What is the bigger risk? Not optimizing Josh Allen's potential or returning to draught era futility.

[Chaos]

Sports is a strange business dynamic. Not many of us have jobs where we have 31 competitors and all but one of us is deemed to have failed at the end of the year. It must be stressful.  Also most of us don't get paid millions and millions of dollars to help cope with that stress. 

 

Retaining management, retaining coaches and retaining players are all decisions equally impactaful as changing management, changing coaches and changing players. 

 

People percieve there being different risks by retaining vs changing personnel. 

 

In the Bills case one group of fans believes there is a risk of not optimizing Josh Allen's career in Buffalo.  A different group of fans believes there is a risk of making mistakes and returning to draught era futility. 

 

There are other risks.  This poll is asking to identify which of these two particular risks is the bigger risk. The only assumption is that Josh Allen remains a Bill and remains healthy:

1) Not optimizing Josh Allen's career in Buffalo.   Not optimizing is different than "wasting".  For example, Jim Kelly in a different set of circumstances may have won a super bowl, which is more optimal than only making it to the super bowls.  To me, it would be silly though to say Jim Kelly's career was wasted.  

 

2) Returning to draught era futility. This means fielding teams that fans do not expect to be competetive at the beginning of the season, then proven right by  the actual season. 

 

Please note, both of these risks exist whether we retain  or change current coaches, management or players.