Underhill article: “Saints moves are telling us what they felt the real problem with the team was last season” (101 Viewers)

[DSnfla]

Playing hypothetical of what kind of team we would’ve been, without injuries is a guess kind of stat as well

Of course it is but the smart $ bet is that we would have been a better team had we stayed healthy, don't you agree?

 

[SweetT]

Excatly , which is why CKM and his staff are thinking that the roster may not be the biggest issue. Not saying we have SB roster but one we can make the playoffs or maybe win the NFCS. Coaching and motivation will make a world of difference

I’m going to pause on the roster (as a whole until I see results), but I’ve always said that we still have talent in our starting group. Need to give those guys a system to believe in and help them to regain their confidence. They have endured too much losing, that it has become part of them. Have to flip the script. I do believe KM will help with that.

 

[SweetT]

Of course it is but the smart $ bet is that we would have been a better team had we stayed healthy, don't you agree?

After looking back at how our opponents played, I think we possibly could’ve got to 7 wins, 8 the most. We were still doing dumb things that plagued us the two years prior, after that 2-0 start.

 

[No2DC]

Defense didn’t have that many injuries and couldn’t tackle to save their lives.

Allen was a terrible head coach, and I don't think that's a subject of debate at this point. The injury claim is just lame, but it does point to a lack of depth and weaknesses with FO. All teams deal with injuries, but good coaches can keep things stable or cover up deficiencies until they face a superior team. The Lions did this for half their season, and the Rams gave Philly their closest game after battling injuries through the year.

 

[St. Widge]

The goal is to be a contender and win a Super Bowl, not simply be "good." If what NU says is true, I don't agree with the Saints FO's premise of this being a contending roster. I haven't seen any evidence of it being one at least. No use crying over spilled milk now though.

It's not possible to instantly be great. You have to be good at some point and build on that. I don't know where we got this idea that you can skip good on the way to being great.

 

[dutar76]

Last season, injuries were definitely the pivot. Not that we would've won the NFCS or that we'd have made the playoffs, or won a playoff game. Last season we were an embarassment for most of the season. If we weren't injured on a historic level, we could've been 9-8 or 8-9.

So the new coaching staff isnt wrong.

 

[St. Widge]

Allen was a terrible head coach, and I don't think that's a subject of debate at this point. The injury claim is just lame, but it does point to a lack of depth and weaknesses with FO. All teams deal with injuries, but good coaches can keep things stable or cover up deficiencies until they face a superior team. The Lions did this for half their season, and the Rams gave Philly their closest game after battling injuries through the year.

All teams do deal with injuries, but losing your starting QB, best offensive player (Hill), and two starting WRs for most of the year is really difficult for a team to overcome. Especially when you do have a terrible HC. It's not so much the number of injuries but the importance of those players and positions. But, sure, there was a serious lack of depth at all those positions, and particularly the OL. But who know if that was the FO or DA saying he was good with the depth we had?

And I'm not saying this is a good team. It's a mediocre team that likely wins 7 to 9 games, but if they get lucky and have a great draft, could win 10. That's obviously not good enough, but there is no reason we can't build the roster from here and the FO hasn't done anything that would prevent the continued slow rebuild of the roster. Not fast enough for my taste, but it is being done. But, of course, they have to get better at drafting.

 

[Turfie]

Our starting 22 weren’t the problem. It’s the other 31+.

We legit had no WR3 or WR4 at all. Our offensive and defensive lines were thin as paper.

If this was Madden and we could flip injuries off then I’d bet we’d have a fighting chance at playoffs last year.

I also think too much stock was placed in our 2-0 start. Bryce was still in a bad mindset and the Cowboys were nothing more than hot air.

 

[DSnfla]

After looking back at how our opponents played, I think we possibly could’ve got to 7 wins, 8 the most. We were still doing dumb things that plagued us the two years prior, after that 2-0 start.

So we won 5. We lost the Philly game on a stupid 3 DB collision on a 3rd and 16 with 1:20 left and we were ahead- 6 wins . We were ahead against ATL with 23 sec left 2nd and 10 and Adebo commits DPI = 7 wins
Just with those 2 games we make 7 wins, and that's not fully healthy. I think 7-8 wins if we are healthy is a low estimate

 

[dutar76]

All teams do deal with injuries, but losing your starting QB, best offensive player (Hill), and two starting WRs for most of the year is IMPODSIBLE for a team to overcome.

Edited your post for clarity.

 

[0rion]

Injuries seem to have been our thing for years now. Need to find the root cause of them. As a side note I feel like our lines on both sides of the ball haven't been playing the greatest. WR has been another weak spot. Injuries may stand out but it's not the only factor.

 

[DSnfla]

Allen was a terrible head coach, and I don't think that's a subject of debate at this point. The injury claim is just lame, but it does point to a lack of depth and weaknesses with FO. All teams deal with injuries, but good coaches can keep things stable or cover up deficiencies until they face a superior team. The Lions did this for half their season, and the Rams gave Philly their closest game after battling injuries through the year.

Ok so I'm trying to be open mined with you because we but heads all the time. How can the injury claim be lame? Every yr a good team does not live up to their potential due to injuries. Yes all teams deal with injuries but not to the level that we did last yr. You mention the Lions, their injuries did not start at the beginning of the yr like ours did they were like 6-7 -0 before it started with their D. Also their D was not the strength of their team, their O was and they had hardly any injuries
Philly beat the Rams by 17 how is that their closest game, and the Rams were getting healthy by then

I just think ( and apparently so does CKM and his staff) that injuries were a big factor for the way the team performed last yr. This mindset that injuries are downplayed at the level we had last yr and it really does not matter to be absurd. Please enlighten me

 

[DSnfla]

It's not possible to instantly be great. You have to be good at some point and build on that. I don't know where we got this idea that you can skip good on the way to being great.

EXACTLY, thank you

 

[DSnfla]

People aren't changing their minds one way or the other on their belief of this teams future.

There's 2 camps: The camp that thinks that the "Saints/Loomis are delusional, this team sucks, and every move we make is the dumbest move ever" crowd,

Then there is the camp of the optimists/sunshine pumpers that make threads trying to convince the doubters we are really, actually, a pretty good team. (Btw, Not saying anything is wrong with that at all, just saying don't expect to change anyone's mind)


For the most part, minds are already made up, and firmly entrenched. Nothing will change til the results on the field do.

I'll be the 1st to admit I am an optimist when it comes to the Saints , but in no way shape or form do I agree with everything they do. Even this yr I wanted to cut Shepard and Saunders and sign better DTs. I did not want to restructure DD and Mathieu so it may make us keep them longer.

What baffles me is I'm open to debate my optimism , the doom and gloom squad is not, even when facts or reports that the coaching staff think differently
I will say that i do not even come close to the level of knowledge that the coaching staff have , but if you listen to the doom and gloomers the FO, the coaching staff are all idiots and they are right

 

[StudioSaint]

Not that i disagree with them, but I do disagree with their terminology. A team is a team, not just your starting 22. What they were saying is, yeah “if” or “had” this didn’t happen, but what about those guys behind the starters, that every position coach is supposed to be getting those guys ready, in case of an injury to the guy in front of them? Next man up, has always been a thing. Have to be prepared for everything that a season can throw your way. 31 teams can use excuses, but in the end, only 1 team got it all correct, or the most correct. Plus, if your team is decimated with injuries, then you better get your strength and conditioning system right. You better get your diet and nutrition right. You better make sure that your guys are partaking in muscle recovery. All of those entities are part of the team as well.

That's the way I see it too. Your whole roster is your whole roster. Last year I think the Saints had a good starting roster with a few good regular rotational players. What became apparent after the injuries, especially a really high amount of injuries to the offensive starters, is that they had a bad combination of backups and coaching of the backups. I'm including both preparation and in game use when I say coaching.

If the coaching is better this year, they upgrade one backup in every position group, upgrade one starting guard, and one CB, and only have a normal amount of injuries, then I think they'll be fairly competitive. I think they've already made some progress on upgrading the roster and they still have the rest of free agency, the draft and UDFA's to upgrade it more.