#3...???? How dare you insult me.

Wtf are you talking about? It's a legit question. Several people here said they would want change if there wasn't a significant improvement. We have the talent to make a run but if you have four years of mediocracy something will need to change.

If your happy with a team that just has a winning record. then fine, but we have more to work with now talent wise than we have in years. It's time to hold them to a standard.I think some people need to be held accountable if it happens again.

Guido only looks for the negative in people's posts.

What's so negative about the question.

What if the Saints are 9-3 and leading the division after 12 games?

That's a false argument. There's only one person in the Saints organization that can demand change: Tom Benson. He treats Loomis and Payton like they are his sons. It may literally take getting a new owner for there to be a change in leadership with the Saints.
SFIAH

That's a false argument. There's only one person in the Saints organization that can demand change: Tom Benson. He treats Loomis and Payton like they are his sons. It may literally take getting a new owner for there to be a change in leadership with the Saints.



I do value your opinion. But honestly it isn't actionable. To have an impact, the entire WhoDat Nation would have to turn their back on the team and walk away. And we all know how likely that's going to happen.


Well Guido is the eternal optimist. And honestly, June, July, and August is the right time for optimism. I posit his frustration is that many refuse to take into account the positive changes and focus only on the what could have beens (Zeitler for example) and what poor outcomes are possible (such as your question) at a time when nothing can be done about either.

I think another missed point is that the schedule matters each and every season. There are divisions in the NFL that are tough sledding. Currently the AFC West (who the Saints played last year) are an excellent example. Then there are creampuffs (the NFC West is sliding back into that category). So each season part of the evaluation is sizing up the competition. This season only the AFC East is likely in the bottom 3 of divisions. And it gets complicated early on because we take on the best two teams in that division in the first 4 games under unusual circumstances (away game in London).

Here's my bottom line: the first valid team evaluation cannot occur until the first quarter of the season has been played. And this season with such a brutal start (3 away games and the Patriots at home), it may take upwards of 8,10, or even 12 games to really understand the positioning of the Saints this upcoming season.

My point (and I think Guido's too) is that it's way premature to be asking about massive changes under a what if scenario. I can easily flip it and ask:



Would your question have any validity at that point?

So let's focus on the potential. The potential of having a realtively healthy and talented secondary. The potential of having fast and well coached linebackers for the first time in a decade. The potential of a stout and deep defensive line.

We can debate the aftermath after some games have been played. But right now everyone in the NFL is 0-0 and has just as much of a chance as anyone else to get deep into the playoffs.

So why focus on the negative now?

SFIAH

That's a false argument. There's only one person in the Saints organization that can demand change: Tom Benson. He treats Loomis and Payton like they are his sons. It may literally take getting a new owner for there to be a change in leadership with the Saints.



I do value your opinion. But honestly it isn't actionable. To have an impact, the entire WhoDat Nation would have to turn their back on the team and walk away. And we all know how likely that's going to happen.


Well Guido is the eternal optimist. And honestly, June, July, and August is the right time for optimism. I posit his frustration is that many refuse to take into account the positive changes and focus only on the what could have beens (Zeitler for example) and what poor outcomes are possible (such as your question) at a time when nothing can be done about either.

I think another missed point is that the schedule matters each and every season. There are divisions in the NFL that are tough sledding. Currently the AFC West (who the Saints played last year) are an excellent example. Then there are creampuffs (the NFC West is sliding back into that category). So each season part of the evaluation is sizing up the competition. This season only the AFC East is likely in the bottom 3 of divisions. And it gets complicated early on because we take on the best two teams in that division in the first 4 games under unusual circumstances (away game in London).

Here's my bottom line: the first valid team evaluation cannot occur until the first quarter of the season has been played. And this season with such a brutal start (3 away games and the Patriots at home), it may take upwards of 8,10, or even 12 games to really understand the positioning of the Saints this upcoming season.

My point (and I think Guido's too) is that it's way premature to be asking about massive changes under a what if scenario. I can easily flip it and ask:



Would your question have any validity at that point?

So let's focus on the potential. The potential of having a realtively healthy and talented secondary. The potential of having fast and well coached linebackers for the first time in a decade. The potential of a stout and deep defensive line.

We can debate the aftermath after some games have been played. But right now everyone in the NFL is 0-0 and has just as much of a chance as anyone else to get deep into the playoffs.

So why focus on the negative now?

SFIAH

Wtf are you talking about? It's a legit question. Several people here said they would want change if there wasn't a significant improvement. We have the talent to make a run but if you have four years of mediocracy something will need to change.

If your happy with a team that just has a winning record. then fine, but we have more to work with now talent wise than we have in years. It's time to hold them to a standard.I think some people need to be held accountable if it happens again.

Guido only looks for the negative in people's posts.

What's so negative about the question.

At what point are you going to call for heads to roll? I know pretty much everyone here will riot if we have another 7-9 season but what about 9-7? What is not good enough?
For me it's playoffs. That could change depending on how tough the division and conference is but barring an 11-5 record and still missing the playoffs I'll be ready for big change. I don't think Brees will stick around if it not at the very least a week 16 determination.
Starting out with a win from the get go could very well be a determining factor. 4 0-4 starts will start ****ing with their heads.
1 more month till camp. 1 more.

A few people here, and they are all the same few that gripe about everything and are always negative, have called for a change. Don't project your feelings upon the vast majority of Saints fans around here.



What is so negative about the question? What isn't? Calling for heads to roll seems pretty negative. Thinking that "everyone will riot if we have another 7-9" is pretty negative. Implying that 9-7 isn't good enough is pretty negative when the season hasn't even started. Thinking that Brees will not stick around under a certain scenario is pretty negative. The whole ranting nature of the post was negative.

It has obviously become such second nature on your part that you don't even notice. You are sounding like the reincarnation of Will(insert team name here)81. The opening post was identical to something he would have posted.

Dude last year over half this board was talking about firing Payton if we went 7-9 this year. A lot of those myself not included, wanted him gone then. Just because you are the eternal optimist doesn't mean you have to hate on people who are realistic.
You are a polae opposite of Willsaintswhatever. You have your ideas and if anyone else has one you don't agree with you act as their points aren't valid.
Just because we don't all think Brees will play 5 more years like you do doesn't mean we don't hope he will.

Dude, last year a handful of people around here were talking about firing Payton. Pretty much the same few that are always griping about things anyway. First of all, there was no chance of Payton being fired in the first place which showed how little those people knew. Secondly, whether the record reflected it or not, for the past two years the franchise has been heading in the right direction. Any change at the top would thrown all of that to the wind.

Being negative and always looking at worst case scenarios is not being realistic.