Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Loomis is learning-on-the-job - and he is learning at the expense of the Saints. A mistake like Sullivan likely won\'t happen again. They\'ve also learned their lesson that bringing in players like Ruff won\'t work to address a need position. ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-14-2005, 05:10 AM   #11
100th Post
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 245
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

Loomis is learning-on-the-job - and he is learning at the expense of the Saints. A mistake like Sullivan likely won\'t happen again. They\'ve also learned their lesson that bringing in players like Ruff won\'t work to address a need position.
No doubt he has kept the Saints out of cap hell, but the same can be said for about 25 other teams. GMs have adjusted to the salary cap, though sometimes it was a painful learning process.

I would be more comfortable if Loomis was left to run the financial side (and equipment, public relations etc.) and a Head of Player Personnel was brought in who did the groundwork and coordinated with Loomis and Haslett.
no_cloning is offline  
Latest Blogs


Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


Old 03-14-2005, 08:33 AM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

yes, you do have to give him credit for effectively managing the cap. bottomline in this business is wins though. to be frank, i would take the salary cap woes of the bucs to have saint players sporting superbowl win rings. heck, that goes for the panthers having been there and the falcons in the nfc championship game last year. all of them have had to cut players for the cap. but can i say i prefer what is starting to feel like endless mediocrity (32-32)? nope. therefore, there is no way loomis can be graded beyond below average. some good draft picks are mindless. everyone and their brother had will smith in the top ten overall. after tomlinson most had deuce as the next best (some had him #1) RB in the 2001 class. he just happened to fall that far cuz of injury concerns. it was no talent evaluating genius to pluck him. twenty teams passed on randy moss cuz of personality concerns even though he was by far the best rated talent in that class. kevin dyson was picked ahead of him LOL. seeing real talent is scoring a potential starting LB like bockwoldt in the 7th rd. as far as sullivan, if i was king (or owner) somebody\'s head would have rolled over that selection alone. it is one thing to have a upper end pick that you take about where everyone has him pegged, then he disappoints. stallworth is borderline there (still improving with potential). when you not only take your number one on a stretch up, but when you mortgage so much of the team\'s future by taking TWO number ones to reach for a guy you probably could have got with one of the picks you traded... that is a weighty decision that someone has to take responsibility for going so much out on the limb for. so draft wise it is a mixed bag to me. two 2nd round picks that cannot even make the active roster (stinch, devery) isn\'t anyhting to be proud about either. as far as free agent and trades, i see more non-producers than impact players. whodat mentioned some of them. tebucky had a clear and known rap sheet of not tackling when they went after him. a 3rd, 4th, and 7th picks for him wasn\'t back breaking but he never earned his high end pay. knight, who they chose to let go, had arguably better years for a tough miami defense. i personally endured ridicule from co-workers when they signed dale carter. it generally went somethig like, \"what kind of focked up organization would sign a washed up cokehead like him?\" albert connell, bryan cox, ambrose at age 33, conwell for 5 years, a draft pick for curtis keaton... nah, there is plenty enough bad moves here to go around. judging a player or manager from the organization\'s literature is like evalutating bush from the national review or a ceo from a company\'s website. i give loomis credit where due. i think he could be a valuable cap and contract manager. but when it comes to overall personnel decisions and knowing football players he wouldn\'t make the possible hire list for my team. we\'ll even say just the last 3 years... does 23-25 keep him employed for you?
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 03-14-2005, 01:12 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

Over the years, Mickey Loomis has been bad, IMO.

But, this year he\'s done a very good job in FA. So far that is.

While the Saints were kinda quiet the first couple of days in FA, they seem to be one of the more busy teams at this point in time.

I like EVERY one of the moves so far. And they\'ve all been areas of need.

I don\'t like Loomis, but I give him credit. It seems Haslett is through playin\' around and is ready to WIN this year.

Go Saints!!
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-14-2005, 02:00 PM   #14
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,020
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

I don\'t like Loomis, but I give him credit. It seems Haslett is through playin\' around and is ready to WIN this year.
Is Hasbeen through playin around or is the front office making a move to seperate themselves from the coaching staff ???

Considering Benson loves to kill off the entire group when he changes things in New Orleans .....
saintz08 is offline  
Old 03-14-2005, 02:37 PM   #15
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

Over the years, Mickey Loomis has been bad, IMO.

But, this year he\'s done a very good job in FA. So far that is.
Billy, with all due respect, have you ever thought that the Saints were doing a poor job in FA DURING the offseason?

Seems to me like you\'ve always been positive in the offseason - which makes the comment about THIS year suspect, especially if you thought the Saints were doing the right things in FA in the past, but now say that they have been \"bad\" in the past.
WhoDat is offline  
Old 03-14-2005, 02:39 PM   #16
100th Post
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 245
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

STALLWORTH WAS MUELLER ERA NOT LOOMIS
blackwidows is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 02:49 AM   #17
100th Post
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monroe, La
Posts: 209
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

tick tock tick tock
bayouking318 is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 07:54 AM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

Billy, with all due respect, have you ever thought that the Saints were doing a poor job in FA DURING the offseason?

Seems to me like you\'ve always been positive in the offseason - which makes the comment about THIS year suspect, especially if you thought the Saints were doing the right things in FA in the past, but now say that they have been \"bad\" in the past.
Well, WhoDat .... According to you, this team has had enough talent to go to the superbowl. At least that\'s what you\'ve said very recently. Would you like me to go pull up the quote? Or, are you not willing to stand behind yet another statement you have made?

I\'ve never hailed any free-agent period as an over the top success. I simply thought they had the talent the past few years to make the playoffs.

It seems you not only thought they had the talent to make the playoffs ... you thought they should have been in the super bowl.

I mean, according to you, WhoDat ... we\'ve got a top 5 receiver in Joe Horn. And a top 5 runningback in Deuce.

Your statements are so inconsistent that I\'m sure you can go back and prove any point you wish to make.

Afterall, you\'ve been on both sides of the fence about everything.

Didn\'t you predict Brooks to go to the pro bowl last year?

Didn\'t you predict the Saints to win their division?


Tell me I\'m wrong?!

Credible? You don\'t want to go their WhoDat.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:34 AM   #19
Site Donor 2014
Truth Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Spanish Fort Alabama
Posts: 16,821
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

I\'d grade Mickey about average.
Above average cap wise, but below average personnel wise.
And I\'m one that think this team does have enough talent to go all the way.

I like his philosophy of taking the best player available instead of reaching for a need. But he\'s missed the boat one one thing. He doesn\'t address THE key weakness of this team year in and year out. Linebacker has been the weakness of this team for 4 years and while they have addressed it, they haven\'t exactly nailed it.

I\'m not as angry with the Sullivan pick as most. It was the right position, only the wrong player. Or at least he should have known that he would have been there later and there was no need to trade up. That was his key mistake. A savvy GM would probably have known that. I also suspect he got some bad info from Rick Meuller.

Last year he gets an A-plus for Will Smith and for simply swapping a 2004 3rd rounder for a 2005 2nd rounder straight up. EXCELLENT! BUT, he also passed on Donterrious Thomas and picked a position of ZERO need, WR. And I seriously doubt Henderson was slotted any higher than Thomas on our BPA scale. I think they missed out on Clayton and reached a bit for Henderson. Watson was a great pick, as was Karney and Bockwoldt.

Overall grade since Meuller left. C-plus. He lands good players, but never hits the bulls-eye.

'Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society'
Danno is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 09:28 AM   #20
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Mickey Loomis...not so bad after all..

Uuuuhhhhh.... OK Billy.

Although I\'ve said something to this effect before, I want to give WhoDat his just due.

WhoDat and myself often get in some spirited debates on a variety of topics. Neither one of us usually concede too much in our beliefs and a lot of the things we argue about can\'t be proven until enough time has passed to have sufficient evidence.

Well, one of the things WhoDat told me last year is that Haslett was a major problem and because of that he didn\'t have a lot of faith in the 2003 season. I agrued and argued with WhoDat that he was wrong. And this went on for a while.

Now, I must be a man and admit the one that was wrong was ME.

I\'m now seeing things exactly like WhoDat saw them last year as far as Haslett is concerned.

I suppose the reason I didn\'t see it last year was because of how great the team had started out the past couple of years and I wanted to believe the late season collapses were not the fault of Haslett. I now think otherwise.

This is not to say that I think everything has been Hasletts fault and I don\'t think WhoDat is suggesting that either. But, it now seems so clear to me that Haslett has made a lot of mistakes. Mistakes that just can\'t be dismissed.

Anyway, WhoDat, I\'ll concede this one to you. I don\'t mind admitting I was wrong. I just hope Haslett can turn things around because at this point he worries me more than anything else.
http://www.blackandgold.net/site/mod...d&tid=5221#pid
WhoDat is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts