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