Originally posted by DrEll:
Originally posted by swayze:
Originally posted by DrEll:
The question is how long before this statement gets old….if my opinion, ten years is a long time…
The error in your logic is that by dumping Kyle we'd be far more likely to have another ten years of cycling through Erickson-Nolan-Singletary-Tomsula-Kelly types than to find a guy who you "know" can win it. I've seen that movie, I'll stick with the guy who we know can climb the mountain, and trust that he'll figure out how to make it to the summit.
Indefinitely?
You're not accurately assessing the downside risk. If we get another guy there's a remote chance he's got both all of the good qualities we like about Kyle and also has the gas to get over the hump where Kyle has come up short. Apropos of nothing we're talking single digit probability here.
The probability that the coach we hire isn't as good as Kyle is very, very high. It isn't easy to win in the NFL. It isn't easy to make deep playoff runs consistently. It is very easy and very common to hire a guy who flails about for a few years and gets canned, and that's the most likely outcome.
