Originally Posted by TonyR
Yup, as if going 10-6 with Manning and winning a playoff game would be a "failure", but going 6-10 with Tebow would somehow be a "success". Superior logic at work.
I don't think anyone would consider 6-10 with Tebow "success". But if we're mortgaging the future for Manning (which getting rid of Tebow is in fact doing just that) then you expect some tangible benefits in return.
Tebow led the team to 8-8 and a playoff win last year with only 11 regular season starts. I won't consider his 2012 campaign a success unless we still win the division (so likely going at least 9-7 or 10-6, since 8-8 barely did it on a tie breaker last year) and have at least a competitive outing in the playoffs. Maybe we lose round one but we shouldn't be getting smoked anymore like New England did last year. From there the expectations keep building and within three years we should consider ourselves within reach (i.e. getting some breaks) of the SB.
With Manning we need to do better than 9-7/10-6 and we need to start winning playoff games quickly because the window of being an elite team is far smaller. If the whole point is to speed up the team's growth towards being a top tier competitor at the expense of long term viability then it makes complete sense to have two different standards for the short term.