Re: Mickey Loomis vs Al Davis and the fading of GM talent
 

Maybe being pro-Loomis is a syndrome too. Unfortunately its about as common as gingivitis. I guess I am just the guy who is flossing twice a day and chewing dentyne.

I had several points:

1. GM's talent fades just like players age. The key decisions that involved Loomis (we don't know that he made them, its possible Benson made the call to hire Payton and Payton made the call to bring in Brees) that set us up for a ring in 2009 were made in 2006. That was 16 years ago. Its very possible Loomis is not the same guy and has become impatient and impulsive and overly stubbornly loyal with age.

2. One ring should not guarantee a GM a job for life. We saw how that worked for the Raiders even though their GM got 3 rings. Once the rings stopped coming and the talent had faded they had 28 years of decline until Al Davis dropped dead. Also tons of other GMs achieved one or even 2 rings and their teams moved on. Jerry Reese has 2 rings, more recently than Loomis, with a better football background, a younger guy than Loomis, and is a phone call away.

3. Our past hard times should not lead us to accept mediocrity today. See my post above.

4. 13 years since our Super Bowl season is a long time. Its not like we have not been patient.

Re: Mickey Loomis vs Al Davis and the fading of GM talent
 

Mickey Loomis is just a glorified bean counter. He does an excellent job managing the salary cap and giving us next year's money this year. What we need is a strong general manager who knows football and understands how to build a team. It's not Dennis Ireland either if you look at his previous history as a GM.