Breaking! Saints fired Dennis Allen (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its weird that I said loss to ATL because we won that game, but I guess in hindsigh it registred as a loss because of how things went down.
yea i glazed over that part, your point was already made. Ill correct one thing that i said, a FG win over Carolina doesn't save DA's job. What would've extended DA's job another week, is if we came out like week 2's team. That's what was expected. (a decisive win) 31-10 type victory. Certainly not a Loss. It was such a shamefully embarrassing loss, that no one wanted to hear DA speak in public ever again. The situation itself over-rode ML's tradition of letting a coach play it out, because IMO, letting him continue on and stack up L's and players opting out w/ hammys and playing with a lack of effort would've damaged the team. To avoid that nightmare, they manufactured a little hope and excitement by allowing Rizzi to close out the season. Firing DA midseason was the only move and not necesarilty GB flexing.
 
I've always believed Alvin was still on par. He probably doesn't have quite the leg drive he did on younger legs, but he's still got his unworldly balance and he was never a speed merchant. He's also incredibly smart for a RB in how he see's defenses which makes him dangerous in the passing game on option routes. In fact, food for thought.

Last year, Juwan Johnson was supposed to take the next step, and that revolved around him being utilized w/ more option routes. Remember, Carr was supposed to be friendly to TE's. Last year, Juwan didn't take that step.

So here's a curious question. Why was Juwan Johnson the target on an option route on that final play and not Kamara? We could look at our OC and say perhaps bad playcall and yet I've got to think the HC maybe say something like "give me somethign to Kamara here" and Kubiak under the guidance of his HC makes the call right?

IDK, lots of questions, not a lot of answers. Allen wasn't good enough and that's all it boils down to.

Johnson was not the intended target.
 
By Ross Jackson

The New Orleans Saints made some major changes this past week, headlined by firing their former head coach Dennis Allen. The decision was the right one to make considering the team’s downward spiral. While many point to the team’s seven-game losing streak as a driving factor, some reports suggest Sunday’s result was only further confirmation for what may have been on the way one way or another.

As Nick Underhill of NewOrleans.Football previously reported, team owner Gayle Benson has been checking in with players about the direction of the team and, presumably, why they believed things weren’t going to plan.

On top of that, fans have made it very well known that they believed that Allen was the source of many issues. The combination of player and fan concern clearly had an impact.

Per Sports Illustrated’s Albert Breer, the owner had “reached a breaking point over the past few weeks.” And the fan voice only strengthened ownership’s decision.

“Benson and her group were hearing from the fan base in a way they hadn’t before,” Breer wrote. “And their resolve was strengthened through that, to the point where perception inside the building holds that Allen might’ve been fired Monday even if he’d beaten the Carolina Panthers.”

 
I'm listening to the Loomis interview and the shot he took at Duncan was chuckleworthy. "Penalities (we were one of the least penalized teams in the league) speaks more to discipline than where players park for christ sake". He's so logical and big picture oriented he completely is missing the specifics of the details flying under the radar. He sees the forest but is ignoring the trees.
i saw that and thought the EXACT same thing you just stated. Just another example, IMO, of how disconnected ML is from the pulse of the team. That's a problem for a GM, and the fact he can't or won't even acknowledge it confirms for me that Saints didn't just have a HC problem; we got a GM problem too. ML needs to go too.

It's not a raging forest fire like the DA situation. He can finish the season and disappear quietly, but he needs to shut up and quit undermining the OWNER. It's pretty clear he wasn't (and still isn't) onboard with the owner's decision and seems to be getting his jabs in as often as opportunity allows it. You're next Mickey...shall we do it quietly, with dignity and honor; or would you prefer a spectacle? Might be the last shot you get to call in B&G.
 
Last edited:
Kind of runs parallel to the lack of attention to detail that Rizzi seems to be trying to correct. :scratch:
 
It wasn’t hard to decipher from Mickey Loomis’ initial statements that firing coach Dennis Allen was a decision the Saints general manager didn’t want to have to make.

But when asked by NewOrleans.Football if that means he disagreed with it, Loomis said, “It’s probably more difficult than disagree. My philosophy in general is that I don't see a lot of benefit in general from making changes in midstream. So that's probably where you read the hesitancy.”

When asked if that means the decision was made primarily by owner Gayle Benson, Loomis said, “No, I’m not gonna say that. It was an organization decision.”
 
I take it as he wanted to move on, but didn’t want to do it in the middle of the season.

Likely pressure from the players finally made him take the step
Yeah he mentioned the pressure came from multiple angles, it wasn't just one single thing. Not worried about season ticket holders, or getting boo'd etc but it had more to do w/ the team needing a spark, and he admitted that Rizzi has provided that, now to see if it can be sustained.

I take it that he didn't have enough wood for the winter and wanted Dennis to keep choppin' until the end of the season.
I smirked at this. Just for raw logic purposes, typically firing a coach mid-season is a form of giving up or almost throwing your hands up. I don't think he wanted to send that signal, and I think there's proof of that because he'd just said they likely wouldn't be sellers. He and Allen during the offseason reiterated a lot, they aren't interested in trading guys who can help them win. So firing Allen mid-season was a subtle admission they don't think they can still win, and sending that message to the players can go either way.

Logically speaking, but I think tossing out the logic and just looking at it emotionally....firing allen was like removing a dark rain cloud from the room. Likely underestimated the effect of a little sunshine. I over think a lot, this was potentially a moment where Loomis was overthinking it and Gayle came in, and just went w/ the gut and feeling of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom