Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2004 season and the Fox contrast


The Other Colbert

Recommended Posts

All I can think about lately is the contrast between how Fox dictated the team in 2004 and present.

We all remember the season that started out 1-7, much of everyone fearing another 1-15 record. But then Fox lit a fire under our players, many of which were not originally first stringers. The fight and will of the team to come back and just barely miss the playoffs.

Wishful thinking, is that Fox can do the same with this team. Though the season is young, I don't see any chemistry with Fox and his team. The players no longer seem 'hungry' or play with a chip on their shoulder. Fox cannot be the only one to blame, but what will it take?

The contrast between Fox's ability to inspire in the 2004 season and present is worrying. I just wanted to see what your opinions are on how things between then and now went wrong.

This is my first post, so be gentle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's been a LOT of points beaten to death on this forum, but the 1-7 start in 04 doesn't seem to be one of them. it may not mean a whole lot by itself, as it'll depend - as you said - on fox's ability to light a fire under the players.

but what it means for the fans is we know there's still at least some semblance of hope for the season. we're a looooong way from 1-7. :D

good first post. stick around, we need legit huddle posters :cheers2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha thanks :cheers2:

It's just troubling because last year with our 12-4 record everyone in the general NFL world considered Fox to be among one of the more elite, veteran, and smart coaches in the league. But its funny how these people's views change from season to season. I cannot dispute them because his inability to put back-to-back winning seasons together is strange (an understatement).

Remember in 2006 when we beat the Giants 23-0. Our players executed perfectly and the players on the Giants even admitted to being out coached. I cant remember if it was Shockey or Barber. But what happened to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can think about lately is the contrast between how Fox dictated the team in 2004 and present.

We all remember the season that started out 1-7, much of everyone fearing another 1-15 record. But then Fox lit a fire under our players, many of which were not originally first stringers. The fight and will of the team to come back and just barely miss the playoffs.

Wishful thinking, is that Fox can do the same with this team. Though the season is young, I don't see any chemistry with Fox and his team. The players no longer seem 'hungry' or play with a chip on their shoulder. Fox cannot be the only one to blame, but what will it take?

The contrast between Fox's ability to inspire in the 2004 season and present is worrying. I just wanted to see what your opinions are on how things between then and now went wrong.

This is my first post, so be gentle.

Worth remembering that his "fire lighting" of that season came with eight games already gone, and half of game number nine already played.

It was halftime of the game against the 49ers, at the time one of the worst teams in the league, and we were losing. Fox blew his stack in the locker room, and the rest was history.

While I'm generally all for restraint and continually caution against early panic, I'd like to hope that if such a moment were to come this season, it would come a little sooner :sosp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...