He's right.
Look to the barn, FSU, Nebraska, USCw, or UTe for instruction on how short-term thinking turns out. UTw was in this category until they hired Sarkisian. aTm was up until Elko. He's had a great start and presents a good front. But so did Jimbo. Let's see how that one plays out.
At the staff level, it's a balancing act. You want a little turnover to keep ideas fresh. But not so much as to de-stabilize recruiting and the HC's governing philosophy.
At the HC level, forever chasing the newest shiniest play-toy is a fool's errand.
The salient question is far too often un-answered when the firing decision is made. You're not happy with the current coach. I get it. Nobody likes 7-5 / 8-4 woulda coulda shoulda.
Who (not named Anybody) would be a stone-cold certain upgrade significant enough to justify the inevitable exodus of the current roster and the buyout of the existing coach and his staff and the buyout of the new coach's contract and the buyouts of contracts of any assistants poached from other schools and would realistically come?
In my experience, the most common response is vowels, Rs and Ws.
IOW, it's godamighty expensive to fire a coach and hire a new one. You best be sure you get that call right. If you miss, you're mortgaging your future for a time frame measured in decades.