And it's easier for that to happen when you'll be a multi-millionaire regardless of how well you play.
What it takes to counter that is a winning team culture in which there is leadership among the players that holds the roster accountable for a high level of play, in the name of a long-term mutual goal the team wants to reach (i.e., the Super Bowl). I'm not sure this team has that.
What it does have, seemingly, is a head coach who feels he needs to send a shockwave through the roster about this time each year, to have the same kind of effect of shaping people up, but that isn't anywhere near the optimal way for a team to function in the NFL.
Bill Belichick rarely if ever has to send such shockwaves through his roster, because there is a nucleus of leadership among the players that holds the roster accountable. In fact when you simply come to New England as a player, it's understood that you'll be giving 110% at all times. The winning culture there holds players accountable, and there is no such laziness as alluded to in the post I quoted above.
This is why New England is a perennial contender, despite wide variations in talent over the years. That is the stuff of dynasties.
What we have here, rather, is the stuff of wide variations in play, where one week the team makes an improbable comeback against a good team (Atlanta), and the next it gets shut out and thoroughly embarrassed. There is no team identity here.