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

    • Agents have been out-negotiating GMs for years. That's why they had to implement the rookie wage scale. Top drafted rookies were basically starting to walk into the NFL as some of the highest paid guys in the league. Take it up in the next CBA. In the meantime, it is what it is. Agents hold the upper hand in these rookie negotiations and they know it. The teams already have a significant unrecoverable investment spent on these draftees in the value of the pick that they spent. Given the rookie wage scale there's not much to negotiate other than guarantees and offset language and once again the agents are kicking the GMs' asses again.
    • Except it's not about the money, it's precedent and teams not wanting to go down that path.  Once you guarantee all the 2nd rounders, then the 3rd rounders will want it, and so on.  If they keep viewing it as say, "well it's only X amount of money" then it's a slippery slope that doesn't end. Then you get Free Agents saying, "well if you're fully guaranteeing the contract of an unproven 57th pick of the draft, you clearly should be fully guaranteeing mine as your big FA signing this offseason" The NFL doesn't work with fully guaranteed contracts under it's current cap model.  If you want to give them out to the true elite of the elite players at impact positions like QB and Edge, then so be it, but there needs to be a line in the sand or it will get real messy.
    • I really don't think it's that debatable. New England had some argument but our roster was far worse, IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...