- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Legit Question---Why is the front office afraid of a rebuild?
Posted on 11/10/23 at 10:12 am to Shaq4prez
Posted on 11/10/23 at 10:12 am to Shaq4prez
quote:
No need to rebuild.....ever. that's what bottom dweller losers do.
The Jets and browns have been rebuilding for 30 years. Deciding to "rebuild" offers no guarantees. They pile up high draft pics and still suck
Pretty much this. You are gambling big time when you want to completely nuke a franchise and start from scratch. If it were the 90's again you'd almost have an argument. Fact is that today's Saints aren't cellar-dwellers. They are an aging middle tier team with a cap problem. The correct way to do things would be to phase out a lot of the older players for younger blood, draft a quality QB that you can mold for the future behind a capable veteran, and don't bury yourself under mismanaged contracts.
Going scorched earth like Deion Sanders did at Colorado would be a financial and logistical nightmare.
This post was edited on 11/10/23 at 10:30 am
0
Posted on 11/10/23 at 10:14 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
There are no guarantees but it does not take “a lot of time” if it does then your front office is incompetent and your screwed anyway
How many teams have successfully blown it up, tanked, and then come back as a contender in 3 years?
I’m having a hard time with that list.
Posted on 11/10/23 at 11:15 am to Swagga
quote:
How many teams have successfully blown it up, tanked, and then come back as a contender in 3 years?
Define blown it up and tanked also “contender”. How many teams can you name that did that and built up in 5 years? The Dolphins “tanked” for Tua and went 5-11 in 2019, they won 10 the next year and 9 the next 2. The Eagles after winning the SB had 2 9-7 years then 4-11-1, then 9-8 before 14-3. And as I mentioned the Texans, who were terrible for 3 season but were a shirshow not “rebuilding” and now they have basically the same record as the Saints and look to have a better short term future
Posted on 11/10/23 at 3:06 pm to redneck
quote:
you have potential to host a playoff game/win 3 games to make the super bowl.
You think this team can win 3 playoff games??
Posted on 11/10/23 at 3:09 pm to tigerterrace
Because the owner is just cashing checks. She isn't a football person. Her husband left her the franchise. Look how bad the Lions were for so many years with the wife running that franchise. Loomis and Lauscha seem to be cemented into their positions with no accountability or fear of being fired.
Posted on 11/10/23 at 3:20 pm to tigerterrace
The rumor I've always heard is its about economics.
Benson and Loomis supposedly feel that to make the profit needed they have to have a competitive team. They think a multi year rebuild would tank the bank account.
It doesn't make sense to me that any NFL team worries about making a profit, considering TV revenue, but I've heard multiple sources say for the Saints to stay in positive cash they must have a competitive team. Maybe that's the reality of being a small market team in the NFL.
Personally, as a fan there is no reason to tank. They have had chances to win a weak division and will continue to do so.
Benson and Loomis supposedly feel that to make the profit needed they have to have a competitive team. They think a multi year rebuild would tank the bank account.
It doesn't make sense to me that any NFL team worries about making a profit, considering TV revenue, but I've heard multiple sources say for the Saints to stay in positive cash they must have a competitive team. Maybe that's the reality of being a small market team in the NFL.
Personally, as a fan there is no reason to tank. They have had chances to win a weak division and will continue to do so.
Posted on 11/10/23 at 8:12 pm to PoppaD
I am also not talking about a total castoff, but what if instead of extending that you actually cut 4-5 high salary guys that are going to eat the dead cap numbers and then just replace them on the roster with UDFA or cheap fA.
Posted on 11/10/23 at 11:17 pm to tigerterrace
Because in the NFL rebuilds are for suckers?
People act like getting rid of talent you already have and striving for a crappy W-L record to get somewhat higher draft picks is a strategy that actually works. I really think it has something to do with the widespread prevalence of the gambling culture now that sports gambling has been embraced by the league and is no longer just something your degenerate uncle does with the bookie at the corner bar. Meaning that, like gamblers, lots of fans now have no problem convincing themselves that a "system" or a "plan" is THE key to success whether it plays out to work more often than fail or not.
All those teams that tear everything down to rebuild, then find themselves in three or four seasons tearing down to rebuild again? They just don't "do it right". I mean, the simple fact that there are more franchises that wallow in non relevance with occasional peaks of mediocrity while there are others that remain relevant for decades without ever charting a really crappy record should illustrate that the "you need to suck to get better" idea is a fallacy.
The only "advantage" the shitty record ensures is a draft pick in a little higher position. Go back and check how many of even first round picks become "stars" or even just above-average contributors as opposed to JAGs (or worse). Not encouraging. I've posted that a deep-dive piece I read before the season showed that when comparing two players of the same position (say, the first WR taken and the next WR selected in the same draft) even when the second guy is taken a half round later, the first player selected DOES end up outperforming the second...exactly 52% of the time. HUGE advantage to having that crappy record and earlier pick, right?
The simple truth is that the path to consistent relevance isn't some "trick" like dumping all of your talent to gamble on that guaranteeing you all fresh new talent. It's having a front office that's competent and confident enough to consistently identify and correctly value and retain the talent currently on the roster, pare away the insufficiently effective or over priced, and target and acquire replacement upgrades via free agency while fleshing out the roster's depth and adding (hopefully) future starters.
Again...rebuilds/roster teardowns are for suckers.
People act like getting rid of talent you already have and striving for a crappy W-L record to get somewhat higher draft picks is a strategy that actually works. I really think it has something to do with the widespread prevalence of the gambling culture now that sports gambling has been embraced by the league and is no longer just something your degenerate uncle does with the bookie at the corner bar. Meaning that, like gamblers, lots of fans now have no problem convincing themselves that a "system" or a "plan" is THE key to success whether it plays out to work more often than fail or not.
All those teams that tear everything down to rebuild, then find themselves in three or four seasons tearing down to rebuild again? They just don't "do it right". I mean, the simple fact that there are more franchises that wallow in non relevance with occasional peaks of mediocrity while there are others that remain relevant for decades without ever charting a really crappy record should illustrate that the "you need to suck to get better" idea is a fallacy.
The only "advantage" the shitty record ensures is a draft pick in a little higher position. Go back and check how many of even first round picks become "stars" or even just above-average contributors as opposed to JAGs (or worse). Not encouraging. I've posted that a deep-dive piece I read before the season showed that when comparing two players of the same position (say, the first WR taken and the next WR selected in the same draft) even when the second guy is taken a half round later, the first player selected DOES end up outperforming the second...exactly 52% of the time. HUGE advantage to having that crappy record and earlier pick, right?
The simple truth is that the path to consistent relevance isn't some "trick" like dumping all of your talent to gamble on that guaranteeing you all fresh new talent. It's having a front office that's competent and confident enough to consistently identify and correctly value and retain the talent currently on the roster, pare away the insufficiently effective or over priced, and target and acquire replacement upgrades via free agency while fleshing out the roster's depth and adding (hopefully) future starters.
Again...rebuilds/roster teardowns are for suckers.
Posted on 11/13/23 at 1:57 pm to Thracken13
quote:
he says he is here to discuss - but all he does is post shite, and never actually discuss anything. discussion is, at the very least, showing the ability to at least acknowledge counter points - but he is incapable of doing that. he thinks he is right and the smartest person in the room.
just leave him to his delusions.
wya thrack? Come out from under your rock.. Lets discuss.
Posted on 11/13/23 at 2:25 pm to tigerterrace
Because they can't let go of the past. Sometimes people feel moving on is a sign of failure.
Posted on 11/13/23 at 2:33 pm to WhoDatNC
Its crazy to me that Texans and Rockets went to hell and back while Saints and Pelicans are stuck in mediocrity purgatory. Ownership makes a HUGE difference.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News