CanesSkins26 wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:CanesSkins26 wrote:Contrary to the belief of armchair fans like Ray, 2 1/2 year is not long enough to overhaul a roster and build a winning organization when we were as bad as we were. I expect to see progress this year, and I did. I expect to see more progress next year. If at the end of year four we're still 6-10 or so, then yeah, you're getting my attention. But advocating starting over now is just crazy.
If 2.5 years isnt enough, how do you explain the Colts' turnaround? Do you really think that they have more talent than the Redskins? A 2-14 team is now 5-3, and they are in year 1 of a switch to a 3-4 and playing better than our D in year 3. And all of this with their head coach away from the team fighting cancer.
I always love the "Tom Brady" argument. I actually don't need to "explain" anyone who turned around in less than 2.5 years to argue that it's not normal. There are 32 teams, many of them bad and most of them stay that way more than 2.5 years. And you didn't even support the Colts were as bad as all around bad as our Jim Zorn team was, you just pointed to a one year record.
The Colts are just one example. Take the Lions. They were in far worse shape after what Millen did to them then we were when Shanahan took over. In 2008 and 2009 they were a combined 2-30. In 2010 they improved to 6-10 and last year to 10-6 and a playoff spot.
Gotcha. We've gone past the "Tom Brady" argument and now it's the "Tom Brady and Kurt Warner" argument.
Tom Brady? That would be silly. That's one guy. Tom Brady AND Kurt Warner did it, now that's an argument.
Here's an exercise for you. List all the teams who have ever sucked. Now, list how many of them still sucked 2.5 years later. In fact more than two didn't suck 2.5 years later. But the vast majority...
And that even gives you that you didn't show either of your not one but two examples didn't come with demonstration the team was actually as bad from top to bottom as ours.