Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

I'm still a John Fox Guy. What is wrong with me.


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#31 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 28 September 2010 - 07:53 PM

if you has asked me 6 weeks ago, i would still be a fan of fox as well. i have defended him for a long time, and i am scared of the possibility of our next coach being a failure, but this season has just been the last straw that broke the camel's back.

there comes a time after 9 years when you think that a coach may finally learn something from his mistakes, but it seems that coach fox never will.

foxball works pretty good when your team is able to run the ball, and play good defense, but coach fox just seems lost when our team cant do these things well. someone who is in the exclusive club of NFL headcoaches has to be able to find success in different ways if your original gameplan fails.

#32 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 07:53 PM

Put week 1, week 2, and week 3 in a vacuum, and that is what he is saying. The top 5 passers which were different each week had those records.


Good eye.
Didn't even see this post.
Glad you did.

#33 ladypanther

ladypanther

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 5,273 posts
  • LocationWNC

Posted 28 September 2010 - 08:07 PM

Not judging Fox by this year.....but all previous years. We need another HC. Fox is not a good talent evaluator, is not a good game manager, is too conservative, predictable, cannot make adjustments, is often out-coached, and hard to tell if he can't pick good assistant coaches or if he just ties their hands. He looked as if he started here well, don't know what happened. It was obvious years ago that he would not build and coach a championship team. I think JR is cleaning up Foxy's mess, setting this team up for the future.

#34 replive

replive

    It's a process

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 08:16 PM

well, we're neither top 5 in passing or rushing, and at the current pace I don't see us getting anywhere close there, so the fact that fox runs too much (even though people have been complaining he/davidson have abandoned the run too quickly) is moot and the debate of a "passing v rushing" league is irrelevant to the topic.

to address the op:
"1. This team won't quit on him they always seem too fight for Foxx."

I don't know that this is the case this year. There has been some signs pointing to the fact that some players (specifically, smitty) are unhappy with the way things are run. i hope you're right, but i doubt it.

2. "I blame this on jerry he seem like he is setting Fox up to Fail and doesn't care how it hurts the future of his team."

jerry certainly deserves some blame, but i think it's because he DOES care about the future of the team that he is being cheap/playing young guys. yes, i believe this season is a throwaway and a rebuilding year, but i think it may benefit us in the future.

3. The coaches before Fox made major blunders. Dom trading 2 1st round for gilbert. George S gave Jeff Lewis the staring job and got rid of fan favorite Stevie B before the season. Both cost the team a few bad years in a row.
Fox has yet to make those kind of mistake.

playing jake when he was clearly done wasn't a blunder? (this is assuming he actually has the power to name the starting qb). using a 1st on brown hasn't panned out quite yet either (not saying brown doesn't have the potential, but he hasn't quite proven himself yet. it may be hurney's pick more than fox's, though). not going to argue that either of these are as bad as the gilbert trade or lewis over stevie b (though steve was an older qb, was he not? i don't think he had many years left.)

"4. Jerry again is going at this season all wrong. If you have a coach that is not going too be here why have him coach the youngest team in the leauge. What happen is you fire Fox. You set your teamback 2 or 3 years because they have too learn a new system and what the new coaches want too. "

the next system may not be all that different from what we're running now. i think the defense remains for the most part unchanged after fox leaves (this is by no means guaranteed, though). the offense may change more dramatically, but i still think we'll stick with what works and what we have the people for (ie power running and play action). i'm sure (or hope) that the offense will be more complex and less predictable, and that bodes well for us.

i think it is time to try someone new at hc and hopefully change the playcalling without changing the offensive philosophy (since that's what we're built for).

we still have a season to play, though.

#35 ...

...

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 08:26 PM

1. This team won't quit on him they always seem too fight for Fox.


Yeah, like Peppers and Jenkins.

#36 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,115 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:12 PM

This is about what helps you win games, more.
When your team is dominating in the run game, it's helping your team win more so than when your team is dominating in the pass game.
The facts are right there in front of you.


Yes, FACT: no team has clinched anything this season and it is way too early to assume running teams are better just because a team rushes for 200 yards one week. We'll see if the smash mouth Chiefs are still undefeated week 8.

FACT: just because a QB/RB was a weekly leader doesn't mean the team he was on passes by design or runs by design. For instance, you can have a running team whose QB leads the league in passing for a week because they're playing the Vikings defense and they got nothing on the ground. Conversely, you can have a passing team whose RB just happens to find the holes in the front seven defense one week and puts up 150.

FACT: Your "facts" are basically a preemptive conclusion of surface analysis with no substantial evidence.


I'll give you a real fact, I'll tell you last year the best passing teams outperformed the best running teams 59-21 vs 41-39, and just that's a better review than looking up top performers. What's that about dominating in the run game being better than dominating in the passing game again?

#37 Grammer

Grammer

    Troll. Ignore Me.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,371 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:20 PM

Yes, FACT: no team has clinched anything this season and it is way too early to assume running teams are better just because a team rushes for 200 yards one week. We'll see if the smash mouth Chiefs are still undefeated week 8.

FACT: just because a QB/RB was a weekly leader doesn't mean the team he was on passes by design or runs by design. For instance, you can have a running team whose QB leads the league in passing for a week because they're playing the Vikings defense and they got nothing on the ground. Conversely, you can have a passing team whose RB just happens to find the holes in the front seven defense one week and puts up 150.

FACT: Your "facts" are basically a preemptive conclusion of surface analysis with no substantial evidence.


I'll give you a real fact, I'll tell you last year the best passing teams outperformed the best running teams 59-21 vs 41-39, and just that's a better review than looking up top performers. What's that about dominating in the run game being better than dominating in the passing game again?


hahaha god damn son

#38 Grammer

Grammer

    Troll. Ignore Me.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,371 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:22 PM

heres another one... the saints and the colts were 31st and 32nd (respectively) in the league at rushing last year, yet they both made the superbowl

#39 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:40 PM

heres another one... the saints and the colts were 31st and 32nd (respectively) in the league at rushing last year, yet they both made the superbowl


Too bad that's not true.
Sorry, Charlie.
In fact, the Saints were only a couple spots behind us.

#40 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:46 PM

Yes, FACT: no team has clinched anything this season and it is way too early to assume running teams are better just because a team rushes for 200 yards one week. We'll see if the smash mouth Chiefs are still undefeated week 8.

FACT: just because a QB/RB was a weekly leader doesn't mean the team he was on passes by design or runs by design. For instance, you can have a running team whose QB leads the league in passing for a week because they're playing the Vikings defense and they got nothing on the ground. Conversely, you can have a passing team whose RB just happens to find the holes in the front seven defense one week and puts up 150.

FACT: Your "facts" are basically a preemptive conclusion of surface analysis with no substantial evidence.


I'll give you a real fact, I'll tell you last year the best passing teams outperformed the best running teams 59-21 vs 41-39, and just that's a better review than looking up top performers. What's that about dominating in the run game being better than dominating in the passing game again?


Dur Dur Dur.
Nice argument you got there.
It's just a shame two of your "FACTS" are stupid opinionated responses on your part...please.
If your going to bring nonsense like that on here, at least not try to sound like 6th grade retard while delivering it.

Outperformed?
Please.
Your not even taking into account the quality of the teams, which was "SUPRISE" the same garbage you threw at me!!

What's that you were saying again? :rolleyes:

#41 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:54 PM

OP, you're like a battered wife that refuses to leave her husband because she still loves him. There's other guys out there honey, just pack up your poo and GTFO already.

e

My point was not too say Fox should stay my point was if it's going too happen why not do it before the season instead of letting your young team learn from a coaching staff that won't be here after the season. Jerry is setting us up for a few bad season instead of just one.

#42 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 28 September 2010 - 09:57 PM

Yeah, like Peppers and Jenkins.



Yeah because 2 player make a whole team.

#43 ...

...

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:10 PM

Two examples doesn't mean they're the only ones. Fox's boring, lifeless schemes cause lots of boring, lifeless players.

#44 koolkatluke

koolkatluke

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,847 posts
  • LocationNonya

Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:35 PM

Two examples doesn't mean they're the only ones. Fox's boring, lifeless schemes cause lots of boring, lifeless players.



You must have just became a fan. The history is that no matter how bad the season going or how many injuries. The team would always end on a high note. They never quit and always fight too the end. Say what you want about boring the team never tuned him out or didn't give their best effort.

#45 Grammer

Grammer

    Troll. Ignore Me.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,371 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:45 PM

Too bad that's not true.
Sorry, Charlie.
In fact, the Saints were only a couple spots behind us.


yeah my bad, colts were still dead last though


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com