- Joined
- Jan 27, 1999
- Messages
- 12,053
- Reaction score
- 12,821
Online
The thread heading asks how attractive is the Saints head coach job? The answer is that we are about to find out based on who is hired and reports as to what options the coach hired had. An educated response at the moment is not terribly so.
A rough ranking of the attractiveness of the head-coach openings is that New England, Chicago, Jacksonville, and Dallas stand in the first tier and New Orleans, Las Vegas, and the Jets in the second tier. For four reasons, the Saints job seems relatively unattractive.
First, the lack of a young or red-chip quarterback. New England has Maye, Chicago has Williams, Jacksonville has Lawrence (whose play has been inconsistent), and Dallas has Prescott. Rattler has shown potential, but in all probability, he will not become a top 10 quarterback in future years. Derek Carr is 34, lacks mobility, and at his best is a middle-level quarterback. With superior talent, a team can make the playoffs with Carr. The Saints have below-average talent. Carr is not the future.
Second, the lack of overall talent. The Saints have perhaps three players who are or will shortly be blue-chip (top five at their position) or red-chip (top 10 at their position): Erik McCoy, Alvin Kamara (who will be turning 30), and Taliese Fuaga. And they have a relatively limited number of players who could be considered quality starters: Chris Olave (though concussions are a concern), Rashid Shaheed, Taysom Hill (certainly an impact player, but he will be turning 35), Bryan Bresee, Carl Granderson, Pete Werner, Paulson Adebo, and Alontae Taylor. There may be some young players who may flourish in the next two years. But this roster is not talented and is certainly not deep.
Third, salary cap. The Saints rank last in the league in the amount of money they are over the projected 2025 salary cap (at least $40,000,000 assuming an increase in the 2025 salary-cap money, though most tables currently show an amount over $50,000,000) and in dead money ($48,000,000). Yes, the Saints can restructure contracts to become salary-cap complaint. But in doing so, they adversely affect their ability to compete in future years. And they remain the team least able to sign free agents in 2025. What free agents are we failing to sign because of our salary cap?
Fourth, franchise direction. Whether Mickey Loomis as general manager is an asset or liability can be debated. I and others would suggest the latter. Some on this forum would suggest the former. Unquestionably, the team's ownership has shown greater patience and has been less demanding with its top executives than team owners elsewhere. But at his press conference last week, the gist of Loomis's comments was that the team's direction over the past three years was not wrong and would continue--there will be no hard rebuild. If I were interviewing for the job as Saints head coach, I would not be asking at what team can I win the most games in 2025. I would be asking at what team will I have the best chance of showing major improvement in 2026 and seriously contending in 2027. Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch did not win in San Francisco until their third year. Yes, three years is a long time in the NFL. But some prospective head coaches will think that unless the Saints are willing to recognize that what they have been doing leads to mediocrity at best and is not working, this is not the job they want.
Again, were I being interviewed for the head coach job, I would be asking questions: From 1 to 32, where do you think your roster ranks in terms of talent? What organizationally have you done wrong over the last three years, and what do you plan to do differently? When do you expect to return to the middle of the pack in salary cap space? What do you plan on doing to become salary cap compliant in 2025? Going forward do you anticipate trading down in the draft to acquire more draft picks more than trading up to select targeted players?
A rough ranking of the attractiveness of the head-coach openings is that New England, Chicago, Jacksonville, and Dallas stand in the first tier and New Orleans, Las Vegas, and the Jets in the second tier. For four reasons, the Saints job seems relatively unattractive.
First, the lack of a young or red-chip quarterback. New England has Maye, Chicago has Williams, Jacksonville has Lawrence (whose play has been inconsistent), and Dallas has Prescott. Rattler has shown potential, but in all probability, he will not become a top 10 quarterback in future years. Derek Carr is 34, lacks mobility, and at his best is a middle-level quarterback. With superior talent, a team can make the playoffs with Carr. The Saints have below-average talent. Carr is not the future.
Second, the lack of overall talent. The Saints have perhaps three players who are or will shortly be blue-chip (top five at their position) or red-chip (top 10 at their position): Erik McCoy, Alvin Kamara (who will be turning 30), and Taliese Fuaga. And they have a relatively limited number of players who could be considered quality starters: Chris Olave (though concussions are a concern), Rashid Shaheed, Taysom Hill (certainly an impact player, but he will be turning 35), Bryan Bresee, Carl Granderson, Pete Werner, Paulson Adebo, and Alontae Taylor. There may be some young players who may flourish in the next two years. But this roster is not talented and is certainly not deep.
Third, salary cap. The Saints rank last in the league in the amount of money they are over the projected 2025 salary cap (at least $40,000,000 assuming an increase in the 2025 salary-cap money, though most tables currently show an amount over $50,000,000) and in dead money ($48,000,000). Yes, the Saints can restructure contracts to become salary-cap complaint. But in doing so, they adversely affect their ability to compete in future years. And they remain the team least able to sign free agents in 2025. What free agents are we failing to sign because of our salary cap?
Fourth, franchise direction. Whether Mickey Loomis as general manager is an asset or liability can be debated. I and others would suggest the latter. Some on this forum would suggest the former. Unquestionably, the team's ownership has shown greater patience and has been less demanding with its top executives than team owners elsewhere. But at his press conference last week, the gist of Loomis's comments was that the team's direction over the past three years was not wrong and would continue--there will be no hard rebuild. If I were interviewing for the job as Saints head coach, I would not be asking at what team can I win the most games in 2025. I would be asking at what team will I have the best chance of showing major improvement in 2026 and seriously contending in 2027. Kyle Shanahan and John Lynch did not win in San Francisco until their third year. Yes, three years is a long time in the NFL. But some prospective head coaches will think that unless the Saints are willing to recognize that what they have been doing leads to mediocrity at best and is not working, this is not the job they want.
Again, were I being interviewed for the head coach job, I would be asking questions: From 1 to 32, where do you think your roster ranks in terms of talent? What organizationally have you done wrong over the last three years, and what do you plan to do differently? When do you expect to return to the middle of the pack in salary cap space? What do you plan on doing to become salary cap compliant in 2025? Going forward do you anticipate trading down in the draft to acquire more draft picks more than trading up to select targeted players?
