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!

     

We threw 41 times. The John Fox irony: "Too agressive?".


PantherFanForLife

Recommended Posts

Irony #1: I know I'm not alone when I say I got sick and tired of John Fox's conservative coaching style years ago. In the last year of his contract, there have been spurts where he finally starts coaching like most of us have been asking him to for years.

Irony #2: Don't get your hopes up for a repeat. Even though it worked, according to his press-conference, John Fox believes Sunday's play-calling was "too risky" and thus too aggressive! WHAT THE f**k?

I thought that call on 4th down was the correct call but in his press conference he said he wishes he didn't have to do that. And do what Fox? You would have kicked a field goal and still needed a touchdown. That was the correct call and it could have very well been a touchdown.

So knowing that he believes last Sunday was "too aggressive" what are the chances we will continue this? Will we go back to conservative Fox ball where we pass 15-20 times a game max? What are the chances we are going to see another game where we pass 41 times this season?

Do you believe that going back to passing 15-20 times per game is a mistake and a regression in our passing game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irony #1 I thought that call on 4th down was the correct call but in his press conference he said he wishes he didn't have to do that. And do what Fox? You would have kicked a field goal and still needed a touchdown. That was the correct call and it could have very well been a touchdown.

He meant that he would rather not be put in fourth down situations, as in get the TD before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't the only thing he was referring to though when he said we took too many risks.

And I don't consider that a risk at all in that situation.

It was obviously the right call and even he is saying that. What he would like is to have scored the TD on 3rd down and not have to go for it on 4th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't the only thing he was referring to though when he said we took too many risks.

And I don't consider that a risk at all in that situation.

And how do you know what he meant beyond the obvious meaning?

I wish I could see straight into a coach's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he threw 41 and completed 68% of them I do think it has alot to do with confidence in the QB. You won't win without consistent play in that department. One reason we threw so many times is because we can't run. but we kept trying it which was the key to keeping the D honest. i think i just went on a tangent. nevermind :leaving:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he threw 41 and completed 68% of them I do think it has alot to do with confidence in the QB. You won't win without consistent play in that department. One reason we threw so many times is because we can't run. but we kept trying it which was the key to keeping the D honest. i think i just went on a tangent. nevermind :leaving:

Yeah, I agree, but we shouldn't stop doing that even when our run game starts working. That's been the biggest problem with this coach and this team. We need to figure out how to do BOTH!

I mean if we can do this when our run game is NOT working, when other teams are putting this much pressure on our passing game...NO reason why we shouldn't do that when we have both going full speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants and Steelers both won Superbowls with conservative offenses. And both of them, along with the Jets and Kansas City are doing pretty well this year with conservative offenses.

Conservative offenses work great, if they are combined with solid defense and they have the ability to pass when needed.

I guess "conservative" is all perception.

O wait...it's you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not sure who said it first, but Tepper is the correct answer. Still, I'm gonna go with Kasay keeping it inbounds. If, you subscribe to the butterfly effect version of time travel consequences.... When we win SBXXXVIII everybody's lives change: Moose never breaks his leg, We win it all again in 05. Tommy Jone is unknown and Peppers stays home, Champs once more 2008. No artificial pig heart turning JR into a creepy weirdo, no lockout, no Clausen. Fox and Jake ride off into the sunset on their own terms. No 2-14, no #1 pick. But, no laptop, no Blinn, 3 years behind The Golden Calf of Bristol, we still get Cam. JR let's him grow his locs like he always wanted, Smitty sees Cam in a new light. Dreads swinging, (and Smitty with his 3 Lombardis behind him) Cam is old enough to get those calls. No Manning narrative, Cotchery TD, PI against Talib on Philly Brown, 10,000 RTP calls and Kony Ealy SB50 MVP. No Jeans Fridays, no Tepper. KB doesn't slip on his own meatsweat mid-route in SD, Cam becomes the 1st QB to win 10 straight SBs. Retiring after being elected 47th president of the US of A, Cam ushers in the Permanent Proletarian Revolution across the globe, Xi Jinping bows in awe. "ẄøŘƙƐṛ§ őF ŧĤə ŵØRłð, ŮŊÏŦƐ!!!"
    • Yeah your right the owner was copping hand shandies while all this was going down 
    • I mean not surprised the Patriots took him in and aren't trying to push him out. They've been the most morally bankrupt team in the NFL for a long while. Wouldn't be surprised if Vrabel has his own dirt on Kraft/Brady and other assholes from that organization over the last couple decades. 
×
×
  • Create New...