01-04-2016, 08:17 PM
The Browns can be used as "evidence" that nothing works, because they do everything wrong.
The Jets, Broncos, Texans, Redskins, Cardinals, and Vikings are all winning or playoff teams that have recently changed HC/QB/GMs and have become visibly better. Hell, 6 of the 12 teams in the playoffs right now have undergone some form of change at one or more of the most important spots in the past 3 years.
Do you really think a lack of stability is the problem with the Browns? Do you think they would be in the playoffs now had they kept the Chudzinski/Brandon Weeden pair for 4 or 5 years? Would you assume they'd get much better if they rolled with Manziel and Pettine for the next decade? I'd be skeptical.
Anyways, stability is good but stability with the wrong personnel? That would just be another thing the Browns could "prove" didn't work. It's not like the Bengals got better because we gave Dick LeBeau and Akili Smith a decade to work together...we hired a top-tier DC from a Super Bowl-winning rival to be the HC and spent a 1st overall pick on a "can't miss" QB. We didn't keep Chad, TO, and Brat for another year after 2010 so they could work on their chemistry, did we? I'm not saying Marvin needs to go NOW, but CHANGE can be attributed to helping this franchise turn corners after 2002 and 2010...right?
The Jets, Broncos, Texans, Redskins, Cardinals, and Vikings are all winning or playoff teams that have recently changed HC/QB/GMs and have become visibly better. Hell, 6 of the 12 teams in the playoffs right now have undergone some form of change at one or more of the most important spots in the past 3 years.
Do you really think a lack of stability is the problem with the Browns? Do you think they would be in the playoffs now had they kept the Chudzinski/Brandon Weeden pair for 4 or 5 years? Would you assume they'd get much better if they rolled with Manziel and Pettine for the next decade? I'd be skeptical.
Anyways, stability is good but stability with the wrong personnel? That would just be another thing the Browns could "prove" didn't work. It's not like the Bengals got better because we gave Dick LeBeau and Akili Smith a decade to work together...we hired a top-tier DC from a Super Bowl-winning rival to be the HC and spent a 1st overall pick on a "can't miss" QB. We didn't keep Chad, TO, and Brat for another year after 2010 so they could work on their chemistry, did we? I'm not saying Marvin needs to go NOW, but CHANGE can be attributed to helping this franchise turn corners after 2002 and 2010...right?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
