I've always liked how the word "realist" gets applied to football fans. Isn't realism rooted in being "left-brained" and more dependent on logic to assess facts and make decisions? Where's the logic in being a fan? It's total emotion and at times, defies logic.
What facts do we have to assess about this team?
Does the presence of the unknown about the one thing this team struggled with the most last season, the offense, that being an untried, unproven and inexperienced OC?
As a realist, the D looks to be about the same and they're not going to get a lot of help at 58. They'll probably get an OK pick but the D needs a difference maker. Adding Quinn can help but he must stay healthy and Gregory is an unknown. They're still weak on the back end. But the D is good enough to go to the Big Dance, providing the offense is the horse they ride.
The best seasons we've seen 07, 14 and 16 were all about the offense and the NFL is all about the offense with a good enough defense.
It is hard to have a feel for how this team will do with a completely unknown at OC. The only thing we know is that some people think he's smart and born to coach. If he doesn't struggle in his first year then he will be a true exception because he will be facing more experienced DC's with better defenses and I think there has to be a learning curve. The exception is that inexperience beats experience in the NFL, which is why they recycle coaches so much.
I can argue for each side of the realists' argument. Until I see some football for real, at least 4 games, I don't know what kind of season this team is going to have and after 8 games last season, my prediction would have been wrong. But don't ya just love the unknown and the unexpected?