Yes, I know, it's highly unlikely. Up to this point I would have said it was impossible, that Ross is just clueless, but at least he spends money. But now I ask myself: Is there a 1% chance that Ross has decided for some reason he would rather the team not win? Looking at the facts... I'm beginning to consider it. He fired Hickey after 2 years of what was in my opinion the best GM work we've had in decades. He then replaced him with a proven organization killer. Proven. Repeatedly. From day one this man has come in here and done the same thing to our organization that he did in the past. Owners don't have to win to be profitable in the NFL. He has no problem giving away home games to London. While Ross himself doesn't seem like the type of guy to do this, I absolutely would not put it past Roger Goodel or the league to encourage something like this that allows them to control (or simply have knowledge of) the 'winners' and 'losers' of the NFL. He definitely seems to have some kind of New York connection going on with terrible people (how else would Tannenbum have a job) that he values over winning football games. Doesn't seem to have any problem with Tannenbaum's splash signings that increase exposure while screwing over the team. I admit all of this is just a conspiracy theory, but is it... possible?