Here's an incredible John Fox stat

[Sam Mills Fan]

John Fox's December record: 23-12

Winning percentage: 65.7%

John Fox's December record pre-elimination: 16-12

Winning percentage: 57.1%

John Fox's December record post-elimination: 7-0

Winning percentage: 100%

[Sam Mills Fan]

So your theory is incorrect jpo. He's *slightly* better in December in games that matter than in games that matter in general (57.1% vs. 52.5%). That's hardly statistically significant if it is at all.

And the 57.1% pales in comparison to the 100% anyway.

[Jbro]

What teams did they play in those 7 games? How many had already clinched or were eliminated so they had nothing to play for?

[Jrock3016]

what does this have to do with anything?:confused:

It states that he brought character to our team. We have an identity different of those of other teams that depend solely on the QB. Without him we were and still would be NOTHING.

I'm thinking that we as fans are over reacting. Trying kick the best coach we ever had out by looking at what has done wrong instead of the things he has made right.

Think of this stat...The year before he came in we was 1-15...he turned our team around to 7-9 his first year, and the Superbowl his second.

Really don't want to change into something worst trying to get better...

[Mother Grabber]

Up until this year he's kicked ass in the pre-season, too.

[Sam Mills Fan]

Good question jbro. This is my last stat hunt of the night though:

In 2002, we defeated the 4-10 Bears in Week 16 when we both had nothing to play for. In week 17, we defeated the 9-6 Saints who would have made the playoffs had they beaten us.

In 2006, we beat the 7-7 Falcons in Week 16 when they were still in the playoff chase. The following week we beat the 9-6 Saints when they rested their starters.

In 2007, we beat the 9-6 Bucs in Week 17 when they had rested their starters.

In 2009, we beat the 11-2 Vikings in Week 15 when they were fighting for homefield advantage. Then we beat the 8-6 Giants in Week 16 when they were fighting for a playoff spot.

So we beat:

1 eliminated team

2 teams that were resting their starters

4 playoff-contending teams that were playing all their starters for various reasons

[JJT]

thank god you realized fox doesn't want to win

thank you sam mills fan thank you oh so much

It's not that he doesn't want to win, it's that he doesn't want to lose.

After he's eliminated, he says, "f**k it. Let 'em play."

[MurkN]

[jpo287]

So your theory is incorrect jpo. He's *slightly* better in December in games that matter than in games that matter in general (57.1% vs. 52.5%). That's hardly statistically significant if it is at all.

And the 57.1% pales in comparison to the 100% anyway.

No he's better in Dec period. You can't just pull out numbers to make a point. If the win is in Dec, than they count.

But just to point out the fallacy of your argument in detail, I went back to look at those "meaningless" games and looked at the records of the teams he beat.

2002

After elimination: 2-0

They beat the Bears (4-12) and NO (9-7) They would go on to beat NO 4 straight times!

2006

After elimination: 2-0

They beat the Falcons (7-8) and NO (10-6) NO had already made the playoffs and most of the starters did not play!

2007

After elimination: 1-0

They beat TB (9-6) who lost 4 of their last 5 games that year.

So that's 5 games and they can all be explained either by a weak opponents ( Bears, Falcons record was 11-20), poor end-of-season playing (Tampa losing 4 of last 5 games), just knowing how to beat a team ( Fox and Delhome had NO's number for a while beating them 4 straight times) or having the team rest their starters (NO resting Brees, Bush, etc in 06).

I am not including this years numbers because they can be explained simply - Matt Moore!

Seriously, is it that incredible when broken down.

[Guest DrewBreesIsGod]

Kinda like what your team has done for 35+ years, right???

about as original as can be....great post!

[Wither]

What teams did they play in those 7 games? How many had already clinched or were eliminated so they had nothing to play for?

Exactly.

And also, thank you jpo287 for bringing out the real statistics.

And the 57.1% pales in comparison to the 100% anyway.

Not really. If you throw in one loss (7-1) then you magically get 87.5%. Throw in another? 77.7% It's rapidly approaching 57%.

[Sam Mills Fan]

No he's better in Dec period. You can't just pull out numbers to make a point. If the win is in Dec, than they count.

But just to point out the fallacy of your argument in detail, I went back to look at those "meaningless" games and looked at the records of the teams he beat.

2002

After elimination: 2-0

They beat the Bears (4-12) and NO (9-7) They would go on to beat NO 4 straight times!

2006

After elimination: 2-0

They beat the Falcons (7-8) and NO (10-6) NO had already made the playoffs and most of the starters did not play!

2007

After elimination: 1-0

They beat TB (9-6) who lost 4 of their last 5 games that year.

So that's 5 games and they can all be explained either by a weak opponents ( Bears, Falcons record was 11-20), poor end-of-season playing (Tampa losing 4 of last 5 games), just knowing how to beat a team ( Fox and Delhome had NO's number for a while beating them 4 straight times) or having the team rest their starters (NO resting Brees, Bush, etc in 06).

I am not including this years numbers because they can be explained simply - Matt Moore!

Seriously, is it that incredible when broken down.

My biggest pet peeve on the Huddle is when people don't read important posts earlier in the thread. Please read my post that broke down the seven teams. One was a weak opponent, two were resting starters, four were at .500 or better and were fighting for either playoff berths or higher playoff seeds.

And I just LOVE how I include all wins and losses and all teams no matter their record and no matter whether it helps my argument or not, yet you excused away game after game after game for whatever ludicrous reason you wished.

[Sam Mills Fan]

Exactly.

And also, thank you jpo287 for bringing out the real statistics.

Not really. If you throw in one loss (7-1) then you magically get 87.5%. Throw in another? 77.7% It's rapidly approaching 57%.

Do you know how statistics work? You can't just "throw in" numbers that don't exist in order to boost your argument. You can't throw in extra losses because such losses haven't happened. That's the whole point of this thread. We've lined 7 opponents up in meaningless games under Fox and we've knocked all 7 down.

[bigcuz]

Good question jbro. This is my last stat hunt of the night though:

In 2002, we defeated the 4-10 Bears in Week 16 when we both had nothing to play for. In week 17, we defeated the 9-6 Saints who would have made the playoffs had they beaten us.

In 2006, we beat the 7-7 Falcons in Week 16 when they were still in the playoff chase. The following week we beat the 9-6 Saints when they rested their starters.

In 2007, we beat the 9-6 Bucs in Week 17 when they had rested their starters.

In 2009, we beat the 11-2 Vikings in Week 15 when they were fighting for homefield advantage. Then we beat the 8-6 Giants in Week 16 when they were fighting for a playoff spot.

So we beat:

1 eliminated team

2 teams that were resting their starters

4 playoff-contending teams that were playing all their starters for various reasons

Dear SamMillsFan,

Read your thread from beginning to end just to be sure .. and I learned that you really are a negative-thinking person, yes - but a "fan", no.

As you wrote, out of the "So we beat.." teams, 4 of 7 were playoff-contending teams that had something on the line and we won - we could've given up. So that is what you call padding the stats? Duh ?

Nope. That shows me that Foxxy is in tune with his players and that he keeps them up for every game, regardless. Sometimes the players don't execute well [read Jake's many INTs this year] but that is not Foxxy's fault.

Foxxy is padding his stats? :dita: