There's a handful of teams that have a revolving door, that are changing coaches every couple of years, and you can look at the success that they're having. They're not.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
So I don't really believe that how many years you've had in the league determines how well your players play... Coaching is coaching.
The thing that drives most coaches out of coaching in college is they get tired of the grind of recruiting.
It's a unique situation to have, but again they say sometimes talent doesn't win. It has to be brought together right. That's the coaching's job. That's what we're doing.
Coaches who have been players in the league, they get so attuned to playing how they were successful and who their coaches were.
Players suffer coaching changes all the time; it's life in the NFL.
To have long term success as a coach or in any position of leadership, you have to be obsessed in some way.
I'm not sure there are enough coaches in the system that can take young talent and consistently get them into the top five in the world.
You can have a coach for five or six years, and eventually, that coach has so little new to say. So get somebody else to give a different point of view. Somebody will see something I don't see and vice versa. You evolve with your game and your coaches.
There is still a big onus to be coached. I understand the best teams don't need a huge amount of coaching, but that's when a coach should decide not to do coaching.
You notice it with any organization that's had a lot of success: you will start to reach thinking, 'That's the player, that's the method, that's the mechanism, that's the coach, that's the thing that's going to put us over the top.'