Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaVirus
I think there are people on both sides of the fence for either "4-12, 6-10 types of seasons until you get the QB are preferable" and "give me 10-6, 11-5 seasons even though our chances of winning it all are extremely slim". I'd take the latter every time. It seems many here would prefer the former.
|
Depends on the long term vision/plans, IMO.
If the main driver of front office decisions is butts in seats or just the basic idea of not wanting an embarrassing season, you can ride that 9-11 win train for years with mediocre QBs that other teams don't want, and that's not acceptable, IMO.
Or if you're riding along with a core group that's "good enough" but probably won't ever win anything, I'd much rather see that team be more aggressive with a rebuild. You see this with hockey quite a bit these days, after teams like the Sharks hung on faaaaar too long, but now teams are becoming far more aggressive with selling their assets and stocking up on young talent.
But, say your motivation is to turn around a shit franchise quickly, but of course franchise QBs don't grow on trees.... then if the motivation is to grab an Alex Smith to quickly get back to respectability, but aggressively seek a replacement when the right QB and situation arises, then I'd much rather live out a few of those just-above-mediocre seasons.
Basically, I'd prefer a short stint at the bottom if that gets a team over the hump sooner, than trying avoid bottoming out with no real vision/concept of being a true contender.