I don’t think it’s too big a deal. Denver’s 2008 d-line notwithstanding, the guy seems to be well-respected and he had some good lines at Atlanta. Barring some kind of personality conflict between he and some potential DC hire, I can’t see it being anything close to a dealbreaker.

I mean sure, ideally a new DC would be given the opportunity to “bring in his guy(s)” but it could just as easily be seen by a DC candidate as one less thing to have to deal with when he comes in. Long as the guy is qualified, the new DC might view it as a positive. And DCs take gigs all the time with position coaches already in place, it’s not always a total housecleaning type situation.

Seems clear that the Saints had to move quickly on this, given the interest from Green Bay and Seattle. So make the move and let the chips fall where they may. If a DC candidate is going to cause a stink over this, don’t you have to pause and seriously reconsider whether or not he’s the right guy for the DC job anyway? I would.

In other lines of work, let’s say I’m interviewing for a job as some kind of manager. The more competent, qualified people already on staff, the better. As long as I can work with them, that is. Just means I don’t have to worry about going out and finding them. I can hit the ground running with the staff in place.

Plus, up until a few days ago, wasn’t the fact that Gibbs was “Payton’s buddy” a HUGE issue? Many of us were bemoaning the “his guy” factor as potentially blocking a desperately needed change. Maybe Loomis and Payton are self-aware enough to understand how much harder the loyalty issue made the decision to part ways with Gibbs, and are proceeding with the idea that minimizing cronyism will make for a better situation.