Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles
o
I just gave you numerous examples to the contrary. You can believe whatever you want to believe, and root for the Colts however you want to root for the Colts.
o
|
You gave me examples of teams that had little patience, cycled through GMs and head coaches like they were the latest fashion trends, and therefore had no organizational consistency and continued to be bad because of it. The successful organizations don't do this.
Let me use your examples. The Lions finally got themselves out of the carousel of bad not when they got their Franchise QB, because they had Stafford for a decade, but when they finally committed to a GM and Head Coach, who then promptly built an organizational structure and culture, and the Lions have been contending for nearly a half decade with a QB another organization effectively gave up on.
The exact same thing happened with the Chiefs. They hired Dorsey and Reid, committed to them long term, they've won 3 championships as a result, and the only reason John Dorsey isn't still their GM is because he took a big payday to go fail with the Browns.
Speaking of the Browns, they are the only organization of the 3 that you brought up that has not committed to a GM and Head Coach for greater than 3 years, and, (not so) shockingly, they're the only organization of the three that hasn't been able to find any level of consistent success.
Of course I don't want the organization to be incompetent like Jimmy Haslam's operation, but since Carlie Irsay-Gordon is a third generation NFL owner, I'm sure she's smart enough to see how good organizations operate, and how bad organizations operate. So, assuming that is the case, I don't think she's going to go fire crazy and not allow there to be any consistent organizational structure or culture. If that's the case, then being terrible will get you to be competitive much faster than being mediocre will.