What Would Jim Finks Do to Turnaround the Saints? (1 Viewer)

He'd play hard ball with Drew Brees and Brees would go to the Falcons.

Let's pretend he may have traded Brees to another team, but then again, a top 3 HOF QB still playing lights out on basically a 1-year extension, which all props go to Loomis on that contract, may have been an option to keep Drew. Then again, Sell High-Buy Low.
 
I think coming in and taking stock he would talk to Payton and get input but he would end up saying "I'm hiring someone I trust to rebuild the defense from bottom up, and I've got final say on personnel decisions. I will hear your viewpoint on needs but you're going to work and cooperate with the new DC and accept my decisions, right?"

imho - this seems more like Finks style.

For the Board, who do you think would make a good GM in charge of player personnel, who knows defense, that could be options for us to hire now or next year.
 
Let's pretend he may have traded Brees to another team, but then again, a top 3 HOF QB still playing lights out on basically a 1-year extension, which all props go to Loomis on that contract, may have been an option to keep Drew. Then again, Sell High-Buy Low.

The hard ball would have happened on the after super bowl contract. Which would have put us into rebuild mode immediately and we should have been rebuilt by now.
 
Finks would draft defensive and offensive linemen. He believed games were won in the trenches.
 
imho - this seems more like Finks style.

For the Board, who do you think would make a good GM in charge of player personnel, who knows defense, that could be options for us to hire now or next year.
if you could find that person and were inclined to go to that model, probably would be the end of Loomis and Payton.

They like at the top of the decision tree, even if they are on a losing streak. The losing streak on players is one thing. Squandering cash and draft picks on top of it is another.
 
1) He rarely made dramatic moves the 1st year, preferring to get to know 1st hand what the real franchise problems were. With the Saints, he hired Mora 1st year, but he had Mora hand-picked from the UFL whenever Finks made his next move.
2) We wouldn't be in cap hell. I suspect the Pats learned some from Finks. Finks was often described as being cheap by his peers. But he definitely believed in "selling high and buying low." He let a number of our star LBs go instead of paying the inflated open market value
3) He built his FO with professional, expereinced NFL executives. He gave his coaches say in all matters, but the GM ran the team.
4) He built strong defenses as fast as possible believing championships were won with defense and great defenses made-up for a lot of mistakes of the offense. He built depth in the front 7 of his defenses over time. On offense he wanted ball control running game and No turnovers.
5) He never reached for the 1 or 2 great FAs who might help the team turnaround overnight. He simply wasn't going to pay a premium.

6) The Saints have exactly 0 playoff wins under his leadership, utilizing his approach.
 
:spit:b
He'd decide Drew Brees is too expensive and tell him to sit out if he liked then trade a couple of 1st rounders for Dallas's backup QB. Then Drew Brees would go to Atlanta and throw a game winning TD against the Saints in the dome and act like an airplane.

You know. The usual.

He would've just allowed Brees to go to the falcons as Cutlers back-up. Saints would sign Ryan when falcons cut him.Ryan would win his first 6 games as a saint. Fans would cha-ching the great start. Then Ryan would lose a bunch of games .Brees throws for 1500 yards in his 2 games against the saints to win a playoff spot while saints finish 8-8.
 
We were a foot away from this board being ecstatic and talking about all the great moves in the turnaround - at least for a week. But this loss did finally release some posters who know NFL pretty good to post some tough insights. EJW's historical analysis of bad moves by the FO over the past 4 years should become the standard for Saints FO effectiveness reference.

Jim Finks was the best NFL and CFL franchise turnaround specialist in history: Bears, Vikes, Saints and I think Stampeders (Guillermo?). So what was his strategy

1) He rarely made dramatic moves the 1st year, preferring to get to know 1st hand what the real franchise problems were. With the Saints, he hired Mora 1st year, but he had Mora hand-picked from the UFL whenever Finks made his next move.
2) We wouldn't be in cap hell. I suspect the Pats learned some from Finks. Finks was often described as being cheap by his peers. But he definitely believed in "selling high and buying low." He let a number of our star LBs go instead of paying the inflated open market value
3) He built his FO with professional, expereinced NFL executives. He gave his coaches say in all matters, but the GM ran the team.
4) He built strong defenses as fast as possible believing championships were won with defense and great defenses made-up for a lot of mistakes of the offense. He built depth in the front 7 of his defenses over time. On offense he wanted ball control running game and No turnovers.
5) He never reached for the 1 or 2 great FAs who might help the team turnaround overnight. He simply wasn't going to pay a premium.

These are just a few of his fundamental tenets for building winning organizations of Finks. So I'll take a stab at some of his analysis of the current Saints. Here's some of my hunches:

- After analyzing the team, he would realize the team had no professional FO and the team was being run by the head coach
- He would realize the team had one of the great offensive minds as head coach. However, he would also realize that this head coach had something systemically wrong in his defensive strategy and defensive player acquisition pipelines
- He would likely realize the head coach poorly hired defensive coaches and hung-on to them under performing way too long
- He would realize we had one of the great Leaders and QBs of all-time in Brees, but that his best days were numbered.
- He would cringe at what he would consider expensive, reckless, spontaneous near desperation FA moves. To him, this would be a base fundamental problem that had to be changed. Paying 20%-25% of Talent Budget on players who no longer play for the team would be insanity to him. That means there was no room for error in drafts and FAs as well as not enough money for talent depth on defense and the O-line.

Please disagree or add to any of the points above.

But mostly I am asking the board members to express the specific moves they think Finks would do to turnaround this team. Go for it. Most of us are in "emotional" mode since that Dagger to Heart Loss Sunday. Hopefully, by trying to look through Finks eyes, we may collectively start to be able to think about moves from a Big Picture, Long-Term success view. Or what would Bellicheck do?

It's a nice thought and all, but Jim Finks wouldn't want to be a GM in the current NFL anyway. Free agency was inevitable and on some level, he knew it. It would have eaten his lunch like it did anyway for the Jims that did parts of his job after he died. The game was slowly and steadily changing during his time as the Saints GM and, while it was a nice era compared to the Saints of the '60s and '70s, it was a time of NOT ENOUGH moves made by the FO to improve the team.

All that said, it's a shame he didn't become commissioner. Tags ended up being a good one when it was all said and done, especially when you compare him to the current moron in that job. But, Finks would have spread some common sense league-wide.
 
Finks would draft defensive and offensive linemen. He believed games were won in the trenches.
This is the answer. He wouldn't stop until both the lines were fixed.

This formula still holds true to this day.
 
6) The Saints have exactly 0 playoff wins under his leadership, utilizing his approach.

David - but I think an understanding of where we came from is important to assess this. 25-years without a winning record. We were a perennial winner under Finks and he was still rebuilding the team when he had to resign because of cancer. It's probable his improvement of the Saints would have continued.
 
Watt - Really good point. As far as Old School, is Finks philosophy much different from: Carolina, Ravens, Denver, Vikings, Cincy, Texans, Chiefs and Seahawks and possibly Pats? These teams, exclude Texans for now, are pretty much perennial playoff contenders.

To me, the comment about how SP and Finks would have co-existed is a powerful and interesting insight. thx

Carolina: 2 winning seasons in the last 7 years. Finished worst in football once in that span, had an additional 10-loss season as well.

Ravens: Finished 5-11 last season. Fashionable to blame their demise on injuries, especially to Joe Flacco, but their D took a dump as well and the DC Dean Pees was widely reviled by their fans as the AFC’s Rob Ryan.

Vikings: 2 winning seasons in the last 6. 3 ten-loss seasons in that timespan. Defense wasn't even really anything special until Zimmer showed up.

Cincy: Hasn’t won a playoff game since 1990, thanks in large part due to the fact that Marvin Lewis doesn't know the definition of team discipline and Mike Brown is too cheap and/or lazy to get rid of him.

Houston: Oddly enough, the one team you listed then said to omit is one of the most successful on your list. Only 2 losing seasons and 3 playoff appearances since 2010. Future seems to be bright now that they've solidified the QB position with Osweiler.

Chiefs: Last year was their first playoff win since 1993. In total, the franchise has 4 playoff wins since the merger. Was the worst team in the NFL in 2012 and had a fair amount of instability before Reid and Smith showed up.

Obviously, I didn’t list Denver, NE and Seattle, the three actual perennial contenders on your list. All three of those teams have an elite QB, none of them have been afraid to spend and take risks on offense (see Harvin, Percival and Graham, James for examples from Seattle that have worked out about as well as our recent FA busts.) All have had exceptional secondaries, Seattle’s defense is predominantly secondary-focused as I've pointed out numerous times on this board.

I know there is this persistent fantasy amongst some on this board that there is this mountain of teams that have built dynasties over the last several years by focusing exclusively on “fundamentals” and eschewing flashy things like a competent passing game and an elite secondary. The reality is, you’re just as likely or more to build a Buffalo or Jets with that approach as you are to build a contender. As my pastor likes to say, “The grass may look greener on the other side, but it could be that the yard is amply fertilized with dog poop…”
 
David - but I think an understanding of where we came from is important to assess this. 25-years without a winning record. We were a perennial winner under Finks and he was still rebuilding the team when he had to resign because of cancer. It's probable his improvement of the Saints would have continued.

Payton brought a dead team denuded of talent, particularly defensively, by Haslett, in a flooded city that nobody wanted to play in, that was sure to be moved, to a NFCCG his first year and a title his fourth. Next excuse?
 
David - but I think an understanding of where we came from is important to assess this. 25-years without a winning record. We were a perennial winner under Finks and he was still rebuilding the team when he had to resign because of cancer. It's probable his improvement of the Saints would have continued.

I appreciate what Finks and Mora accomplished here. A bit of respectability for a franchise that never had any.

I also like Aaron Brooks but I don't entertain thoughts of his giving advice to Brees on how he could improve his game.

Finks' strategy was successful in building a team that was competitive in the regular season. It made watching the Saints more exciting. That was the peak, though. If we are going to entertain ideas about Finks' approach to managing the Saints, isn't it fair to weigh that against the outcome, and likewise, do the same for Payton and Loomis?
 

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