Odds to make the playoffs in '24 (1 Viewer)

[Booker]

This is actually more the reality of a team that the previous coach left with no QB and no viable succession plan to replace the aging veterans on defense.

Sure Allen doesn’t move the needle - but the issues the Saints have are based on talent. The top portions of the NFC West, North and East are younger and more talented. The South has Atlanta who is filthy with young skill players on offense and just added a solid QB.

They probably had the most talented team in the division last year and managed to miss the playoffs. If Allen needs superior talent to win, in a league built to parity that means you're probably only winning 7-9 games a year, tops, which is where we find ourselves.

I will always hope for the best, but the reality is he's a mediocre coach and that will ultimately limit what the team can accomplish.

 

[HouseCall]

They probably had the most talented team in the division last year and managed to miss the playoffs. If Allen needs superior talent to win, in a league built to parity that means you're probably only winning 7-9 games a year, tops, which is where we find ourselves.

I will always hope for the best, but the reality is he's a mediocre coach and that will ultimately limit what the team can accomplish.

I don’t know that we were the most talented team. Player for player, the Bucs were more talented and actually won the division.

Again, the dislike for Allen is warranted - so I won’t try to argue in defense of him. I’m just pointing out that I think our fans have a very skewed perspective of the talent pool of the current Saints. I think that is improving and this draft was a good step in that process - but overall we have a lot of aging defenders and skill players with potential that has not been fully realized.

Vegas doesn’t have us o/u at 7.5 wins because of Allen. It’s because we are middle of the road in talent in the NFC and lower third in the broader NFL.

 

[Pocket Hercules]

This is actually more the reality of a team that the previous coach left with no QB and no viable succession plan to replace the aging veterans on defense.

Sure Allen doesn’t move the needle - but the issues the Saints have are based on talent. The top portions of the NFC West, North and East are younger and more talented. The South has Atlanta who is filthy with young skill players on offense and just added a solid QB.

While our roster isn't what it was during the run from '18-'20, and talent/depth could be improved, there are countless examples from the last couple of years that tie directly to a lack of accountability and attention to detail on top of the offensive play-calling issues. We've seen guys who are in their athletic primes take a clear step backwards in their individual performances/production. If we're watching the same games, and you're not seeing a manifestation of substandard coaching, I'm just not sure what to tell you.

 

[J.T.]

Somebody in our division has to make the playoffs, so there's a 100% chance that one team makes it. When you add up every team in our division, the total is 147.9. That means that essentially Vegas thinks there's a 47.9% chance that TWO teams from our division make the playoffs. To me that seems a little bit high, but there is so much mediocrity in the NFC, that anything is possible. I would put the Falcons at just over 55%, TB and Saints at 25-28% each and Carolina at 2% tops. To me, there's about a 10% chance two NFC South teams make it.

Vegas makes these numbers to get action.

 

[BlackNGoldblood]

So basically Vegas thinks the Falcons have double the chance to win the division than the Saints and Bucs do. I don’t buy it.

 

[Furious One]

While I'm not the biggest DA fan as a head coach, I put most of our lack of success lately on the horrible play calling of Pete Carmichael. I don't know how we'll finish the next season, winners or losers, but for me I've got a way better feeling about this season just knowing we've got a new offensive staff calling the shots. It didn't take too many games last year for me to see our offense was garbage with Pete running it. If DA just does what he always does with the defense and the offense improves, we've got just as much a shot as anybody else in this division...

 

[Rexman100]

Since I’m going with the under on Vegas win total. Sorry but they aren’t making the playoffs this year. To me it’s the best for starting the rebuild besides getting the salary cap in order

I'm expecting early-on struggles and an anemic offense complete with a ridiculous amount of fan calls to bench Carr for Rattler. Justified with "might as well start him, cant do any worse" And ofc the fan favorite "Fire DA" chants. This happens thru 4-5 games, then they battle back to get to 8-10 wins. But most importantly a 5 game winning streak to close out the season fueling fan optimism for 2025. Its hard to bet against the past because its a solid indicator of the future.

 

[sfidc3]

My stupidity seems to have triggered you. That’s incredibly unfortunate

Translation.....The truth hurts too much, so I'll make a smarmy remark instead of trying to refute it......

 

[Bill]

Considering all the shakeup and turnover, 32% is probably about right for us, hope we shock the world

This year, I’d just settle for shocking the neighborhood.

 

[SweetT]

Is he though? I can accept the argument that he's "better than Carr" in that his team has performed marginally better than Carr's team over the last few seasons but I really don't see what others are seeing when they say he's "by far" the best QB in the division. I feel like they're incredibly similar players and I would argue that Cousins has underachieved more based on what he had around him in Minnesota than Carr did with the Raiders. Last year neither team made the playoffs and although Cousins did have to miss a large part of the season, Carr played injured himself.

I'm not in anyway a huge Derek Carr fan or anything but again I'm not seeing this Kirk Cousins blows every other QB in the NFC South away thing like others are.

Kirk Cousins is an interesting QB in terms of debate. To the eye, he looks like a very good QB. However, he owns a putrid record against good teams and in the playoffs.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Translation.....The truth hurts too much, so I'll make a smarmy remark instead of trying to refute it......

Not exactly. I gave my reasoning in original post, no reason to debate beyond that other than to argue. I don't refute emotion driven responses, which is why I pointed out he must have been triggered. However, based on some of the reactions, I suppose most of you guys gamble, me using the word highly likely, was more of a rub than anything.

I get the inclination you don't like me much and that's ok. Cheers

 

[sfidc3]

Not exactly. I gave my reasoning in original post, no reason to debate beyond that other than to argue. I don't refute emotion driven responses, which is why I pointed out he must have been triggered. However, based on some of the reactions, I suppose most of you guys gamble, me using the word highly likely, was more of a rub than anything.

I get the inclination you don't like me much and that's ok. Cheers

Has nothing to do with like.....or not liking you.....

If you choose to respond in the manner I described then that is your right.....but when you post stuff with no or limited context about DA and folks call you out on it, and then post that the callout is an "emotional response" when it is typically closer to the truth? Then it does kind of rub me the wrong way......because to me it's an indication that you have either no argument or a very weak one.....

And I hate gambling, don't do it and think it will eventually completely ruin sports.....

 

[SaintRay]

Unless you’ve got your expensive rose colored homer glasses on and need to see a return on investment, no way can anyone realistically see the Saints with a winning record in 2024.

It will take alignment of the lucky stars in the sky to see more wins than 7.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Has nothing to do with like.....or not liking you.....

If you choose to respond in the manner I described then that is your right.....but when you post stuff with no or limited context about DA and folks call you out on it, and then post that the callout is an "emotional response" when it is typically closer to the truth? Then it does kind of rub me the wrong way......because to me it's an indication that you have either no argument or a very weak one.....

And I hate gambling, don't do it and think it will eventually completely ruin sports.....

Nah, I think what I've noticed with you is that most of my arguments are very strong, and I'm a very bull person. However, if I recognize that a person has an argument that's emotionally driven I tend to back away because you can't change those minds.

I've also noticed that the snark post you call me out for you usually do in a snarky way(pot calling kettle black) and thus for whatever reason I seem to be a mirror for you. The things that annoy you about me are actually things you do. Lol you've presented weak arguments on some of my post or made snarky comments because it was you who didn't have a better rebuttal.

Everyone on this board knows me, I may be a lot of things, but one thing I will do is bring logic and though and detailed specifics behind an argument. If I don't engage it means it either wasn't worth it or I've accepted the posters good points and return comments like touche, or well said...acknowledging the person has a favorable and equally logical view that I can accept and understand.

My original post wasn't vague, I gave my exact reasons for my optimism, however, I also acknowledge that my optimism may not be shared, so a counter argument rooted in pessimism isn't going to get a response from me. Not because I don't agree with any of the persons points, but because I know both of our opinions are fuled by emotion...mine an overwhelming faith, and his an overwhelming lack of confidence in the staff. I can't argue w/ that and chose not to.

Anyway, hopefully I don't continue to make you mad and whatever issue you have with yourself that you see in me you get over. Clearly when I want to rebuttal, I can do so where. Enjoy the detail, as I likely won't respond to your antagonisms moving forward, especially since you engaged in a debate that had nothing do with you suggesting you were seeking me out, again for your own issues with me within yourself.

Be well.

 

[sfidc3]

Nah, I think what I've noticed with you is that most of my arguments are very strong, and I'm a very bull person. However, if I recognize that a person has an argument that's emotionally driven I tend to back away because you can't change those minds.

I've also noticed that the snark post you call me out for you usually do in a snarky way(pot calling kettle black) and thus for whatever reason I seem to be a mirror for you. The things that annoy you about me are actually things you do. Lol you've presented weak arguments on some of my post or made snarky comments because it was you who didn't have a better rebuttal.

Everyone on this board knows me, I may be a lot of things, but one thing I will do is bring logic and though and detailed specifics behind an argument. If I don't engage it means it either wasn't worth it or I've accepted the posters good points and return comments like touche, or well said...acknowledging the person has a favorable and equally logical view that I can accept and understand.

My original post wasn't vague, I gave my exact reasons for my optimism, however, I also acknowledge that my optimism may not be shared, so a counter argument rooted in pessimism isn't going to get a response from me. Not because I don't agree with any of the persons points, but because I know both of our opinions are fuled by emotion...mine an overwhelming faith, and his an overwhelming lack of confidence in the staff. I can't argue w/ that and chose not to.

Anyway, hopefully I don't continue to make you mad and whatever issue you have with yourself that you see in me you get over. Clearly when I want to rebuttal, I can do so where. Enjoy the detail, as I likely won't respond to your antagonisms moving forward, especially since you engaged in a debate that had nothing do with you suggesting you were seeking me out, again for your own issues with me within yourself.

Be well.

So, in short you have an extremely high opinion of yourself.....bravo.....

I think you give yourself a little too much credit here as I would actually have to care enough to be mad.....annoyed? sure, but don't care enough to be mad.....

I actually chuckled at your feeble attempt at physcoanalysis above, it's just the type of BS you seem to revel in.....

Have a nice day and feel free not to respond to anything I post