What Pete did is make us relevant.
Was that primarily Pete, or people beneath him, or JS, or even Wilson? Nobody knows but the impetus seemed to be Pete.
And Pete rebuilt the organization so it executed and delivered on his plan. It worked. We won and went the to SB twice, winning one.
Getting rid of Pete means we could go back to what we were. However, most of 'what we were' was a function of the owner.
So you could argue that the person that REALLY made us relevant, and demanded success was Paul.
Paul being gone meant there was nobody to check Pete. And Pete, with only one way to win in his head, steadfastly plodded forward clinging to his one way to win even though it no longer worked.
The rest is the slow drop to mediocrity and now the drop to something worse.
Getting rid of Pete is a risk, but only temporarily. If we could find a way to keep Pete's upside and somehow offset his downsides - it would be amazing - especially with Wilson at the helm. But we can't.
And we might not be able to even keep Wilson unless we get rid of Pete.
Wilson under another coach has the POTENTIAL to be great. But it isn't assured.
What we can be assured of is that the ceiling is going to be the wildcard. And Wilson is not okay with that, nor does he believe the current system allows him to be better than that.
For a bit, the counterargument was - well the ceiling is lower than we want but the floor is pretty solid. With the bottom dropping out of the defense, Ken Norton-style, the floor is dropping out too. So the reasons to keep Pete are getting less and less.