ok...so this isn't the place for a deep dive...but I'll advance some theories/hypotheses and, perhaps, common sense into the conversation.
I had a lengthy post that used computer architecture development as a thought process analogue for thinking about a football team. The focus was on how one develops a computing solution for a problem/set of problems. I'll skip all that and get to the punchline. You can think of a football franchise as a social entity whose collective goal is, simplifying, to win Superbowls year in and year out. As one breaks this down, there are multiple "components" of the currently practiced model for achieving this goal: the organizational structure of the franchise; the roles of the various actors (owner, GM, scouts, financial officers, medical staff, trainers, players, coaches, etc., etc.); supporting systems (e.g., stadium, field, travel, etc.); processes (the interactions among the components that combine to produce the output; for example, training camp, scouting, practice, film study, weight room training); constraints (e.g., rules of the game); culture; environment.... a whole "bunch of stuff" that one can decompose a problem into. The abstract model used to solve the problem leverages theory (e.g., how motivate young players, how physically develop and train players to be less susceptible to injury), hypothesis, best practice (known successful) models/organizational structures/coaching styles/football systems (offense, defense, special teams), integration, operation, maintenance, feedback/improvement, and so on.
I'm pretty *amn sure the Patriots at some point engaged in this thought process (like the Ravens obviously have) and developed an obviously successful vision/model for how they were going to organize, staff, command & control, etc., to win championships. Just as in computing there are differing computing architectures, instruction sets, microarchitectures for solving problems, so are there different models for conceiving, implementing and operating football franchises. From this perspective, coupled to decades of observed behaviours and outcomes, I come to the not so brilliant conclusion that Bruce Allen and Dan Snyder do not and never will have the vision, ability, talent, experience, habits of mind, leadership, human skills to integrate all the components into a holistic "approach" to winning. I will concede that in most fields of human endeavor it's very rare to find these sorts of individuals. That said, in my mind, the folks at the top of the Redskins are singularly unqualified for this visionary/leadership challenge. Not only that, I believe (admittedly on anecdotal information) that they rank among the bottom dwellers when ranked against their peers. The system itself (i.e., the NFL) helps the team (and all teams) to level the playing field somewhat (e.g., draft position for player abilities, TV revenues for financing), but the teams routinely at the top these days have leadership that make the difference. To get back to an argument I have had with Boone, it is precisely if one looks at football as a business and breaks it down into its primary functions (the components) that one can easily see that Mr Snyder is not a visionary or a capable leader. Bruce Allen? pfffft.
As noted, there will be episodes of temporary success partly because the NFL is designed for this (i.e., parity). But sustained success? This franchise with this FO? No chance at all for sustained excellence.
They have no vision/no model for sustained success. One simple obervable is the total inconsistency in the coaches they hire. There is almost no common theme in all these hires.
The BRUDAN: they can get you down the block in a car and drop you off without incident; no way you have them speed you around the race track in a race filled with better drivers.