Good thing Jake has had a knack for it...too bad we didn't get the ball last in the Super Bowl (which matters more).
If the Panthers have had the ability to come from behind, which in many cases means waking up offensively, then they had the ability to be playing that way the entire game...
...but they don't, primarily because Fox doesn't mind "getting lucky breaks" as long as he gets a win.
Thus, my frustration with John Fox.
If your team played the entire game like they did during the comebacks, they'd have never been in that position to begin with.
Panthers score a TD...relax.
Other team scores...Panthers wake back up.
Panthers get a field goal...Panthers go back to sleep.
Other team scores a TD...Panthers try to wake up, but go three and out.
Other team gets a field goal...score stays were it is for most of the game.
Panthers score a TD...defense has to try to hold. They do.
Panthers get a field goal.
Jake gets a "come from behind victory."
Play it close. Hope you get a break in the end...that's John Fox's philosophy.
Try to blow a freaking team out and stop relaxing each time you get a "SMALL" freaking lead.
Playing close games isn't Fox's football philosophly but rather a product of his philosophy. Fox wants to run the ball and stop the run. Very simple and straight forward. He also doesn't rely heavily on schemes but rather demands his players to be dominate at their position forcing their will on the opposing team. Player execution is the key to success this style of football and when the players are skilled and execute the team can win any game.
The reason why teams with this philosiphy play a lot of close games or have to come from behind to win is because of the level in which the players are executing and most players excell when the pressure is on the most. The biggest downfalls of this philosiphy are that 1) injuries can kill a team due a drop-off in skill on the depth chart at certain positions 2) in-game adjustments are limited and major in-game problems are hard to overcome.
I, personally, like this philosiphy more than a style that is dependant on scheme. New England is a team that uses a lot of schemes and have found success with it. Their scheme can allow for many games to be blowouts or where their opponent isn't able to adjust to be competetive agaisnt the scheme. However, when New England has played teams like the Panthers, the Steelers, the Ravens or the Giants that don't rely heavily on scheme they have struggled. Last year's Super Bowl is a great example. New England knew exactly what New York was going to do; rush the QB. But none of their schemes or in-game adjustment were able to stop them. The Giants didn't use any type of special scheme to accomplish this. The Giants' players used their skill to will their gameplan onto the Patriots.
Both philosiphies can produce wins and loses and both have produced Super Bowl champions. Probably the biggest advantage of relying on scheme is that a team can be more consistant throughout a season as well as year to year.
So I don't feel it is fair to blame the coaches for relaxing with small leads. Fox's style doesn't change because of the score. If anything, Fox pushes his philosiphy of running the ball even harder when they are in the lead, either by 3 points or 20 points. And if the players execute in that situation then the lead will increase.