Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PantherFanOne

Fox # 1 NFL Coach On Hotseat?

102 posts in this topic

Oh yeah and Philly rested all their starters against the rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kindal Moorehead had 12 starts.. Jenkins had the other ones..http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car/2004_roster.htm

Steve Smith hurt in game 1.

Davis hurt before game 2 in practice.

Foster started 3 games played in 4..

Jenkins played in 4...

I get your point..but Muhammad and Delhomme got them to that point. Not so much the coaching. Why couldnt Fox coach up Deshaun's fumbles? Colbert's decline after 2004, Carter's non-ability to catch a cold. Why couldn't he develop a quarterback? Why couldn't he develop any other defensive lineman after Jenkins left? Fox is a product of consistancy.. between 7-9 and 11-5.. Easily he could have less than 7 win seasons.. 2003 and 2008 could have easily been 8-8 seasons... a good team will win the close ones and they did.

11-5 was 2003 btw too.. Carolina started out 5-0 that season.. lost once then won and lost 3 straigt and then won 3 at the end of the season.. beat the Cardinals by 3.. Lions by 4.. Not exactly on a roll.

Carstens must have been in 2005 when Jenkins went down again.

As for Moose and Jake they surely deserve credit for all they did. But to say it was all them and Fox had nothing to do with it is naive at best. And after looking at 4 sites I found that Foster had 59 carries for 255 yards and no fumbles in 2004. None

And then you kitchen sink and somehow say it is Fox's fault Colbert and Carter weren't good in 2005 and beyond and this is somehow releavent to the discussion in 204 about the job he did. In fact if Colbert did nothing after 2004 but was so great as a rookie that would lend credence to his great coaching job not detract from it.

And you are right about 11-5. Don't see how the difference of one game makes much of a difference. The roll I speak of was winning the last three and then winning in the playoffs. The small margin of victory again reinforces my contention that we didn't have superior players (and some of those were roided up) and didn't have great talent going into 2004. Add in the injuries and again Fox did his best coaching job yet.

You seem to be throwing stuff up on the wall hoping something sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and Philly rested all their starters against the rams.

Actually McNabb did play but didn't play the whole game. And many of their defense and offensive line played well into the second half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carstens must have been in 2005 when Jenkins went down again.

As for Moose and Jake they surely deserve credit for all they did. But to say it was all them and Fox had nothing to do with it is naive at best. And after looking at 4 sites I found that Foster had 59 carries for 255 yards and no fumbles in 2004. None

And then you kitchen sink and somehow say it is Fox's fault Colbert and Carter weren't good in 2005 and beyond and this is somehow releavent to the discussion in 204 about the job he did. In fact if Colbert did nothing after 2004 but was so great as a rookie that would lend credence to his great coaching job not detract from it.

And you are right about 11-5. Don't see how the difference of one game makes much of a difference. The roll I speak of was winning the last three and then winning in the playoffs. The small margin of victory again reinforces my contention that we didn't have superior players (and some of those were roided up) and didn't have great talent going into 2004. Add in the injuries and again Fox did his best coaching job yet.

You seem to be throwing stuff up on the wall hoping something sticks.

No.. everything is looked up it isnt just thrown up on the wall. Fumbles was more referring to his nickname cause that sums up his career.

As far as Colbert, who's to say they didn't like his route running and pedigree from USC and tried to change it? Its apples and oranges.. none of us really know.

It was more questioning how much of that was really Fox is why I brought in develop of future players considering most of those players that got him to the Super Bowl era were drafted by Polian or by Seifert. They were not his own players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the schedule tells the entire tale.

The reason they started 1-7 is because they had to play the good teams like the packers (10-6), Falcons (11-5), Broncos (10-6), Eagles (13-3), chargers (12-4), and seahawks (9-7).

The reason they went 6-2 the 2nd half of the season is because they played the sorry teams like the bucs twice (5-11), the saints (8-8), rams (8-8), 49ers (2-14), and cardinals (6-10).

The only ones who deserve credit for that "brilliant" 2nd half of the season was the schedule makers for backloading all the cupcake teams. Even if they had mixed up the games the end result would have been the same... 7-9. Fox has proven through his whole tenure that he can beat up on the cup cakes but doesnt have what it takes to consistently keep with the big boys.

First of all our loss helped Seahawks to 9-7 instead of 8-8 and beating both the Saints and Rams kept them from being 9-7. So the whole the better team after the fact is somewhat biased. Did you go ahead and look at the schedules of all the other supposed good teams to determine if their record was a function of their schedule as well. After all if Seattle was good at 9-7 and they played Tampa, NO, SF twice, Arizona twice, STL twice, how good were they. The case could be made for a number of team. Denver ended up 10-6 but they played Houston twice, KC twice, NO and Tampa, us, Miami and Tennesee and so forth. There were some good teams like Philly and Atlanta that year but to say that we lost or won because of our schedule is ridiculous even for you.

And remember this isn't a discussion about Fox's tenure this is about his coaching job in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this because I think Fox's fate has already been decided...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this because I think Fox's fate has already been decided...

I agree. I think if we have a winning record this year it will be interesting to see what the Panthers do to spin it. I vote they will lowball him and say it was his decision to go elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all our loss helped Seahawks to 9-7 instead of 8-8 and beating both the Saints and Rams kept them from being 9-7. So the whole the better team after the fact is somewhat biased. Did you go ahead and look at the schedules of all the other supposed good teams to determine if their record was a function of their schedule as well. After all if Seattle was good at 9-7 and they played Tampa, NO, SF twice, Arizona twice, STL twice, how good were they. The case could be made for a number of team. Denver ended up 10-6 but they played Houston twice, KC twice, NO and Tampa, us, Miami and Tennesee and so forth. There were some good teams like Philly and Atlanta that year but to say that we lost or won because of our schedule is ridiculous even for you.

And remember this isn't a discussion about Fox's tenure this is about his coaching job in 2004.

You can do the same thing with all 3 of Foxs winning seasons if you want to go that route. Most of his wins came against bad teams and most of their losses came against good ones. Are you going to down play his accomplishments too?

Seattle was a playoff team for 5 years straight. If you want to bag them for having one subpar 9-7 season thats fine. They were supposed to beat the panthers that year and they did because they were better.

2004 is just a perfect example of Fox's tenure in Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the saints were 4-8 heading in a spiral when the panthers whooped them. Once the saints got on a role the panthers couldnt stop them the last week of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do the same thing with all 3 of Foxs winning seasons if you want to go that route. Most of his wins came against bad teams and most of their losses came against good ones. Are you going to down play his accomplishments too?

Seattle was a playoff team for 5 years straight. If you want to bag them for having one subpar 9-7 season thats fine. They were supposed to beat the panthers that year and they did because they were better.

2004 is just a perfect example of Fox's tenure in Carolina.

Would you downplay the Patriot's 17-0 season because they had a cupcake schedule. In the end it doesn't matter who you play or don't play, the goal is to get into the playoffs. And in 2004 we lost to the Saints in the last game of the year to miss them. For me that will alwys stand as a great turnaround despite Fox haters like you who always denigrate everything he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites