Ross Jackson’s biggest takeaways from Loomis, Moore and Ireland at the combine (57 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

Sounds like it won't be a general restructure for Carr where he just gets his money up front. I mean health wise he missed 7 games so giving some of that money back would only be right. I'd be ok w/ Keeping him beyond that so long as the #'s line up. He'd be a valuable #2 as his years wind down.

I like the idea of maybe turning a few dollars into availability incentives, which I believe that since he's missed a good bit of time, we may be able to craft a way to categorize them into "Unlikely to be earned" incentives for immediate cap purposes.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I would be surprised if Moore is really that excited about Carr but maybe he is - hopefully he can make the most of him.

I'm mostly curious about how things will run with the new coaching staff and new schemes but the same personnel guys doing the scouting/drafting/signing.

 

[St.Dan]

Saints will keep Taysom, look to add edge rushers and NT, Penning staying at RT and Saints will be a lot more active in free agency. Look for Carr to restructure to make cap room for free agency.

JACKSON: Biggest takeaways from Saints NFL Combine availability

By Ross Jackson INDIANAPOLIS – While the New Orleans Saints do not take the podiums at the NFL Scouting Combine, team executives still meet with local media. This year, general manager Mickey Loomis, college scouting director Jeff Ireland, and new head coach Kellen Moore spoke with reporters...

www.louisianasports.net

I like the part about a nose tackle and edge rushers. Both lines stink in terms of depth right now. Taysom perhaps get to retire a Saint? I like that, too.

 

[lapaz]

I don't think it's that. We'll, kinda....though that's not a bad thing. It's moreso because there's a totally new staff running s totally new offense and defense. I'd expect there to be a lot of surprises as the team gets remade into the coach's vision. It doesn't mean that they'll be huge spenders. It just means that guys the old regime were high on that were locks to be back, may not be back. For example....and I do mean EXAMPLE, there's no insider info or prognostication in this example, it's just for the sake of an example... If DA was still here, there's no chance the team would move on from Pete Werner. As we go into the off season, fans haven't quite adjusted to the new norm. We could almost predict many of the moves the Saints would make because we knew the tendencies. We knew the offense and defense backwards and forwards. And when DA became coach, it WAS the same game plan. There was no roster expectation adjustment needed to be made by fans. But with new coaches? We should expect totally different evaluations. People who were safe before aren't safe. Players who know the offense and defense aren't here yet. No, the roster won't be totally transformed in one off season, but there will be more changes than we'd see in a typical off season. This means that Werner (just pulling a name out of the hat for an example) could surprisingly not be in the plans. He's a potential trade candidate or cut or whatever. We should expect the roster will look different.

"But what about the salary cap!?!" Long sigh...I'm giving up on explaining that so don't look at me.

If I were pulling out of a hat, I wouldn't have picked Werner. I would've picked Demario Davis, Cam Jordan or Ty Mathieu, since they are aging vets who's future performance is likely to decline.

 

[Brooklyn]

I see people assign percentage chances like this and am always curious how they arrived at the percentages they did.

Would you mind sharing your calculations that lead to the Saints having a 10-25% chance of winning 10 games?

What % would you assign? What evidence is there to suggest that Carr can be a winning QB when he has literally never done it in his entire career? What evidence is there to suggest that we should continue this asinine plan of mortgaging the future with THIS roster?

 

[StudioSaint]

What % would you assign?

I wouldn't because I don't think there's any reasonable way to objectively quantify it. A coin has 2 sides, so all the possible outcomes are known, so a calculation can be made. Each side has a 1 out of 2 chance of being the side that comes up, so the odds are objectively quantifiable as 50/50. The same applies to dice, cards, roulette, the lottery and so on.

What evidence is there to suggest that Carr can be a winning QB when he has literally never done it in his entire career?

First, teams win football games, no single player does. The Saints with Drew Brees is evidence of that. The Saints had a lot of losing seasons with Brees at QB, that wouldn't happen if Brees alone could win games. Coaches watch film of QB's to evaluate them, they don't look up their win-loss records. That's something repeaters and fans do. It's not what the coaches do. Why do you think they look at film instead of win-loss records to evaluate QB's?

The Saints finished 2023 with a 9-8 record with Carr as QB. That's only one game shy of 10 wins. Keep in mind that the Saints had a two score lead on Green Bay when Carr had to leave the game with an injury. The Saints offense stalled without him and Green Bay managed to get an end of game lead to win the game. I'd say that's evidence that the Saints can win 10 games with Carr.

Second, quantifiable odds change when the possible outcomes change. If the numbers of sides on a coin or dice changes, then the odds of any one side coming up changes also. That's assuming all things are equal. With a six sided dice, all sides have a 1/6 chance of coming up if all things are equal. If you load one side with extra weight, then that side has a better chance of coming up. Changing that variable changes the odds of the outcomes.

Carr has never had Moore for a coach. That's a significant variable that's changed for Carr and it will have some impact on Carr's performance. The possible outcomes are Carr plays worse, the same, or better. There isn't any objective way of knowing what is most likely. We can only believe what outcome is likely, but we can't know what the likely outcome will be.

What evidence is there to suggest that we should continue this asinine plan of mortgaging the future with THIS roster?

I don't agree with the subjective assumptions of your question, because I don't think the Saints approach is asinine, nor do I think it's mortgaging the future. My response to your question is two other questions. Prior to the start of the 2006 season, what evidence was there to suggest the Saints would make it to the NFCCG? Before the playoffs started in 2009, what evidence was there that suggested a team who lost it's last 3 games could win the Super Bowl?

Past outcomes don't dictate future outcomes. There are thousands of variables in play that impact a teams win loss record and a lot of them are unforeseeable. That makes in impossible to objectively calculate the possible outcomes.

Objectively, the Saints' strategy paid off more than it didn't when Payton was the coach. It didn't pay off when Allen was the coach. The Saints changed coaches to Moore and we don't have any evidence of how the Saints strategy will work out with Moore as the coach. Only time will tell.

 

[VolSaint]

I see people assign percentage chances like this and am always curious how they arrived at the percentages they did.

Would you mind sharing your calculations that lead to the Saints having a 10-25% chance of winning 10 games?

Derek Carr has played 10 seasons in the NFL. In two of these seasons, Derek Carr has had 10 or more wins. This would give a team with Derek Carr a 20% chance of having 10 wins or more any given season.

I understand that there’s more to a team than the QB, but the entire story of Derek Carr’s career has been consistent mediocrity in both play and results, that someone or something else takes the fall for. History isn’t everything, but without history, we can never learn anything. We might as well draft Ewers and say he’ll be equal to Derek if past preformance didn’t matter