If things were that simple we'd see clubs with far bigger budgets and who are far more attractive do it, wouldn't we?
The level of the transfer market we operate in dictates the quality we can sign, which makes it nigh on impossible to "just sign two decent players instead of six shite ones." And even if we do sign "two decent players" or even one decent player, what's to say they work out?
Case in point: Casper Sloth. I remember when he first arrived the general consensus was that he was a good signing. 8 caps for Denmark, in his late 20's, and we even broke our golden one-year contract rule to hand him a two year deal. He certainly fell under the "decent player" banner and was no doubt on a few quid comparatively speaking.
It never worked out for him, for whatever reason. Eight months into that two-year deal and he was offski.
Meanwhile we signed Kipre initially as a trialist who had to win a deal, and we all know how that ended.
So I think there's more to it than just "sign two decent players instead of 6 shite ones."
At the level we're at it's very much hit and miss. Some of the players who have done well for us are the very ones we didn't expect much from, while those we had high hopes for have faltered. I know it isn't what people want to hear, but a lot of the success of our signings comes down to luck and circumstances outwith football.
And I doubt the manager and his staff sit there and say "right, we could sign this decent player here, but I'm thinking that instead of that we just go for these three shite players instead?"
Every summer we carry out the transfer equivalent of searching down the back of the sofa for spare change, in the hope that we can find a few players who'll maybe do us a turn, and even better maybe attract some interest from a team with some cash to spend.
We sign a bunch of players that the manager and coaching staff think could fit the bill, and we hope that at least a few of them work out really well, while most of them do us a solid turn.
It's also worth remembering that all the while the manager is being asked to rebuild every summer on a small budget he's consistently losing his best players. Since Robinson came in we've lost Moult, Hammell, Lasley, McManus, Kipre, McHugh, Cadden, Alex Rodriguez, Main, Scott, Gillespie & Turnbull.
So, what we're looking for is a manager who can take losing his best players every year, replace them on a budget of a Curly Wurly and a mix-up, not just maintain our Premier League status but challenge for top six and Europe regularly, do well in the cup competitions and not "only" get to the final, and play entertaining football as well.
Yeah, I don't understand why any of that is considered unrealistic at all. Piece of piss really.