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

    • 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.
    • Just to be clear: I'm not "downplaying" the talent around Bryce... I'm qualifying it. There's a big difference between saying, "we finally have building blocks that we're actually developing" and "we've done enough to say this is a finished product, NO EXCUSES!" It's possible to believe that the 2023 situation was bad and to believe that the current state, while improved, is still incomplete. That's not inconsistency; that's nuance. As for the footwork stuff, again, I've seen the same clips as others. The claim that Bryce is hopping to see over the line just isn't one I've seen corroborated by analysts or tape breakdown. "Both feet off of the ground to throw" happens a ton for QBs (ex: Mahomes, Rodgers, Purdy, etc.), especially when improvising. You're right that there were some encouraging flashes from Bryce last season, and it's nice to finally hear that after so much time was spent pretending otherwise. I'm not arguing that Bryce is elite, I'm just asking that we evaluate him using consistent, measurable criteria to determine his status as a top-10 QB... whether it's via 3rd down %, red zone efficiency, turnover-worthy plays, or yes, big-time throws (which, by the way, has been a valid part of QB evaluation across the league for years even if it wasn't used here during Kyle Allen or Teddy Bridgewater's years. For reference: Allen had 20 BTT at a 3.9% rate. Teddy had 17 BTT at 3.3%). Like you, I'm hoping to see a competent, entertaining offense this season. That's a baseline we can all root for, even if we don't have the same baseline for what makes a QB top-10 (which, to be fair, is what this conversation has been about... though I respect the attempt to reframe it).
    • I am optimistic that we might be on the verge of fielding a sustainable offense finally. The Bryce stats listed above are definitely encouraging. I don’t want to overly inflate this and disregard the previous 1 and a half seasons of production from Bryce and “cherry pick” stats but do hope the benching turns into an inflection point in his trajectory.      Lots of excitement heading into this season. 
×
×
  • Create New...