to follow:

First, if you would not say what you are typing to someone's face, say, if you were having a beer in the Superdome with him, you probably need to revisit what you are writing before you hit Send.

Second, try to address the substance of what you disagree with, rather than the poster whose opinion you disagree with.

Third, sometimes a response to a prior post is warranted. But sometimes it is not. If you have articulated fully your opinion on the topic, there is really no need to have the last word. If I have posted a certain number of times on a thread, I find additional posts look defensive and can be counterproductive. You can find threads where I posted several times, but at some point, I hopefully conclude I have said fully what I want to say and move on.

Again, I am not a moderator, and no one named me SSF's style czar, but I believe some of my suggestions have some merit.

Though I’m far from a moderator

 

[SweetT]

Yep. There is some buzz there.

I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I’m sure there is an appeal there with he and Sean kind of being cut from the same cloth…reputable offensive coach, bully/alpha type personality but players still like him, etc.

I like Gruden, I just think that he’s out of touch with reality to a degree. Like he took on that persona of Gruden’s camp. Once people start to get in that camera atmosphere, they change. I want a guy who has never been in front of the camera. A guy who will want to stay out of the limelight and just breathe football