Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL
(Post 997526)
Why? It's not like the Saints were 3-13 and had a bottom tier defense last year. The team was 9-8 and finished the season tied for 1st in the division last year.
And supposedly the weakest link, Pete Carmichael, is now gone and the offense is replaced with one that's more QB friendly and systematic.
The Saints 2024 season is going to come down to a handful a games that are realistically toss ups:
1. The Dallas, Philly, KC sequence in the first 5 weeks. Realistically the team could come out of that 0-3. Getting one upset here, especially on the NFC side, would go a long way towards being sucessful.
2. The 3 division games in the first 6 weeks. 3-0 is doable as the team last year went 3-0 in the last 3 and dominated in the process. 2-1 is realistic. Anything worst and you're probably right.
3. The #2 NFC position games: Green Bay and LA Rams. This is the year where the Saints can prove they can compete with quality opponents and these are the teams in the tier they need to show that.
4. Cleveland. Another quality opponent.
They come out with these 500 or above and 2-1 in the division, they are well positioned with the rest of their schedule to get to 10-7.
It's realistic. The only question is can they execute well enough to pull it off.
See what you get from me when every comment isn't just trash talk?
SFIAH
|
Realistically I think 9-8 with a historically easily schedule is equivalent to 7-10 with a normal schedule. But the Saints have a notably, but not historically, easy schedule next year, so if they fielded the same team, 8-9 would be a reasonable expectation. But also, this does not account for the Falcons adding Cousins who is a clear major upgrade, so 7-10 is also realistic if Cousins is healthy.
Carmichael being the weakest link is a case of hindsight being 20/20. As you point out, the Saints did not have the weakest offense ever and were not 3-13. Carr has never won a playoff game, despite 10 or so previous years with other OCs. Dennis Allen's best two seasons as a head coach both came with inherited Carmichael as his OC not his hand picked OC's with the Raiders. Allen and Carr were steadfastly loyal to Carmichael during the season and only change their tune when it was his ass or theirs that had to go. We don't know how much Allen, Loomis, or Carr may have interfered with the offense. It is also possible that management forced Carmichael to start Penning at LT, and then to change the entire offense to make covering for Penning a priority over getting open. It's possible Carmichael started mailing it in because he wanted out because impossible things were being asked of him, like covering for the front office drafting some juco sclub with zero talent by making him look like a starting LT for a pass first QB when Penning may not belong in the NFL.
Likewise, it is not proven that Kubiak is any savior. SF was similar before and after his 1 year stint as an assistant. Kubiak could not save Nathaniel Hackett in Denver, nor get Cousins a ring in Minnesota.
Overall, I view replacing Carmichael with Kubiak as 'if we can't make the big change that we probably need, we might as well try the smaller change that might help' but I view it as very possible that Kubiak will be the same or worse because its very possible Carmichael was not the problem and actually has a more successful track record than Carr or Allen in the past.
As to your other points:
1. I agree a win here would be nice. Given Allen's track record, there is not really a precedent for it though, unless one of them is starting a backup QB. Most likely we lose all 3 games.
2. Most likely outcome is 1-2 but 2-1 is possible. You have to account for the Falcons adding Cousins. Cousins is generally a little better than Carr and the Falcons have a much better oline than the Saints even if they are also in a sorry state with a lousy coach and dumb GM. They paid millions to beat the Saints and may achieve that.
3. Both these teams beat the Saints last year. The Saints were the oldest team, had many vets get older, and replaced 3 starting oline with one rookie changing positions. So realistically, more likely we lose these games.
4. Again, we lost to this type of opponent last year, and generally seem to have a weaker roster except for theoretical hope in an offensive coordinator change from a largely unproven/inconsistent young coordinator who we can hope will be good.
None of this means I am not optimistic. I am just optimistic that we can rebuild if we remain fiscally responsible, we can attract a better head coach if we are not ridiculously over the cap, and we can draft a talented young QB if we don't give away all our future draft picks to Howie Roseman. I am optimistic for the scenario I can see with the Saints hosting a Lombardi, and that scenario doesn't happen to feature Derek Carr in 2025 because I don't view that as realistic, because I think the only way that happens is if Kubiak is the best offensive coordinator in the history of football.
