Unusual criticism from NOF and Underhill (3 Viewers)

The criticism from Nick is warranted. I know this board is focused solely on the Saints, but the Pelicans are in a similar state of disarray. The problems on both teams ultimately lead back to a poorly run organization. I'm not at all surprised by Joe Brady's response.
 
Really good info. I was under the impression it was more then that. Thanks for detailing it out.
No problem. :9:

There definitely is a lot more to the plan. I was just addressing a narrow slice of it even if significant. Loomis just doesn't figure into the succession plan aside from being named basically 3rd in line executor.

The main takeaway for me is that Loomis can definitely be removed from the GM position and Gayle doesn't need to go through any hoops to make it happen.

They're all close friends though, so that's definitely a factor to consider.
 
We can see why Loomis was hesitant to fire Allen. I'm not saying he should not have been. But he was at least serving as a scapegoat while we fixed the cap hell we are in. Now we have to hire a coach who is willing to be that lame duck who can't even begin building for another year or two.

The transition from brees and Payton has gone as poorly as one could imagine.
The problem is Loomis is not trying to fix the cap hell we are in. According to him, they is no problem!
 
Also, jmho, regarding the coaching search.

1) Glenn - we all knew he was most likely gonna go to the Jets. Just too much history there. Don't think the Saints were gonna have a shot unless the Jets decided not to pursue him. This really has no impact on the Saints search.

2) Brady - he was number 1 on my list last week, but after doing some reading and his play calling in the game yesterday...he makes me nervous. That said, he had 3 remote interviews. 2 teams didn't extend a follow-up. I suspect he learned he probably wasn't first on the Saints' list and decided to withdraw. I can't really fault the FO for that.

McCarthy - the Saints having yet to secure an interview with him is mildly concerning. I'm not sure why that hasn't happened yet. That said, the Saints are the only team left, MM has 2 options, sit out a year or coach the Saints. No idea what he'll do.

Rizzi - I'd be shocked if they hire Rizzi. Going that direction doesn't make much sense to me. I want to like the guy, but I'm not convinced he's a legit HC.

The others - I'm not as familiar with the others, but I'd probably lean Kellen Moore. Love how he's utilized Barkley and think he could get a lot out of Kamara, Hill and Miller. I'm not sure if he'll try to target OL or RB/WR in the draft, but if be curious as to his approach to building the Saints offense.

I really don't think the coaching search is in as bad of shape as people are saying here. There's definitely some things to wonder about, but none of us are in the room with Loomis and the committee he's working with.
 
The problem is Loomis is not trying to fix the cap hell we are in. According to him, they is no problem!

He said that, but his actions last off season where we singed very few free agents and he didn't kick as much money down the road as he could have say otherwise. In addition, he said 3 years ago that they would be slowly getting the cap back to more normal. The only real deviation from that was signing Carr. That was obviously a mistake, but hopefully he is back on course to get the cap fixed in another year or two.

And you can start building through the draft now. The truth is that the draft is how you build teams. Free agency is just to fill in the gaps or get a bargain guy that the market is overlooking here and there. We don't have good enough roster to try to add expensive free agents anyway. We need to build a young core through the draft and then see if any free agents make sense to add to that.
 
Last edited:
Joe Brady withdrawing is the best Saints news in weeks regardless of how it looks. Here's a guy who has never coordinated a good offense without an elite QB who can make off schedule plays. I personally think Brady got wind that the Saints preferred Moore and did not want to lower his stock any further. Remember, Moore and Brady share an agent. I also think Brady secretly hopes that McDermott will be fired allowing Brady the chance to step into a ready made contender with Josh Allen. Again, this is great news!
 
If Rizzi gets the job then this front office has hit rock bottom. The fact that we’re relying on a Hail Mary with a coach that was surprisingly available just this last week is already shockingly bad.
It may be moot, the Denver Saints are trying to get Rizzi
 
Wasn't an attractive organization when they got Sean Payton. Being unattractive forces you to look for hungry unproven talent. Blessing in disguise if done right.
 
Dreaming about potential outcomes has me really liking the dream about MM taking the position over and Rattler proving he can run his offense and turn out to be the next Reid/Mahomes combination for year’s to come. Like I said, dreaming is all it is. But the combination of young talent mixed with an aged coach would be great.
 
The power of the executors is pretty much non-existent until Gayle passes.
Your whole post was spot on. I wanted to add to the statement above.

Executors of wills and trustees of trusts are bound by the terms of the will or trust. They aren't like an executive in a company that gets to make independent business decisions. A will can't dictate who are employees of a company after the change of ownership occurs, so no will Benson wrote can dictate that Loomis has to be the GM.

A trust might be able to do that for the life of the trust. Has anyone given a credibly sourced report that Benson's trust dictates that Mickey Loomis remain the GM? Naming Loomis as a trustee does not automatically mean Loomis gets to decide if he's the GM or not. That's not how being a trustee works. I learned this as the co-trustee and successor sole trustee of 2 trusts my father created.

My dad did 2 really complicated trusts to control everything as much as he legally can after he dies. A will only gives you control over who gets what. It can't dictate anything other than that. A trust can give more control, but it has limitations too. Bottom line, you can't take it with you or completely control it when you go.
 
Last edited:
You're whole post was spot on. I wanted to add to the statement above.

Executors of wills and trustees of trusts are bound by the terms of the will or trust. They aren't like an executive in a company that gets to make independent business decisions. A will can't dictate who are employees of a company after the change of ownership occurs, so no will Benson wrote can dictate that Loomis has to be the GM.

A trust might be able to do that for the life of the trust. Has anyone given a credibly sourced report that Benson's trust dictates that Mickey Loomis remain the GM? Naming Loomis as a trustee does not automatically mean Loomis gets to decide if he's the GM or not. That's not how being a trustee works. I learned this as the co-trustee and successor sole trustee of 2 trusts my father created.

My dad did 2 really complicated trusts to control everything as much as he legally can after he dies. A will only gives you control over who gets what. It can't dictate anything other than that. A trust can give more control, but it has limitations too. Bottom line, you can't take it with you or completely control it when you go.
Agreed.

It's been a while, but I did read a chunk of the succession plan. I'm not recalling if it was the actual trust language or a summary of the trust details, but from what I read and recall, there was nothing in there stating the executors couldn't be changed. And I do believe Gayle has the power to make changes to the trust since she's the owner.

That said, I think Gayle would rather let Lauscha, Bensel and Loomis run things, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather a hands off owner than one who meddles too much.

I do think she's paying attention and if the HC search goes poorly, then she will put her foot down like she did with Allen.
 
Not to be an apologist but is it not within the realm of possibility that Joe Brady didn’t crack the top 5 in the first round of interviews, and the Saints let him know they weren’t pursuing a second interview? And during that conversation they suggested that he pull himself from the search publicly to insure his value as a potential coaching candidate doesn’t take a hit via rejection? Is it not a better look to withdrawal from consideration to focus on the mission at hand vs sorry didn’t make the cut? If the Saints aren’t overly concerned about their outward media appearance, and are more concerned about doing the right thing by those they deal with on a personal level, this seems like a plausible if not probable scenario.
From what I saw last night I'm glad Joe Brady isn't coming here. Calling so many fake tush pushes with Josh Allen and it's not the same as what Philly does and isn't nearly as effective. Cook was running all over KC but I felt like you hardly saw him in the second half. Allen was left alone on these blitz packages that simply weren't schemed for and he was a dead duck.
 
2) Brady - he was number 1 on my list last week, but after doing some reading and his play calling in the game yesterday...he makes me nervous. That said, he had 3 remote interviews. 2 teams didn't extend a follow-up. I suspect he learned he probably wasn't first on the Saints' list and decided to withdraw. I can't really fault the FO for that.
Yeah, that’s how I see it too.

People keep saying “Brady turned the Saints down!”

Yes. He turned down an in-person interview - not the actual job.

There’s a huge difference.

I was interested in Brady because I too want an innovative offensive guy - but at the end of the day, I don’t see much about him that screams head coach ready.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom