They do make sense. I'd rather keep Groce and take an additional year to line up the coach we think can carry us forward, than hire in plan D or E and be right back where we are now in 3 years. How does THAT make sense?
Then you wait another year - or you decide we're too much of a dumpster fire to have high expectations and the lower your expectations and then go plan D or E. I don't think settling is the right move. Obviously if you have an idea you can get plan A, B (or maybe C depending on the gap), then you move.
How does getting another mediocre coach solve this problem? If we're shooting for 'can fog up a mirror', then yes. I think we're shooting for something much higher.
I have quite a few issues with this thinking.
(1) Do you think the A tier candidates for now will either (a) become interested in 2018 after not being interested in 2017 or (b) there will be a fresh crop of new tier A candidates? I would not expect or rely on either of those being true when making the decision in 2017.
(2) So if there's no coaches you like this season, you're fine punting to 2018, and per your post you said you'd also be fine punting to 2019. This assumes he's been bad both years if we're still having the conversation. How long do you punt? You're already 2 years into your rebuild in this scenario had we gone a different direction, and you said you don't want to be "back at this point in 3 years" -- in your scenario, we're 2 out of 3 years down the path and haven't ever left this point. How is that possibly better?
(3) You seriously think any fanbase, let alone ours, would tolerate that many punts? We cannot let the apathy to get worse than it already is.