Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

An ineffective/hurt Oline and and injured QB with a subpar run game was an issue with the screens.

And again, they were not subpar all season. They finished top 9 in scoring.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

It all started with that Packers game. We had them by the throat and then our starting QB went down. Our backup comes in and we fall apart. We still had a chance to win the game, but our rookie kicker misses in his third NFL game ever for the loss.

The reason why we lost that game was the injury to our starting QB. Had he not been injured we would have won easily. We would have also made the playoffs and likely would have won several more games.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

Good listen (12 min) from Brees ...

Key points: Building solid depth, consistency, EXPECTATIONS, learning how to finish & evolving.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

I never mentioned Cleveland. Ever.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

It is a neutrally based fact that for whatever reason, we are no longer a competitive team at the championship level, and may not be for a long time. There is no excuse for this.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

The O-line has to be priority #1 this offseason for the Saints. It seemed to regress a whole lot this past season. I know age had something to do with it but I'm a little surprised that Marrone is still employed by the Saints.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

I agree with this. I feel we need to address this through free agency for immediate need, but also through the draft for more developmental depth. I don't believe the naysayers that have given up on Penning and Saldiveri, yet even more young depth is needed.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

There is a lot more to all of this than just business and very little brand loyalty regardless of what delusional rationalization has been levied. Its little more than logical fallacy and if you pick at a thread it all unravels..

- If Gayle stated that she saw Mickey as a son that would be rather sick as she is only 9 years older than he is. She has zero children and should be fairly aware of the perception of age gap since Tom was 20 years older as she was only 1 year away from Toms son's age.

- As far as any blind devotion to Loomis from Gayle or Tom for that matter. In 2012 Sean Payton wanted a clause in his contract that would allow him to leave if Loomis were ever suspended, fired, or left the organization. Sean would have known if there was any sort of blind devotion to Loomis and that clause wouldn't have been requested. The league rejected the language because of the bad precedent it would set for future coaching contracts.

- Tom fought and disowned his own family to prevent the Saints from being moved and his will named Gayle as sole owner because his children would have sold and or moved the team. We can keep thanking Tom for the Saints being in New Orleans as well as the fact that the Superdome lease is not up until 2030. After that, if there is no venue, secessions can read anyway they want the team will be sold out of state because no one in Louisiana will buy a team with no place to play.

- Guess who will administrate Gayle Benon's estate? Not the pseudo son Loomis, its Dennis Lauscha. Tom's will stated that if the trust formed the same day the secession was signed ceases to exist, all of his property would go into another trust run by Gayle and Dennis Lauscha, with Gayle having exclusive voting power in matters concerning the sports franchises.

- Lastly is the premise that Gayle has this mystical generationally dependent loyalty to the franchise. That sort of loyalty wouldn't let the franchise go to shi1t over the course of two years without swinging an axe at those held accountable for its success.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

This is where the organization screwed up the most in my opinion. The O-Line should be at the top of everyone's radar every year because with out it you can neither run nor pass and you put your QBs health as well as ball security in jeopardy.

Know the quote from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross "ABCs, Always Be Closing"? Considering it takes 2-3 years to develop an offensive lineman in the NFL and their average career length is 3.6 years we should 'always be o-lining'.

Re: Pete Carmichael analytics show you something.
 

It's not like they haven't been "O-Lining" ... Some have worked out, and some haven't. Armstead was a third rounder. Need we mention Jahri Evans, Carl Nicks, Joel Hilgenberg, Brad Edelman, Max Unger, Zach Strief, and many more?

Something's changed maybe in recent drafts with talent evaluation on the OL.