Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fox # 1 NFL Coach On Hotseat?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#61 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,963 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 01:57 PM

You mean the same team that basically started the Super Bowl squad plus Mark Fields who came back from Hodgkins? Smith broke his leg in game 1 vs Gb, Jenkins went down but I believe it was Moorehead that tookover in the middle, and Davis injuries that finally derailed his career? Deshaun "Fumble" Foster was hurt. Goings had a few years in the NFL when he took over after four rbs had went down. Gamble,Wharton started as a rookies and Colbert was forced into it as Steve was hurt. Other than that, 19/22 from the Super bowl squad started that first game.

It was the year that Delhomme almost singlehandly threw them into the playoffs with Muhammad. He'd repeat this in 2005 with Smith.


I was impressed with Fox that year b/c he did show a half time adjustment and then adjusted his entire team the 2nd half. He got aggressive on defense....and it made a huge difference.

as far as Jake, that was the start of tunnel vision Delhomme. I'll give Jake some credit in 04 but Smitty deserves the bulk for 05. Smith had like 800+ yards after the catch that year. That really helps pad a QBs stats.

Edited by CRA, 25 August 2010 - 02:04 PM.


#62 PantherFanOne

PantherFanOne

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,152 posts
  • LocationRock Hill S.C.

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:03 PM

If John Fox is not retained by the Panthers and no HC position is presently available he could possible go to the Gaints as their DC,especiallly if Tom Coughlin stays as HC and present DC Perry Fewell bombs out.

If one will remember, the Giants were enamored with the way Fox for five years ran their defense with a charismatic flair, triggering intense loyalty.

How enamored were they? After going 7-9 in 2001, there was discussion about firing Jim Fassel — only one year removed from a Super Bowl appearance — and promoting Fox in order to keep him in the organization. Just saying.

#63 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:06 PM

Two words.....cupcake schedule. Panthers only played 1 team with a winning record the 2nd half of 2004 (who we lost to). We had more than enough to talent to defeat those pathetic teams even with injuries. One of the most overrated coaching jobs in NFL history.


When you take a schedule that is apparently tough enough to make you 1-7 and turn it around to 6-2, it really doesn't matter who you play. There are always tough and easy games every year. The mark of a good team is beating opponents they should beat.

We played Atlanta who went to the NFC championship that year. We played Tampa twice, NO twice, St Louis, Arizona, and San Fran in the second half.

Anyone will tell you that divisional games are difficult regardless of the records. St Louis was 8-8 and while Arizona was 6-10 and San Fran 2-14, they certainly didn't roll over. One of the Rams 8 victories for example was against Philly who went 13-3 that year. So really schedule tells a much less tale that you obviously think.

#64 ElkinPanthersFan

ElkinPanthersFan

    Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:09 PM

I was impressed with Fox that year b/c he did show a half time adjustment and then adjusted his entire team the 2nd half. He got aggressive on defense....and it made a huge difference.

as far as Jake, that was the start of tunnel vision Delhomme. I'll give Jake some credit in 04 but Smitty deserves the bulk for 05. Smith had like 800+ yards after the catch that year. That really helps pad a QBs stats.


Smith's YAC yards in 2005 were crazy. One thing we do agree about is that this team plays much better when they actually get aggressive on defense. They have threwout his tenure here. They tend to get aggressive when they have little to play for, ie out of the playoffs, and the defense really picks up. I wish they would translate this when they are competitive, however, they just to into conservative mode. Play not to lose the game, rather than playing to win it.

#65 Razeyfingers

Razeyfingers

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,651 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:16 PM

Yep putting the fear into a team like that changes many dynamics in a game. Fear has to be the most powerful tool in the coach's arsenal. It's a wonder why we dont gamble with it more but Fox doesnt seem to ever like going down that road. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't know any better . . its simply more fun to watch.

#66 Carolina Fan

Carolina Fan

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:23 PM

Only coach id rather have is gruden :)

#67 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:32 PM

You mean the same team that basically started the Super Bowl squad plus Mark Fields who came back from Hodgkins? Smith broke his leg in game 1 vs Gb, Jenkins went down but I believe it was Moorehead that tookover in the middle, and Davis injuries that finally derailed his career? Deshaun "Fumble" Foster was hurt. Goings had a few years in the NFL when he took over after four rbs had went down. Gamble,Wharton started as a rookies and Colbert was forced into it as Steve was hurt. Other than that, 19/22 from the Super bowl squad started that first game.

It was the year that Delhomme almost singlehandly threw them into the playoffs with Muhammad. He'd repeat this in 2005 with Smith.


Yeah that lost 10 starters to IR and had another 6 players miss some portions of the season. And it wasn't Moorhead but Carstens who came in for Jenkins.
And they lost the first game, won the second and then lost 6 in a row after the injuries kept piling on. It wasn't that everyone was hurt week 1 just that they didn't have time to recover from one injury before another one hit.

As for Superbowl team, we went 10-6 in 2003 with a bunch of last minute comebacks by jake. It wasn't as great a team as people made it out to be. We just got on a roll at the end of the season.

Edited by panthers55, 25 August 2010 - 02:42 PM.


#68 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:40 PM

Smith's YAC yards in 2005 were crazy. One thing we do agree about is that this team plays much better when they actually get aggressive on defense. They have threwout his tenure here. They tend to get aggressive when they have little to play for, ie out of the playoffs, and the defense really picks up. I wish they would translate this when they are competitive, however, they just to into conservative mode. Play not to lose the game, rather than playing to win it.


Yeah like how they only played that way in 2005 when they were out of the playoffs and ended up 3rd in defense.

And again in 2006 when they were battling at 6-6 (were 6-4 until they lost 2 tough ones) then Jake went down for 3 games and Weinke was awful and they ended up 7th in total defense and went 8-8 for the year.

Oh wait....................

Nevermind................

#69 ElkinPanthersFan

ElkinPanthersFan

    Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:48 PM

Yeah that lost 10 starters to IR and had another 6 players miss some portions of the season. And it wasn't Moorhead but Carstens who came in for Jenkins.
And they lost the first game, won the second and then lost 6 in a row after the injuries kept piling on. It wasn't that everyone was hurt week 1 just that they didn't have time to recover from one injury before another one hit.

As for Superbowl team, we went 10-6 in 2003 with a bunch of last minute comebacks by jake in. It wasn't as great as people made it out to be. We just got on a roll at the end of the season.



Kindal Moorehead had 12 starts.. Jenkins had the other ones..http://www.pro-footb...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.

#70 PantherBob

PantherBob

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 03:39 PM

When you take a schedule that is apparently tough enough to make you 1-7 and turn it around to 6-2, it really doesn't matter who you play. There are always tough and easy games every year. The mark of a good team is beating opponents they should beat.

We played Atlanta who went to the NFC championship that year. We played Tampa twice, NO twice, St Louis, Arizona, and San Fran in the second half.

Anyone will tell you that divisional games are difficult regardless of the records. St Louis was 8-8 and while Arizona was 6-10 and San Fran 2-14, they certainly didn't roll over. One of the Rams 8 victories for example was against Philly who went 13-3 that year. So really schedule tells a much less tale that you obviously think.


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.

#71 PantherBob

PantherBob

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 03:46 PM

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

#72 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 04:02 PM

Kindal Moorehead had 12 starts.. Jenkins had the other ones..http://www.pro-footb...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.

#73 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 04:05 PM

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.

#74 ElkinPanthersFan

ElkinPanthersFan

    Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 04:08 PM

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.

Edited by ElkinPanthersFan, 25 August 2010 - 04:14 PM.


#75 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,963 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 25 August 2010 - 04:26 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com