For Those Not Wanting Fox as HC

[sam slocum]

STFU raging moron. We are talking Fox not Manning

I was talking about Fox...he should have benched your boy since he has a long history of fucking choking.

 

[Bergz22]

I think Fox might do ok. At least being conservative might help Cutler out if they do keep him.

 

[ruprecht]

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

The great thing about willy nilly hbk is you do whatever the **** you want.

 

[Omeletpants]

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

Just ignore him

 

[iueyedoc]

For one thing, he hasn't been able to get enough out of his players.

Playoffs with Tebow.
SB with Delhomme.
Mannings statistical best years even though post injury and old.
You're just wrong.

For another thing, he's boring.

So, you wanted Singletary?

For another, he's about ready to drop dead.

Just means they won't have to buy out the last few years of his contract.

 

[1000ftditka!]

Fox is the best coach out there that we can get. By far. So I see his hire as a huge "plus." With that said.....I can see what Elway saw.......He's a Good coach......but not a Great Coach.......(Sound a bit like Lovie?!)....he can get you to the gates of the Promised Land....but can he get you in.

Passion.....

Elway was horrified that the Broncos went down.....yet again in the Post-Season .....without "kicking and screaming." Which is more than what Lovie could deliver......but where is the passion.....swagger....."fun."

Fox can at least get us back into contention......and we will have to suffer with our disappointments in January....as opposed to throwing in the towel in November.

Hire Coach Fox.....Read Jay the riot act if you can't swing a trade....and let's see if we can build us a team.

 

[Hbkrusso]

The great thing about willy nilly hbk is you do whatever the **** you want.

haha **** it I like it. so if I wanted I could use willy nilly to eliminate every turnover cutlers ever had and suddenly he is hof?

 

[HeHateMe]

I personally think that if Manning retires, da baers should try to coax him out of retirement for one last run, see if they can get a championship. It will of course depend on who the OC is because of Fox's mediocrity.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

I personally think that if Manning retires, da baers should try to coax him out of retirement for one last run, see if they can get a championship. It will of course depend on who the OC is because of Fox's mediocrity.

Peyton would be the OC so it wouldn't matter.

 

[OnemanWolfpack]

The points against Fox have all been discussed over and over. Too conservative, not great at adjustments.... I am not thrilled with the hire but he will give the Bears a chance to truely assess the team. There are so many players right now that all of us are scratching our heads about, especially on the defensive side of the ball. Does this guy suck or was he put in a bad position over and over or just not held accountable for lack of disaplin. Fox will have the players disaplined and in position which will allow for true evaluation. But I believe that will be the extent of his contributions. He will not get the most out of his players. He won`t scheme to hide weaknesses of players. It`s straight up ball with Fox. He will go as far as the roster will take him which hopefully will be some consecutive playoff runs. Then maybe we will be in the Bronco`s situation which would be a welcome change if Pace has the balls to pull the trigger on Fox when the time comes. If the Bears are going to win a championship with Fox, Pace`s drafting and free agent pickups will have to be absolutely top notch.

Anybody know Fox`s record against Green Bay?

 

[1000ftditka!]

I personally think that if Manning retires, da baers should try to coax him out of retirement for one last run, see if they can get a championship. It will of course depend on who the OC is because of Fox's mediocrity.

QB swap with Denver?! Elway might be still "hitting the bottle" and pissed off at the world......so he might bite on a Cutler/Manning swap......toss in BFF Marshall to sweeten the deal....

Elway could solve our "Jay Problem."

 

[Scoot26]

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

This is a legit thread that asks a rather serious question for those opposed to John Fox.

 

[Jechang]

2002 47 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 7 9 0 .438
2003 48 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 11 5 0 .688
2004 49 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 7 9 0 .438
2005 50 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 11 5 0 .688
2006 51 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 8 8 0 .500
2007 52 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 7 9 0 .438
2008 53 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 12 4 0 .750
2009 54 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 8 8 0 .500
2010 55 Carolina Panthers NFL 16 2 14 0 .125
2011 56 Denver Broncos NFL 16 8 8 0 .500

I purposely left out the Manning years. Fox is a good coach, I am not sure the above translates into a great coach. Would he be an improvement over Trestman, no argument from me there. Still I would rather take a gamble on an up-and-comer over a coach that has had Moderate success in the league. Harbaughs and Belichecks are rare, and the only way your ever going to get one is to take a shot. I understand many users desire to "play it safe". However that is not in my DNA, and as a result I prefer the high risk-high reward of Austin. Now is the time to take such a gamble, worse thing that can happen is he sucks terribly and we start piling up talent in the draft over the next 2-3 years if he fails.

Bill Belichick
Wins Losses
6 10 0.375
7 9 0.438
7 9 0.438
11 5 0.688
5 11 0.313
5 11 0.313

I purposely left out the Brady years.

 

[FrankieLyrical]

No matter who we hired, the complaints would have been flying in. We hired Toub? Oh, just the same ol' Bears picking who they're familiar with.

We hired Quinn/Bowles? They have no experience as a HC, why would we take this chance!?

We hired Fox? Why wouldn't we take a chance on one of the sexy picks (Quinn/Bowles)?! Fox couldn't even win with Manning!!

I'm kinda used to it now

 

[Aquineas]

Can you articulate why it is you do not want him? Can you also explain who you'd want, and why?

I don't see him as being an improvement over Lovie, and in almost every sense, reminds me of Lovie. Nice guy, players love him, love his honesty, respect him, will get you to the playoffs, gets blown out by elite teams. I want to be the elite team for a while, and I don't see Fox getting us there. He'll get us to a very nice 11-5 or 12-4 record and we'll still get creamed by New England. It's been 30 years, I'd say it's time.

 

[GSH_34]

Ugh, enough of the 'high risk' or 'low risk' stuff. Select the candidate who's philosophy and vision best aligns with yours and you'll mitigate that risk whether the candidate has 10 years of head coaching experience or no head coaching experience.

I get that Fox is a safer choice because of his experience, but look at a guy like Chuck Pagano. He was leading a young team and has done very well there without little coordinator experience and no prior head coaching experience.

If Fox is that guy, hire him. If he's not, don't hire him. If our goal is to truly win championships and be in contention year, hiring a guy just because he's more experienced is a perfect way to make sure that doesn't happen.

This could very well end up like a Joel Quenneville situation or a Joe Maddon situation. First few go arounds didn't work out and they then find a home in Chicago that is the right fit for them (jury is out on Maddon still, but he's pretty damn good). It also could end up like a Lou Pinella situation if we hire a guy just based on credentials.

If Pace feels like this team needs a steady hand that will offer stability and also checks off the boxes for who he wants in a head coach, great. If Pace feels like his relationship with Marrone and Marrone's coaching ability would be the answer, hire him. If Pace feels like this team needs someone brand new who he can build the identity of the Bears with, hire him.

Whoever has the best combination of the traits he is looking for is the guy he will hire. Whoever will provide that Sean Payton spark.

 

[Smokey Robinson]

John Fox has coached 13 years.

3 Winning seasons with Peyton, 3 winning seasons without him.

3 Seasons of 8-8, 3 seasons of 7-9, 1 season of 2-14.

Prior to Peyton each winning season he had followed up with an 8-8 or 7-9 season.

2002 - 7-9
2003 - 11-5
2004 - 7-9
2005 - 11-5
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 7-9
2008 - 12-4
2009 - 8-8
2010 - 2-14
2011 - 8-8

While there is success to speak of it has been followed up with disappointment and regression the following year each time with the exception of the Manning years.

We fired Lovie hoping for more and if we hire Fox we are settling for 7-9 and 8-8 seasons being the norm.

 

[Omeletpants]

John Fox has coached 13 years.

3 Winning seasons with Peyton, 3 winning seasons without him.

3 Seasons of 8-8, 3 seasons of 7-9, 1 season of 2-14.

Prior to Peyton each winning season he had followed up with an 8-8 or 7-9 season.

2002 - 7-9
2003 - 11-5
2004 - 7-9
2005 - 11-5
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 7-9
2008 - 12-4
2009 - 8-8
2010 - 2-14
2011 - 8-8

While there is success to speak of it has been followed up with disappointment and regression the following year each time with the exception of the Manning years.

We fired Lovie hoping for more and if we hire Fox we are settling for 7-9 and 8-8 seasons being the norm.

Best post on Fox

 

[onebud34]

John Fox has coached 13 years.

3 Winning seasons with Peyton, 3 winning seasons without him.

3 Seasons of 8-8, 3 seasons of 7-9, 1 season of 2-14.

Prior to Peyton each winning season he had followed up with an 8-8 or 7-9 season.

2002 - 7-9
2003 - 11-5
2004 - 7-9
2005 - 11-5
2006 - 8-8
2007 - 7-9
2008 - 12-4
2009 - 8-8
2010 - 2-14
2011 - 8-8

While there is success to speak of it has been followed up with disappointment and regression the following year each time with the exception of the Manning years.

We fired Lovie hoping for more and if we hire Fox we are settling for 7-9 and 8-8 seasons being the norm.

7 playoff appearances in 13 years....shit...

I'll take that. We haven't had something that consistent since Iron Mike

 

[HeHateMe]

This is a legit thread that asks a rather serious question for those opposed to John Fox.

What exactly is the criteria examined before a new thread is deemed "legit" and NOT deleted?