Originally Posted by iceshack149 (Post 1007958)

Those ages are about the same age as many of the Saints current defensive players. :dunce:

Originally Posted by iceshack149 (Post 1007958)

Those ages are about the same age as many of the Saints current defensive players. :dunce:

Originally Posted by BakoSaint (Post 1007839)

I don't think DA was worse than Haslett. I don't like either one a bit but I think DA was a slightly better coach with a worse roster. If you look at the Haslett years, Haslett was a defensive coach, Mike McCarthy was his offensive coordinator from 2000-2004, and the offense carried the team until McCarthy left in 2005. The only above average defensive year was 2000, and I think that was more about the players being highly motivated about NOT playing for Ditka anymore, and the sense of a fresh start, than anything about Haslett. Haslett, to me, was a random mediocre DC guy with bad habits just like DA whose greatest attributes were having a top offensive coordinator and not being Mike Ditka. I would credit Mike McCarthy much more than Jim Haslett with our first playoff win.

https://www.pro-football-reference.c.../nor/index.htm

If anything DA annoyed me less than Haslett because as least DA was honest when we lost that they were not going to change anything and they were going to keep doing what they were doing. Haslett was always full of meaningless drivel about how they were going to change things they couldnt change (if the ball bounced different we would have won so we will work hope it bounces different and think about not fumbling) or that did not matter much and were distractions (this year we want to have a power running game so we had Deuce gain 15 pounds, no wait that was last year, now we had him lose 15 pounds and we are going to regain speed and win). Haslett was just always full of creative excuses and distractions that I felt destroyed accountability.

Also, I feel Haslett had a better chance to succeed with Aaron Brooks than DA did with Carr, but blew it worse. I feel it was more of Haslett and Loomis who decided to make Brooks into a pocket passer after giving him a big contract and that Brooks could been great if he was used more like Josh Allen. Brooks was developed to waste half his skill set and learn to make excuses, and thats what destroyed Brooks career.

Originally Posted by SmashMouth (Post 1008022)

Originally Posted by JPPT1974 (Post 1008615)

Let's give him a chance. As hopefully bring back winning to New Orleans!

Originally Posted by BakoSaint (Post 1008619)

I agree we should give him a chance. I think the only way to give him a chance is to give him a new general manager and a new quarterback. Hopefully we do that as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by SmashMouth (Post 1008624)

Loomis may possess some compromising pics. :doh:

Originally Posted by BakoSaint (Post 1008619)

I agree we should give him a chance. I think the only way to give him a chance is to give him a new general manager and a new quarterback. Hopefully we do that as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 1008630)

Stronger than that most likely. It's common knowledge that Loomis was listed in Tom Benson's will as in the line of power to execute the will. I would suspect he has the same duties to Gayle. It is by no means the normal owner/GM relationship as much as a select few bemoan it. It is what it is. I cannot see the scenario of Loomis going anywhere as long as Gayle is living and he has done his part to transfer the sale of the Saints according to her specified wishes. The only other ways of his relinquishing the position would be either his own death or retirement.