Is There Really A Mickey Loomis? (1 Viewer)

[RJ in Lafayette]

Yes, there was a piece in the Times-Picayune the other day that could have been entitled: "Mickey Loomis Speaks." Since the end of the season, he actually made a public statement.

Thank God that Payton is so articulate and can act as the public face of the Saints organization because Mickey Loomis apparently cannot. When he appears, he sounds like a dumbed-down Alan Greenspan, speaking in riddles and saying little that makes sense.

It has been a month since the season ended. To my knowledge, Loomis's public appearances amount to an interview with the Times-Picayune. Mickey, if you are the general manager of the team, some questions:

1. Do you agree that both free agency and the draft in 2007 were a small disaster? If you do, why did it happen? And more important what steps are you taking to avoid another dismal offseason in 2008?

2. Apparently, the Saints will be giving up a home game in 2008 to play in London. How did this come about? What was the position of the Saints organization with playing a game in London? (And I don't expect the whole truth, but it would be nice to get at least an on-the-record statement from the organization.)

3. What specifically does the team need to do to compete for a championship? What are our goals, even if stated in general terms, for this offseason?

4. Any comment on the 2008 draft? Any?

 

[birdog]

We're slowly drifting back to pre Katrina state of mind.......when the multiple draft blunders by the FO & Loomis resulted in open rebellion by the fans, who voted with their feets. But you're so right RJ, and someone should also ask him about the draft of 2 years ago.....who did that draft? It certainly wasn't the same blunders we're so accustomed seeing! So it had to be someone else, not these guys who did the last one!

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Loomis has been general manger for how many years? Five? He has presided over one great offseason--he was the guy in charge so he deserves the credit. But he also presided over two terrible offseasons--2007 and 2003 when we moved up to pick Sullivan at 7 and our big free agency signing was Tebucky Jones.

The problem is that Loomis does not have an eye or any instincts for talent. He is a process guy whose job is to handle the numbers and to determine what the consensus,and to play umpire if there is no consensus, with personnel decisions.

 

[CitySaint]

Whats up with all the Mickey hate? The offseason hasn't even started yet, lol. Can we atleast let Free agency go for 3 or 4 hours before ranting about the "bean counters" incompetence? If he does well in those first few hours we can pass the praise to someone else who had nothing to do with it.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Have never met the man so "hate" is inappropriate. More a desire for accountability and a concern over organizational drift.

 

[LSSpam]

1. Do you agree that both free agency and the draft in 2007 were a small disaster? If you do, why did it happen? And more important what steps are you taking to avoid another dismal offseason in 2008?

If I was the GM and you asked me that question i'd end the interview right there. That's rude and not something that's going to be answered anyways. What, you want him to come out and say "Yeah, it's only been a year but Robert Meachem is horrible. Sure the draft pick was universally acclaimed as a great "value" at the time, but whatever, we're cutting him."

2. Apparently, the Saints will be giving up a home game in 2008 to play in London. How did this come about? What was the position of the Saints organization with playing a game in London? (And I don't expect the whole truth, but it would be nice to get at least an on-the-record statement from the organization.)

You really think that was his call? What should he do, criticize the owner Tom Benson? About something that happened just a few days ago no less.

3. What specifically does the team need to do to compete for a championship? What are our goals, even if stated in general terms, for this offseason?

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-4/1201156447244670.xml&coll=1

He said the Saints feel "decent" about their salary-cap situation, which includes enough wiggle room to add one or two impact players in free agency. But they also want to re-sign a handful of their own unrestricted free agents.

He said they've had some "preliminary discussions" with the agents for defensive end Will Smith, receiver Marques Colston and guard Jahri Evans, all of whom are heading toward free agency in 2009.

And he was noncommittal about tailback Deuce McAllister's future, saying the Saints don't need to decide about the rehabbing running back until at least March, when he is due a $1 million roster bonus.

In general, Loomis sounded cautiously optimistic about these next few months, believing that the Saints have a good foundation and aren't that far removed from the team that played in the NFC championship game last season. Here are some of the highlights from his state-of-the-team address:

4. Any comment on the 2008 draft? Any?

Sure thing RJ in Lafayette. I mean I know no NFL team has even completed their evaluation process and draft board stacking yet, but let me get a big list of exactly who I want to take in the 2008 draft before we even go through Free Agency and see who we retain/lose/sign.

Unreasonable expectations

 

[dome patrol]

The problem is that Loomis does not have an eye or any instincts for talent. He is a process guy whose job is to handle the numbers and to determine what the consensus,and to play umpire if there is no consensus, with personnel decisions.

Probably the most accurate assessment I've ever heard of him.

 

[workhorse]

Yes, there was a piece in the Times-Picayune the other day that could have been entitled: "Mickey Loomis Speaks." Since the end of the season, he actually made a public statement.

Thank God that Payton is so articulate and can act as the public face of the Saints organization because Mickey Loomis apparently cannot. When he appears, he sounds like a dumbed-down Alan Greenspan, speaking in riddles and saying little that makes sense.

It has been a month since the season ended. To my knowledge, Loomis's public appearances amount to an interview with the Times-Picayune. Mickey, if you are the general manager of the team, some questions:

1. Do you agree that both free agency and the draft in 2007 were a small disaster? If you do, why did it happen? And more important what steps are you taking to avoid another dismal offseason in 2008?

2. Apparently, the Saints will be giving up a home game in 2008 to play in London. How did this come about? What was the position of the Saints organization with playing a game in London? (And I don't expect the whole truth, but it would be nice to get at least an on-the-record statement from the organization.)

3. What specifically does the team need to do to compete for a championship? What are our goals, even if stated in general terms, for this offseason?

4. Any comment on the 2008 draft? Any?

1. Yes 2007 FA was a miscalculation. I believe Loomis and Payton thought we were closer than we realy were. hence the free agency of bit players and not starters. Mare was supposed to fix the kicking game, specifically kickoffs, and he got hurt. Duece got hurt and Reggie hadn;t progressed as much, or head was somewher else and got hurt. They WAY overestimated the defense based on the 2006 performance. Jason David was their 3rd choice, but they made the move 2 days before the draft so we weren't pressured to draft a CB in the first. Can't blame them for the injuries and the David swing and a miss.

As for the draft, aside from the redshirt for Meachem, why is it a failure? It's a little early to judge the draft, don't you think? Bushrod and Alleman look like good future linemen, Mitchell contributed on the special teams and he was taken in the 7th round, for goodness sakes. Young is going to be very good, but rookie CB's take time to mature. As for the Pittman pick, he just didn't work out and was beaten out by a FA wonder in Pierre Thomas. Thank goodness we had the foresite to give him a shot.

He and Payton have both said they need to get younger and address the defense. They may be after some top tier free agents to do that, but remember, they have to want to come to New Orleans, too, right?

2. you never know what back room deals are made to get teams to do this. Look, I'm disappointed about it for the city losing revenue for the one game, but look at the big picture. National, er, intermational exposure is never bad. More interest, merchandise sales, etc. Yes it will fatten Benson's bottom line, but doesn't it help the city, too? Tourism, perhaps, keeping the Saints long term? More money to Benson now may help keep him from holding thecity ransom later?

3. I think they've said that, in general, to address the defense and get younger. They have evaluated our players and know who they will extend contracts to. They cannot, at this stage of the game, tell us exactly who they are targeting and what there contingency plans are. That would be tampering for one and stupid for two. You cannot let other teams know at this point who we are thinking of drafting. Furthermore, we have just begun the evaluations on the draftees and we are not exactly sure who will be available in free agency.

4. They have said they will try to draft the BPA again. Again, they can't give you specifics because they are just starting to evaluate them . My personal hope is that it is the BPA on the defensive side of the ball for at least the first 5 picks.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

My points were twofold:

First, if you judge the body of Loomis's work--the five year period when he supposedly was responsible for building and selecting talent for the Saints--the record is at best mediocre. The mistake in 2007 free agency was not failing to sign first-tier free agents. The mistake was signing and overpaying the wrong second-tier free agents.

Second, perhaps I am wrong in asserting that the general manager is supposed to be the organization's football face. Perhaps in an organization like the Saints where Payton is so skillful dealing with media and the public, the head coach is the public face. But one major interview in the month after an unsuccessful season?

With the authority comes responsibility, which includes accountability. The team's fan base has a right to hear the top guy on the football side answer two simple questions: What went wrong? And how do you plan to make it right?

 

[LSSpam]

Second, perhaps I am wrong in asserting that the general manager is supposed to be the organization's football face. Perhaps in an organization like the Saints where Payton is so skillful dealing with media and the public, the head coach is the public face. But one major interview in the month after an unsuccessful season?

Scott Pioli or Bill Belicheck? Bill Polian or Tony Dungy?

Coaches are almost universally the face of a franchise. General Managers tend to prefer to stay out of the limelight. Better job secruity that way.

With the authority comes responsibility, which includes accountability. The team's fan base has a right to hear the top guy on the football side answer two simple questions: What went wrong? And how do you plan to make it right?

Not really, no.

 

[Saint Droopy]

I don't believe ML is the evaluater/personnel guy that most think he is. What I mean by that is... when haz was here our personnel decisions were based on measureables... you know... "big and fast" guys that lacked the football IQ that was needed to win in the NFL.

Now we go out and get good locker room guys and "payton-type" players via FA and the draft.

My point is... we went from one end of the spectrum to the other with these decisions... and the whole time we only had one GM. Here's what I think...

I think the HC tells ML which players to target... and ML does what he need to do to get them here.

This is Haz and payton's team... ML simply crunches the numbers to make them fit into money slots... and I'm wondering how much of that he does because Russ Ball is the MAN... and I'd hate to lose him if he ever gets his call to be a GM with another organization.

I think ML is good at what he does. I'm not blaming him for last year... i think all of those moves were on the HC and his scouting dept.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Belichick is the public face of New England because he is the titular and de facto head of the New England organization. Pioli works under Belichick.

With the Colts, nobody doubts that Bill Polian is the organization's architect and head man. When it comes to the big picture and finding the pieces to build a championship team, Polian is the public face of the Colts organization.

And I agree with much of what Droopy said. But that description of what Loomis does underscores not only his limitations, but the organizational problem--a general manager who is willing to let the head coach be the architect of the team and who is essentially a traffic cop in free agency and on draft day--looking for a consensus on what deal should be done and then doing the deal (which Loomis is apparently good at).

 

[birdog]

I don't believe ML is the evaluater/personnel guy that most think he is. What I mean by that is... when haz was here our personnel decisions were based on measureables... you know... "big and fast" guys that lacked the football IQ that was needed to win in the NFL.

Now we go out and get good locker room guys and "payton-type" players via FA and the draft.

My point is... we went from one end of the spectrum to the other with these decisions... and the whole time we only had one GM. Here's what I think...

I think the HC tells ML which players to target... and ML does what he need to do to get them here.

This is Haz and payton's team... ML simply crunches the numbers to make them fit into money slots... and I'm wondering how much of that he does because Russ Ball is the MAN... and I'd hate to lose him if he ever gets his call to be a GM with another organization.

I think ML is good at what he does. I'm not blaming him for last year... i think all of those moves were on the HC and his scouting dept.

Why then the discrepancy?? To me, last year's draft looks almost identical to the Haslet drafts...we got some "prospects" who aren't starters. Contrast that with the 2006 draft, and we see a huge difference in players who started right away. To me it surely looks like the 2006 draft was conducted by some other people, and last year they reverted to the same people who did the previous 5-6 drafts.

The 2006 draft was extraordinary by ANY SAINTS DRAFT STANDARDS! We never had a draft like that before! New coaches, new faces, and they hit the bullseye! Was it luck? Or somebody else had an outside influence? The thing is, last year we reverted back to our old ways......and that is sad, considering the potential the team has!

 

[LSSpam]

With the Colts, nobody doubts that Bill Polian is the organization's architect and head man. When it comes to the big picture and finding the pieces to build a championship team, Polian is the public face of the Colts organization.

No, he isn't. Bill Polian doesn't interview like Tony Dungy does. That's what we're talking about right? General Managers aren't big on interviews in general. When they do interview they are almost universally cagey and vague in their answers.

And I agree with much of what Droopy said. But that description of what Loomis does underscores not only his limitations, but the organizational problem--a general manager who is willing to let the head coach be the architect of the team and who is essentially a traffic cop in free agency and on draft day--looking for a consensus on what deal should be done and then doing the deal (which Loomis is apparently good at).

A lot of NFL franchises are run like that including, as you noted, the New England Patriots. It's very difficult these days to convince a coach to coach a team he didn't play a large part in constructing. The trend in the late 90's was to give Head Coaches "total control", that failed because it divided the coaches attention too much, but the compromise that's sprung up has turned the General Manager into an operator and facilitator more-so then a talent-scout and architect like he was in the 80's with the Ron Wolf's and Jim Finks. Such General Managers still exist, but they're the exception, no longer the rule.

Why then the discrepancy?? To me, last year's draft looks almost identical to the Haslet drafts...we got some "prospects" who aren't starters. Contrast that with the 2006 draft, and we see a huge difference in players who started right away. To me it surely looks like the 2006 draft was conducted by some other people, and last year they reverted to the same people who did the previous 5-6 drafts.

Which sharply illustrates a number of points

1) The randomness of drafts. Not every pick is going to be a winner, no matter how good you are.

2) The relativity of drafts. Not every draft has the same amount of talent.

3) The prematurity of condemn or crowning a draft after 1 year. If Roman Harper and Reggie Bush end up being busts then the 2006 draft looks pretty medicore all of a sudden. Meanwhile we could, very well, within 4 years have Andy Alleman, Jerome Bushrod, Robert Meachem, Usama Young, and Pierre Thomas all starting for us which turns the 2007 draft into a gold mine.

 

[birdog]

Which sharply illustrates a number of points

1) The randomness of drafts. Not every pick is going to be a winner, no matter how good you are.

2) The relativity of drafts. Not every draft has the same amount of talent.

3) The prematurity of condemn or crowning a draft after 1 year. If Roman Harper and Reggie Bush end up being busts then the 2006 draft looks pretty medicore all of a sudden. Meanwhile we could, very well, within 4 years have Andy Alleman, Jerome Bushrod, Robert Meachem, Usama Young, and Pierre Thomas all starting for us which turns the 2007 draft into a gold mine.

Point well made! It could very well turn out as you say, (I hope & pray) but it might not! Time will tell....but looking back after one year, our evaluators seem to have missed the mark on some prospects. None of them could break into the starting lineup, as of yet! That is, one year later we "hope" that our 1st rounder will have a chance to sniff the field of play.....maybe not a starter, but at least he suits up! LOL! We're hoping Usama Young could start, but I really don't have much to base my hope on, unless we won't bring in any CB in FA .....maybe Andy Alleman is the best chance to start....provided the Saints won't resign Nesbit.....really one year later our best hope is Pierre Thomas, the undrafted rookie.

As I said, time will sort things out, but right now I wonder......