Nick Underhill: Saints Might Not Move on from DA (1 Viewer)

[DSnfla]

Normally, I'd agree with you. He should have been fired after Year 2. But it's become apparent in the middle of Year 3 that was a mistake. So here's a list of reasons why it would be a positive move, rather than a negative:

• in an emergency situation, step #1 is ALWAYS "stop the bleeding" ASAP; Saints need to stop the bleeding, or at least MAKE THE ATTEMPT
• it's pretty obvious the players aren't giving their best effort. firing the HC mid-season sends a message that things are going to be different. for those who WANT to be here, it's a message of encouragement.
• for those who are "coasting" through the season, they're being served notice that their game film will be auditioned by a NEW (to be determined) staff. they'll be playing for their jobs. I expect the team will play better because anyone "going through the motions" won't want a new regime making decisions based off less-than full effort
• can't speak for others, but I'm under no delusions of turning things around and competing for NFCS division title this season. my eyes are on the 2025 season, and getting the right coach and players to play from that point forward.

As to the 4th bullet point, I'd even CONSIDER eating as many bloated "dead money" contracts as I could in 2025, with the understanding we would be terrible in 2025; but with hope for 2026 and beyond. if we're bad enough in 2025, I think Arch Manning will be within reach for our 2026 draft position. If that's the direction we're going, I'd add one more year to a new coaches contract so that he has THREE YEARS of HIS REGIME and HIS PLAYERS, not including the "dead year" of all the purges. For me, this scenario is preferred over retaining DA ad nauseum, because THIS scenario has hope in my eyes. It's no guarantee of future success, but it's only the 2nd-worst scenario I can envision. Retaining DA is the doomsday scenario, IMO.

So that's my list of reasons why it could be a GOOD thing to fire the HC mid-season. We missed the end-of-season window, so mid-season is the next best thing. and I DO think it's gotten critical.

LOL Arch, Arch,Arch The guy has played in VERY few games and either in garbage time or against EXTREMELY weak opponents and you people are saying he's a lock at the #1 pick.SMH

 

[DSnfla]

I saw Arch play a few games, the UT offense looks different in a better way with him there. Defenses have to watch out for his running ability. He is able to stretch defenses with his accurate deep passing abilities.

Ewers on the other hand is immobile, and is only effective in short to medium passes. Defenses don't have to play the whole field with him.

And just who was Arch playing against??? VERY weak teams

 

[DSnfla]

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this after Dennis Allen excused the whole season due to injuries........even though we were 2-3 with Carr and a relatively healthy team.

Do you even read what you post? we were not relatively healthy from the Philly game on!!!! We lost our best OL in that game and Ruiz after that and 2-3 players a game after that. I'm not an advocate to keep DA only because he's not a HC that can elevate players when needed like when half the team is hurt. But had we stayed healthy for the most part I would bet $$$ we'd be closer to 6-2 rather than 2-6
The 1st 2 games proved that

 

[DSnfla]

No, but it means that she is involved and knows what is going on with the team. I'm sure she defers to the people she hired to make personnel decisions but she clearly wanted to meet and vet the guy that they wanted her to pay hundreds of million of dollars to and she was willing to be a part of the recruiting team trying to get Watson to come to the Saints. And she may have had something to do with the Saints not being willing to guarantee the entire contract the way Cleveland did.

I'll bet $$$ it was ML saying to her it would help us land him if you met with him. I doubt it was her idea

 

[Hubig]

Shanahan offense doesn't work unless you run the football well. So I assume if DA is fired and the Saints wants to retain the hottest offensive system currently in football, you have to retool that O.line as much as possible.

 

[DaveXA]

I'll bet $$$ it was ML saying to her it would help us land him if you met with him. I doubt it was her idea

It's pure speculation though. No one here knows exactly how it happened. And ultimately, it doesn't matter who came up with it.

 

[DSnfla]

Firing DA in season does no good. Also what if now that we are starting to get healthy (maybe) what if , even though we won't get Shaheed and Adebo back. But what if with DC back and soon McCoy we go on a streak and win 7 or 8 of the last 9, and don't say "it can't happen because you don't , we have not played the games yet. Let's say it happens
What that means is it was really the injuries that derailed this team and nothing else. If that happens then it would be ridiculous not to give DA at least 1 more yr. Now I do believe that we will need a different HC to really make it to the SB.But finishing like that would prove it was injuries

 

[DSnfla]

It's pure speculation though. No one here knows exactly how it happened. And ultimately, it doesn't matter who came up with it.

Of course it does. And EVERYTHING is speculation. If it was ML's idea it means that Mrs B is not proactively involved in personnel decisions of the team. She HAS proven in the past that she is not a good business woman because he businesses have failed and she was in debt before she married Tom

 

[DaveXA]

Of course it does. And EVERYTHING is speculation. If it was ML's idea it means that Mrs B is not proactively involved in personnel decisions of the team. She HAS proven in the past that she is not a good business woman because he businesses have failed and she was in debt before she married Tom

I mean, that's your opinion and we'll just agree to disagree. I believe she's more involved than just rubber stamping. That wasn't Tom's m.o. and it isn't hers.

You know people are capable of leaning from their mistakes, no? And I think she's run the team about as well as you can as an owner. She basically learned the ropes from Tom and she's stated on more than a couple of occasions that she wanted to run the organization the same way Tom did.

She's also stated she would never sell the teams before she passes away and primarily because she wants to be sure the teams stay in New Orleans.

She's not going to fire anyone until the end of the season. That was Tom's m.o. as well.

 

[St. Geezy]

I think most people grasp the concept. Conceptually it's fine when you have an elite roster and you know you're competing and you're happy to strap yourself to certain players long-term. Back in the day, restructuring Brees on a regular basis was never a big deal. Cutting him was never going to be a thought.

When we're in a flux of mediocrity, it sure feels bad not being able to move on from an average QB.

It’s the same thing though even if you have a “healthy” cap.

Not many teams are as bold as Denver was in cutting a player they just signed to a mega deal after just two seasons.

In our case, we signed him at a time where we had to borrow dollars from the future and can’t cut him because the cap hits would accelerate, and in other teams’ case they would have signed him using present dollars and in order to maintain the illusion of a healthy *current* cap, they wouldn’t want to cut him still.

Again, what Denver did was rare. If you sign a guy to a $100+ million deal, you’re kind of stuck with it for a few years, typically.

Our cosmetics just look atypical because we borrowed from the future to get the deal completed.

If Carr signed a more traditional deal, his cap hit this year would not be as low as it is, and his cap hit next year would still be pretty high to where we likely would want to hold onto him for one more year. It just looks different because instead of the money being spread more evenly, we have it set up to where it’s relatively cheap this year and more expensive than it would be next year once we restructure.

Teams aren’t cutting big contracts they suddenly don’t like after 1 or 2 years all over the place league-wide; they live with their errors just like we do, and we just have to do more administrative work (restructures) to live with ours.

 

[St. Geezy]

The DC contract is one of the reasons we couldn't sign anyone of note last year or the year before. So it carried consequences. He couldn't produce with the talent around him so the $150M was a waste... a terrible Catch 22.

Bigger mistakes would be Jordan, Ramchek, Lattimore, players signed to big money around 2020 and now are not producing.

This really is a team with no legitimate Star players and a lot of players on the decline.

So your problem is with the who we signed aspect not working out and not the financial management, right?

Hindsight is 20/20. Most people were happy to lock themselves into those players and many were also happy when we signed Carr.

Two of those players didn’t work out because of injuries (Ram and Marshon), one has aged out after being signed to a deal he should not have been (Cam), and one is playing average football and being paid like an average player at his position (Carr).

Now that it hasn’t worked out as hoped we can’t now blame the salary cap strategy as the reason.

We aren’t the only team stuck with bad contracts. Teams with healthy caps have the same restrictions as we do because they don’t want to mess up their “healthy” cap; it just looks different.

When you sign busts to big contracts, you’re SOL one way or another unless you want to be like Denver and torpedo your cap for a year. Thankfully for them they have great coaching to compensate for it because most of that roster is putrid.

It’s like “Yay, we signed all these guys we wanted despite not having cap space…we are Loomising! Horray!,” followed by “Oh no, we regret it now because the players we got didn’t work out…damn you salary cap accounting strategy for making us have so many subpar players!”

 

[Blazing Saint]

Slowly? Thinking about it. Payton left and we became the Jets. Immediately fell to a .500 ball club, which is kind of a Jet standard of excellence, with no fight. And now one of the bottom 3 clubs in the league, another Jet like thing to do.

Go Jaints!

S-E-T-S SETS SETS SETS

 

[St. Widge]

Shanahan offense doesn't work unless you run the football well. So I assume if DA is fired and the Saints wants to retain the hottest offensive system currently in football, you have to retool that O.line as much as possible.

I mean, the OL was good when they were healthy. Assuming Penning continues to improve and Fuaga settles down after a rough stretch, I think you might like a younger upgrade at LG or even an upgrade at RG, but mostly the OL needs better depth more than anything else. I'm not sure that counts as a re-tool.

 

[St. Widge]

It’s the same thing though even if you have a “healthy” cap.

Not many teams are as bold as Denver was in cutting a player they just signed to a mega deal after just two seasons.

In our case, we signed him at a time where we had to borrow dollars from the future and can’t cut him because the cap hits would accelerate, and in other teams’ case they would have signed him using present dollars and in order to maintain the illusion of a healthy *current* cap, they wouldn’t want to cut him still.

Again, what Denver did was rare. If you sign a guy to a $100+ million deal, you’re kind of stuck with it for a few years, typically.

Our cosmetics just look atypical because we borrowed from the future to get the deal completed.

If Carr signed a more traditional deal, his cap hit this year would not be as low as it is, and his cap hit next year would still be pretty high to where we likely would want to hold onto him for one more year. It just looks different because instead of the money being spread more evenly, we have it set up to where it’s relatively cheap this year and more expensive than it would be next year once we restructure.

Teams aren’t cutting big contracts they suddenly don’t like after 1 or 2 years all over the place league-wide; they live with their errors just like we do, and we just have to do more administrative work (restructures) to live with ours.

I do overall agree that the kicking the can approach to the cap isn't as big of a deal as some make it out to be. It does mean that drafting well so you have good depth is a bit more important since you don't generally have the money to fill in with high level depth in free agency, but in the end it's just another way to do things. And one that does make sense when you are trying to keep a team together by using future cap dollars to pay present players.

But, I think it's also true that as your players get older and you do things like adding void years to the contracts of 30 plus year-old players, it limits your flexibility if you need to move on from those players before their contracts end. It hasn't been a huge issue so far, but it could end up being an issue with Hill, Cam, and Demario and if they wanted to move on from Carr it would be an issue. Hill is a great player and kind of a one of a kind piece of the offense but we are spending a lot of money for a guy that is always hurt and will be 35 next year. I mean he has around $12 million in dead money right now if you let him go or trade him.

Of course, I don't think they do want to move on from Carr or Hill at this point so that point is moot. But, if you bring in a new coach it is going to have to be one that is fine with Carr for a couple years.

Anyway, I do think it makes sense to move closer to a normal cap right now because this team isn't competing for championships and then when they are ready to make that run they will have better flexibility and more money to sign the players they need to keep to keep that run alive.