For Those Not Wanting Fox as HC

[onebud34]

Hahaha great pic but you do realize that 75% of these people on here have no idea who that photo is or the movie it's from or maybe i should be mad that i'm old enough to know??

I'm going with the latter

 

[Thomas31]

From what I gathered, they see Fox as Lovie 2.0.

However, Fox has a much more impressive resume at this point. 2 superbowls to 1, more playoff appearances, more championship game appearances, and the key factor, unlike Lovie, John hires experienced NFL head coaches and then trusts them to do their jobs, vs Lovie who would hire shit coaches and then we'd be on our way to an 8-8 season again.

Also, for as much as people talk about Fox's record, that last 2-14 year really skewed the percentage, and that was when their talent was all shit or hurt, and shit talent can be blamed on the GM.

Fox is far from perfect, but he is solid, and a proven commodity for rebuilding a franchise, which he has done, twice. Right now the Bears are in no place to try for someone who is a high risk - they need to rebuild this thing, and Fox CAN get the job done.

John Fox:

2002 - 7-9
2004 - 7-9
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 7-9
2009 - 8-8
2010 - 2-14

This thread is about Fox. Please stop your Lovie bashing Vash....


BEARS

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Another thing I don't understand is if a good majority of the anti-Fox crowd thinks the Bears are in some rebuild, why would you want a first time HC in the mix? Long term doesn't it make sense to have a guy with a good resume coach and teach the younger members of this team (especially the defense)??? Not to mention that EVERY NFL reporter on this is also discussing the types of assistant coaches he would be bringing.

 

[Hbkrusso]

Newsflash: coaches often get fired before their contracts are expired

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

There are 32 teams in the NFL ....... Do the math. How do most teams get their Elite QB? Andrew Luck anyone?

What the hell does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Hbkrusso]

John Fox:

2002 - 7-9
2004 - 7-9
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 7-9
2009 - 8-8
2010 - 2-14

This thread is about Fox. Please stop your Lovie bashing Vash....


BEARS

is that fox's entire career I feel like some shits been cherry picked and left out

 

[ruprecht]

is that fox's entire career I feel like some shits been cherry picked and left out

It is OK to leave years out willy nilly.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Your math is flawed, as is your logic. 6-9? What you wrote is baffling to me. The whole reason Emery and Trestman got dumped was because there were expectations for this team back in August and they fell horribly short of them. 2-14? This team won 5 games with one of the worst Ds in team history, a dysfunctional offense with a headcase QB, a completely lost locker room, terrible coaching staff with a lack of control, etc. Now they're going to bring in a solid coach/staff and GM, fix some things, and be 3 games worse? Really? Come on, you're just being negative for the sake of being negative. This situation reminds me so much of Kansas City two years ago when Reid came in (another guy who some in their fanbase called a retread, game has passed him by, some good years but average overall). He brought a consistent attitude and discipline to a team that had horrendously underachieved at 2-14 the year before, despite barely turning over the roster. They made the playoffs the very next year. That can happen here or anywhere else because sometimes getting rid of something horrible is addition by subtraction. In this case, that change could be massive.

ERR......

You took what I posted incredibly wrong, I would actually expect an slight improvement with Fox over Trestman next year (ala the 6-9 to 9-7). My point was, if we took a flyer on an up and comer like Austin, and it didn't pan out (say he fails miserable) and we go 2-14 the next two years and in that time we compile upper 1st round talent, that is a worse case scenario in taking that gamble.

 

[nc0gnet0]

is that fox's entire career I feel like some shits been cherry picked and left out

if so it was a copy and paste fail...my bad

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/FoxxJo0.htm

 

[onebud34]

Another thing I don't understand is if a good majority of the anti-Fox crowd thinks the Bears are in some rebuild, why would you want a first time HC in the mix?

That's a recipe for disaster...there are the exceptions...but often that first time HC is out of job in 2 years...and the cycle keeps repeating itself for years.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

6-9 is fifteen games.

 

[Thomas31]

is that fox's entire career I feel like some shits been cherry picked and left out

Admittedly cherry picked. The same that happens for others when it comes to Lovie....


BEARS

 

[HeHateMe]

how is this thread not locked merged or deleted by now?

 

[Scoot26]

how is this thread not locked merged or deleted by now?

Why does it need to be?

 

[policeman]

ERR......

You took what I posted incredibly wrong, I would actually expect an slight improvement with Fox over Trestman next year (ala the 6-9 to 9-7). My point was, if we took a flyer on an up and comer like Austin, and it didn't pan out (say he fails miserable) and we go 2-14 the next two years and in that time we compile upper 1st round talent, that is a worse case scenario in taking that gamble.

Technically- worst case is you go 2-14 for a few years- draft a QB- and it turns out to be Jamarcus Russell. Or even worse- there is no QB worth drafting. Then you become the Raiders of the midwest- which, some might argue, the Bears already are.

Fox is competent. That's all he needs to be for now. The rest is up to Pace. If Pace is good at what he does- the Bears are in good shape for the next few years. If Fox is no longer competent once you've handed him some talent to work with- you toss him out and get someone else

 

[ruprecht]

ERR......

You took what I posted incredibly wrong, I would actually expect an slight improvement with Fox over Trestman next year (ala the 6-9 to 9-7). My point was, if we took a flyer on an up and comer like Austin, and it didn't pan out (say he fails miserable) and we go 2-14 the next two years and in that time we compile upper 1st round talent, that is a worse case scenario in taking that gamble.

Because that is a gamble a new GM loves to make.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Admittedly cherry picked. The same that happens for others when it comes to Lovie....


BEARS

Actually that is bs, someone quoted and edited my op, which had all his years up to the Manning acquisition, which I addressed in the post.

 

[Hbkrusso]

It is OK to leave years out willy nilly.

ahh is it ok to do it if it hurts your point or only if is supports your point?

 

[HeHateMe]

Why does it need to be?

I wasn't saying it should be, just surprised it isn't.

 

[onebud34]

Admittedly cherry picked. The same that happens for others when it comes to Lovie....


BEARS

Lovie had a long playoff drought...the problem isn't the overall comparison...but the context.