- 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
The Saints, the Draft, and the Winner's Curse
Posted on 4/25/15 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 4/25/15 at 12:14 pm
One of the lengthiest most detailed analysis of Saints drafts I have read. Sad that most of the negatives are correct.
In his second year as the Saints GM, Loomis reversed course from 2003, trading down twice. Loomis turned the 48th and 81st picks in the draft into the 50th pick, the 139th pick, and the 40th pick in 2005 (gaining and then losing the 151st pick in the process). The two transactions netted a return of 7.5 AV. It was a savvy move, worthy of Bill Belichick or Ted Thompson, but unfortunately one that Loomis has repeated only once since.
full story
In his second year as the Saints GM, Loomis reversed course from 2003, trading down twice. Loomis turned the 48th and 81st picks in the draft into the 50th pick, the 139th pick, and the 40th pick in 2005 (gaining and then losing the 151st pick in the process). The two transactions netted a return of 7.5 AV. It was a savvy move, worthy of Bill Belichick or Ted Thompson, but unfortunately one that Loomis has repeated only once since.
full story
4
Posted on 4/25/15 at 12:38 pm to blueslover
Very interesting
Posted on 4/25/15 at 2:48 pm to blueslover
The love and adoration for Loomis on this board is nauseating. The dude is a clown of laughable levels when it comes to the draft and this "Loomising" term that people love to use when we sign some new free agent every year is like being impressed with your neighbor's new Lexus only to find out he took out a second mortgage on his house to buy it.
This team is a good head coach and QB shielding us from being right back in the shitter like we used to be. We're a facade right now IMO, no different at roster management than we ever were previously as the Aints.
The part about giving up a second round pick to move up one spot in the first round a year later completely sums up Loomis' draft philosophy.
/rant
This team is a good head coach and QB shielding us from being right back in the shitter like we used to be. We're a facade right now IMO, no different at roster management than we ever were previously as the Aints.
The part about giving up a second round pick to move up one spot in the first round a year later completely sums up Loomis' draft philosophy.
/rant
Posted on 4/25/15 at 2:58 pm to blueslover
That was a great read. Although not sure how much you can trust those negative AV numbers Since our super bowl (not counting the 09 season), Saints are #8 in the NFL in win %. Not bad considering 20% of that time we didn't even have a coach.
Posted on 4/25/15 at 4:09 pm to FootballNostradamus
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/20/21 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 4/25/15 at 4:33 pm to lsutiger2010
quote:
Every team is a good head coach and a good QB away from being in the shitter. You cannot be serious with that comment.
The Packers got lucky with Rodgers falling to them. The Pats have been incredibly fortunate to have someone like Brady at the helm for so long.
Those franchises, however, aren't solely the result of those players (and their coaches). Those rosters are so much better and deeper than ours. The Pats lose Brady, and they still win double-digit games. The Packers lose Rodgers and Matt Flynn looks like fvcking Andrew Luck.
If you think we would do either of those without Brees you're crazy. Without Brees we're drafting first the next year.
Posted on 4/25/15 at 5:01 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Those franchises, however, aren't solely the result of those players (and their coaches). Those rosters are so much better and deeper than ours
It goes back to the thread I made about a month ago with the correlation between successful teams and # of draft picks. It's more than a coincidence.
LINK
ETA: The funny part was that was before the jimmy trade
This post was edited on 4/25/15 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 4/25/15 at 8:13 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:I don't visit this board very often, but imo whatever adoration you're describing is somewhat offset by the equally irrational hatred of a handful.
The love and adoration for Loomis on this board is nauseating
You think he's a bad gm?
Compared to what though? Kind of am important question. Compared to the pats and Packers over the past 4 or so seasons, no he has not done as good a job. But that's not exactly saying much.
I think fans may overreact in a positive way because of the history of the saints, but the fact is there are way more than a handful of organizations that have done a hell of a lot worse over the past decade. He's fricking average at worst, probably slightly above average. But trying to paint him as terrible is just as bad as trying to paint him as infallible imo, and I would lay pretty big odds that by the end of his tenure he'll be viewed as an above average gm.
Posted on 4/26/15 at 11:27 am to el duderino III
quote:
I don't visit this board very often, but imo whatever adoration you're describing is somewhat offset by the equally irrational hatred of a handful.
You think he's a bad gm?
Compared to what though? Kind of am important question. Compared to the pats and Packers over the past 4 or so seasons, no he has not done as good a job. But that's not exactly saying much.
I think fans may overreact in a positive way because of the history of the saints, but the fact is there are way more than a handful of organizations that have done a hell of a lot worse over the past decade. He's fricking average at worst, probably slightly above average. But trying to paint him as terrible is just as bad as trying to paint him as infallible imo, and I would lay pretty big odds that by the end of his tenure he'll be viewed as an above average gm.
I hope you're right, but I don't see it.
So many programs these days (or should I say all programs these days) are simply a reflection of their QB. The Colts for example, have a joke of a roster, top to bottom. The Bengals, I would argue, are better at them at every single starting position, except QB, and they got slaughtered in the playoffs because of it. I always thought it was hilarious how Bill Polian got these GM awards (hell he's gonna be in the Hall of Fame) when those Colts teams he accumulated were largely entire mirages held together by Manning (see what happened when he was injured).
The best roster, top to bottom, in this league is the Bills, and I don't think it's very close. The second best is probably the Jets, and both of those teams have new QBs because they don't have QBs.
The only thing that matters these days is whether you have a QB or not.
Posted on 4/26/15 at 2:04 pm to blueslover
You guys think this may have been part of what the saints talked about in the off season? Hopefully this was part of that evaluation process they spoke of. They did bring Ireland on to the staff for a fresh set of eyes. Maybe they are finally starting to understand that it isn't in the teams best interest to trade up every year. I do think getting cooks was a good move last year. I honestly loved getting Ingram at the time, but he ended up being a guy that didn't instantly make the team better, so in hindsight he probably wasn't worth it.
I'm just thinking out loud though. any thoughts?
I'm just thinking out loud though. any thoughts?
Posted on 4/27/15 at 12:31 am to FootballNostradamus
quote:
The Pats lose Brady, and they still win double-digit games.
Are you talking about 2008? Seven years ago? Well Cassel's 11 wins were 5 less than they won the year before and Cassel is now a proven starter. Tom has three rings so he's not really replaceable.
quote:
The Packers lose Rodgers and Matt Flynn looks like fvcking Andrew Luck.
Since his 2013 comeback with the Pack, Matt is 2-2 as a starter with that one great game and an equally horrendous game where he was 10 of 23.
Weak arguments.
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 12:33 am
Posted on 4/27/15 at 8:01 am to FootballNostradamus
quote:
The only thing that matters these days is whether you have a QB or not.
In the ultimate team game, that statement is obviously bullshite. It might be the highest priority, but I watched Mark Sanchez go to the AFC championship...what, twice? Takes a little more than just a good QB.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 1:03 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
I always thought it was hilarious how Bill Polian got these GM awards (hell he's gonna be in the Hall of Fame) when those Colts teams he accumulated were largely entire mirages held together by Manning (see what happened when he was injured).
Well most of his merit comes from his time in buffalo when they drafted HOF players like Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed and got Jim Kelly to come to Buffalo after the USFL folded and went to all those Super Bowls. Probably also helps that his Carolina team went to the NFC title game in their second year as an expansion team.
That sounds like a pretty good GM.
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 1:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News