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 saved his job...


firstdayfan

Recommended Posts

I honestly don't care what kind of comments are made about this but in my opinion Fox has saved his job already. He showed faith in Jake and Jake has played well the last few weeks. He has kept this team together and many of the guys who said he has lost this team are completely insane. Look at Buffalo, Cleveland, and Oakland...those are examples of teams where the coach has lost the players. Since the bye week we are 4-2 and had it not been for a couple of turnovers in the Buffalo game we would be 5-1 and 5-4 overall. We have beaten the Cardinals and the Falcons in that stretch and gave probably the best team in the NFC a run for their money on the road.

This team is playing hard and they are playing tough. Fox can't be blamed for Jake having a poor start or special team guys not being in the right place. He has turned the defense around from last season and finally established a running game that is feared around the league. When this team plays like it did last weekend they are tough to beat. I understand that he is conservative and he doesn't make adjustments quick enough or at all but one thing is for sure...his teams always play hard and we generally have a chance to win at the end of most games.

If we fire Fox then we have to start from scratch, if we keep him and let him go out and spend some cash then we might as easily make a trip to the playoffs next season. And I'm not saying that the playoffs aren't completely out of the question this season. Just consider what would happen if Atlanta falls flat on their face without Turner then we could be looking at a showdown with the Giants for the other wildcard spot. The saints will probably rest their players in week 17 so that should be a win (a cheap one, but a win). So that means if we can beat the Dolphins this week then we have the Jets and Bucs before we probably get beat by the Patriots (although they aren't nearly as good as they used to be) then we face Minnesota at home which will be tough and then a big showdown with the Giants that I think we can win. Then the Gimmie at home against the Saints. I'm thinking we could finish 9-7 and just squeek into the playoffs, and if not then we came pretty damn close.

Bottom line is that Fox saved his job because he has his team playing very well right now and we still have a legitimate shot at the playoffs. I don't care what happen in the first three games of the season we aren't a franchise that should fire coaches after a 7 or better win season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't care what kind of comments are made about this but in my opinion Fox has saved his job already...

Well, you've got to believe that there are five games left that are winnable the way they're playing now....

1. Miami

2. Jets

3. Bucs

4. Giants

5. Saints (they will be resting players)

9-7 could be just enough to keep him here another year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The remaining schedule:

Dolphins (winnable)

@ Jets (winnable)

Buccaneers (very winnable)

@ Patriots (unlikely)

Vikings (highly unlikely, unless Father Time catches up to Favre)

@ Giants (seems winnable now, didn't a few weeks ago)

Saints (depends; are they going for 16-0 or resting for the playoffs)

The Bucs game is the only one I'd feel confident about. The rest are still up in the air for me.

There's enough winnable games there to make 7-9 reachable, though not necessarily likely. You then have to go back to the question of how many wins saves his job (or how many losses sinks it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The remaining schedule:

Dolphins (winnable)

@ Jets (winnable)

Buccaneers (very winnable)

@ Patriots (unlikely)

Vikings (highly unlikely, unless Father Time catches up to Favre)

@ Giants (seems winnable now, didn't a few weeks ago)

Saints (depends; are they going for 16-0 or resting for the playoffs)

The Bucs game is the only one I'd feel confident about. The rest are still up in the air for me.

There's enough winnable games there to make 7-9 reachable, though not necessarily likely. You then have to go back to the question of how many wins saves his job (or how many losses sinks it).

A win against the Vikings is more likely than a win against the Patriots, IMO. I think both are going to be more winnable the closer they get, just like with the Giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A win against the Vikings is more likely than a win against the Patriots, IMO. I think both are going to be more winnable the closer they get, just like with the Giants.

I'd feel better about the Pats game if it weren't in Foxboro.

We did okay against the Falcons this week, but I'm not sure the Falcons are as good a team as people thought they were. Against better teams, minus both Jordan Gross and Thomas Davis, it's hard to be confident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vikings - will be a tough game but home field might give enough for a W

Pats - their weaknesses line up well with our strengths

Giants - aren't showing they're an elite team that were to start off

Saints - we gave them a run for their money in the dome, again home field could prove to be the difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach shouldn't be fired after a season with 7 wins? What is it about that number that's so f'ing sacred to people here? We were TWELVE AND FOUR last season and returned the same team. Am I missing something here? This team should be a Super Bowl contender, not a pussy 7-9 team. 7-9 is worse than being awful, at least people talk about your team when you're truly terrible. 7-9? Nobody cares about you. You're not good, you're bad, but not horrible.

We've never had back-to-back winning seasons in John Fox's eight years here. We're practically guaranteed to not have one this season either. That would mean that Fox wouldn't have a chance at back-to-back winning seasons until 2011. That's an entire decade without back-to-back winning seasons and not a single playoff win since January 2006. We wouldn't have a chance at a playoff win until January 2011. That's five years.

Going from 12-4 to 7-9 with the same team, going a full decade without back-to-back winning seasons, going a half-decade without a playoff WIN....THAT is all it takes for Fox to get another year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vikes have the Williams Wall on the line, Jared Allen off the edge. Antoine Winfield can do at least a passable job of covering Smith, especially with the pass rush they'll likely be able to generate on a depleted Panthers O-line.

There's a good chance we'll be minus Brad Hoover too. And on the flip side, with their O-line, and with Thomas Davis out, I'm not liking our chances of stopping Adrian Peterson.

Vikes game just seems like the least winnable of the bunch to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach shouldn't be fired after a season with 7 wins? What is it about that number that's so f'ing sacred to people here? We were TWELVE AND FOUR last season and returned the same team. Am I missing something here? This team should be a Super Bowl contender, not a pussy 7-9 team. 7-9 is worse than being awful, at least people talk about your team when you're truly terrible. 7-9? Nobody cares about you. You're not good, you're bad, but not horrible.

We've never had back-to-back winning seasons in John Fox's eight years here. We're practically guaranteed to not have one this season either. That would mean that Fox wouldn't have a chance at back-to-back winning seasons until 2011. That's an entire decade without back-to-back winning seasons and not a single playoff win since January 2006. We wouldn't have a chance at a playoff win until January 2011. That's five years.

Going from 12-4 to 7-9 with the same team, going a full decade without back-to-back winning seasons, going a half-decade without a playoff WIN....THAT is all it takes for Fox to get another year?

It's almost 500, and since Fox has hit the 7-9 mark in most of his "off" seasons (8-8 in one) it's expected that as long as he doesn't get any worse, he could be safe.

May not like it, but there is logic to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The bottom line is we saw long stretches this season where T-Mac wasn't even targeted.  He had games where he went an entire half without seeing a pass thrown his way, and it lead to a bunch of games with 5 or less targets.  If he's healthy and we're not up a stupid amount and only running the ball, I can't see him having more than a game or two next year with 5 or less targets. We were also only 22nd this year in pass attempts, and that was with a rookie #1 and no legitimate 2nd option for half the season.  And even then, we were only 46 pass attempts above 31st place. If we go into next season with T-Mac improved in his 2nd season and a healthy Coker for 17 games, there is absolutely no reason for us to not throw it more.  That right away increases both of their target totals without sacrificing any targets from each other or other players, add in them taking targets from the TEs and RBs on top of that, and your argument just doesn't hold water anymore. You can't look at targets/yards in a vacuum and think next year Coker just takes some from T-Mac.  You have to look at the team as a whole and our situations this year and then project what will happen next year. If he's healthy for 17 games, I'd bet my life savings that T-Mac sees increases across the board, targets/catches/yards/TDs.   Just as Coker will also see career highs in all categories, it's not one vs the other, it's shifting offensive strategy given our personnel, which next year will be much better for our passing game (QB issues aside).
    • C'mon now.... First, you can't switch up your argument once someone points out a major flaw in your point. You're saying we shouldn't expect a big increase in targets/yards for T-Mac, but then shift to talking about averages with Chase when I point out the significant leap he took there once you factor in his missing games.  He saw an increase in targets in 5 less games, averages aside, he saw a significant increase in targets in his 2nd season, what he then did with those targets is actually irrelevant in this discussion. Puka seeing no increase is pointless, as he saw such an absurd amount of targets for a rookie, it's near impossible to see an increase. But the real issue in this post is that you think I'm proving your point by showing how Waddle had to share targets with Hill. Tyreek Hill was a 1st team All Pro who was 2nd in the NFL in yards that season. If you think Jaylen Waddle sharing targets with a 1st team All Pro and a future HOFer is even remotely in the same category as T-Mac needing to share targets with Coker... then you are certifiably insane, lol. If anything, you could make the argument that Coker is to Waddle as T-Mac is to Hill in that discussion (which would then lead to a serious increase in targets/yards for T-Mac).  But even that is insane, as neither T-Mac or Coker will be as good as Hill and Waddle respectively that season.  I love both of their potential, but c'mon now, T-Mac isn't getting 119 catches for 1,700 yards and Coker isn't getting 117 for 1,350 next season.
×
×
  • Create New...