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!

     

Wouldn't it be wild if Fox becomes the next Coughlin?


thefuzz

Recommended Posts

Was thinking earlier today about Coughlin in Jacksonville, and how similar his stint there was to Foxy's here in Carolina.

Think about it.

1. Conservative D minded guys.

2. Widely respected around the league.

3. Emphasis on running game and D line play.

4. Both bumped out of their first HC jobs after being very inconsistant.

Honestly you could go on and on.

Now the only reason I think that Foxy could do as well as Coughlin, and possibly be more consistant year in and year out is the GM there, and the Division. Elway knows the importance of having an unquestioned starter at the QB position, and Foxy obviously knows about the D.

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

elway wants another QB.

he wants a big athletic QB who can stay in the pocket.

fox just wants a big QB that can stay in the pocket.

coughlin knows how to let the gates open upon offense. fox apologizes for it.

coughlin >>>>> fox and so it shall ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Coughlin understands the value of an elite QB.

Did you mean to say Reese?

I have always blamed Hurney, and to a lesser extent Fox for their inability to coach up, draft, or acquire a top tier QB.

In Denver, with a HOF QB running the show, I don't think it will be an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate these posts. You damn well know what Fox has to do with Carolina.

i hate living in the past.

the discussion has more to do with a guy that is coaching in denver than him being an underachiever here.

it's time to move on.

once a player or coach has gone on from the panthers they essentially become irrelevant unless we are playing against them.

fox isn't a panther anymore. he's a bronco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...