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!

     

John Fox's record against >.500 teams: Below Average

frash.exe

By frash.exe,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

frash.exe Apprentice

frash.exe

Posted
Posted

When comparing current head coaches who've coached on the same team longer than 16 games, or one NFL regular season here's how the W/L record ranks out. Keep in mind three long tenured and highly successful HCs, Mike Holmgren, Mike Shanahan and Tony Dungy retired just last season and I didn't include them. Even without those heavy hitters, Fox still looks lukewarm compared to the rest of the league. This includes any playoff games played. Of course this isn't the sole metric you should use when evaluating a head coach, but at the very least it does give you an idea of how well they prepare their team against good competition.

60.5%-Bill Belichick (52-34)

50%-Mike Tomlin (9-9)

47.6%-Sean Payton (10-11)

44.4%-Mike Smith (4-5)

42.2%-Tom Coughlin (19-26)

42%-Andy Reid (34-47)

41.7%-John Harbaugh (5-7)

41.2%-Wade Phillips (7-10)

40%-Jim Zorn (4-6)

39.4%-Lovie Smith (13-20)

38.1%-Jeff Fisher (40-65)

37.5%-Jack Del Rio (18-30)

---------36.5%------LEAGUE AVERAGE-----------

36.4%-Brad Childress (8-14)

35.3%-Norv Turner (6-11)

34.5%-John Fox (20-38)

33.3%-Ken Whisenhunt (9-18)

32%-Mike McCarthy (8-17)

29.6%-Marvin Lewis (14-34-1)

24%-Gary Kubiak (6-19)

22.2%-Tom Cable (2-7)

22.2%-Tony Sparano (2-7)

8%-Dick Jauron (2-23)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PantherBrew Newbie

PantherBrew

Posted
Posted

Well, if he sucks this bad against below average teams, and overall he has a winning record. I havent looked up stats, but he must absolotly own the teams with a record over .500. Which, I would believe to be more important as far as playoff positioning and tiebreakers.

Also, does this data take into account the teams final record that season, or the record of the teams when we played them. For ex. If you play a team week three that is 1-2 and lose does that count as the team being a below .500 team even if that team ended up being 11-5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyberjag Newbie

Cyberjag

Posted
Posted

Well, if he sucks this bad against below average teams, and overall he has a winning record. I havent looked up stats, but he must absolotly own, the teams with a record over .500. Which, I would believe to be more important as far as playoff positioning and tiebreakers.

Also, does this data take into account the teams final record that season, or the record of the teams when we played them. For ex. If you play a team week three that is 1-2 and lose does that count as the team being a below .500 team even if that team ended up being 11-5?

Let's not get mired down in stats, ok? This thread is about how Fox sucks, and only stats that support that argument will be listened to. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PantherBrew Newbie

PantherBrew

Posted
Posted

Let's not get mired down in stats, ok? This thread is about how Fox sucks, and only stats that support that argument will be listened to. ;)

Haha, RB usually has a compelling argument for most of his threads. Whether or not I agree with him, I can usually appreciate his thread. But this is not some of his best work. No offense, RB :lurk5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
natty Newbie

natty

Posted
Posted

Well I just LOVE walking into a thread and disagreeing with the OP in one sentence with little or no counter point at all and expect people to agree with me

/natty

Well it was 2 in the morning and I was going to bed, sorry I didn't write you a dissertation.

Record against >.500 teams can be taken different ways - you don't say which. >.500 at the time they play? Or >.500 over the season? I assume the former, which means it's entirely based on who the teams played before them. That might carry some weight if you only take data from the 2nd half of seasons but to count games played in week 2 means nothing. The data looks like it could mean something because Belichick, who we all know is an outstanding coach, is at the top and assume the 'heavy-hitters' you mention are there too. But it really doesn't mean much at all. Who cares what a team's record is during the season? All that matters is what it is in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • DaveThePanther2008
      Panthers OLB Pat Jones II makes bold claim about team's defense

      By DaveThePanther2008 · Posted

      It's not impossible to go from worst to first.  We kept Evero because anyone in there right mind knew our defense was destroyed by injuries, not the scheme.  Evero has been given a plethora of talent between free agency and the draft, not to mention getting DB back. I fully expect our defense to be very good.  I have no reason to think Jones would say something like that unless he truly felt like that.   
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Canes vs Panthers Rd 3 Gm3 8pm

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      We would’ve played Florida and lost in the 1st instead of the 3rd round.  Montreal would have been the 8 seed.
    • Icege
      PFF ranks the 2025 starting QBs

      By Icege · Posted

      I can't get behind a purely subjective re-draft as a method of defining "top-10 QB" status. That invites bias based on vibes/hypotheticals and can ignore actual on-field performance. You and others have said that Bryce has to be a top-10 QB to justify the pick. That's a high bar, which I'm not against, but we need a clear, consistent way to measure it. When I bring up metrics that Bryce has registered in the top-10 in like BTT%, P2S ratio, catchable deep ball rate, etc... they're waved off as either irrelevant or the expected baseline performance. Meanwhile, volume stats like passing yards or win-loss records, both of which depend heavily on roster talent, health, and coaching, are treated as definitive. That's where the inconsistency kicks in. If no performance metric ever counts in his favor and the answer is always going to be "he should be doing that," then we're not evaluating him... we're just holding him to a curve he can't win against. If this is really about performance standards, then let's define them. But if it's just about confirming prior takes based on height and weight, then let's call it what is it and stop pretending that this is a football analysis discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...