Fox' win percentage compared to present/past coaches...

[TheRealDeal]

You obviously do not like Fox so you are biased and there is no real point in discussing it with you. You think he's a bad coach. Some agree some disagree.

Good thread.

[Happy Panther]

Coughlin didn't coach as many with the Jags (about a season less) as Fox has here and is about to be let go by the Giants now. But he has had 35 more wins than losses compared to a miserable 2 by Fox.

http://www.carolinahuddle.com/forum/carolina-panthers/52852-john-fox-vs-tom-coughlin.html

If you compare the first 128 games by each coach (i.e ignore the last Fox season) Fox was a better coach in both wins and playoff results. They are also very similar coaches.

The only reason Coughlin now has a better record is his second stint with the Giants where he is 64-46 with a Superbowl run.

I'm telling you any smart GM sees Fox with the potential to take a good team to greatness because of his style and precedent. May or may not want his style but if the do he is a lock

It's all timing but this is why i believe Fox will HC again in the next couple years

[Happy Panther]

Anyone with half a brain would see that my point was that Fox isn't in good company and will struggle to find a HC job soon. I posted Fox's winning percentage, which was a little higher than .500. I was just pointing out all the other coaches in the .500 RANGE and comparing them to Fox to bring his record to light. Don't forget Front Offices will also look at how poorly he coached last season and in our last playoff game.

Your analysis is weak and lacks critical thought

[rayzor]

The bottom line is Fox's style of play wins in the NFL.

Run the ball and play defense is the formula for success, always has been always will be unless the NFL makes passing touchdowns worth 9 points instead of 6.

you haven't been paying attention to the rule changes and the effects they are having on the game and outcomes. also the direction that teams are going.

that formula used to work, but it is becoming outdated.

fox is playing oldschool football. he's bringing knives to gun fights and sticking with what he knows.

any team that hires him is going to be disappointed if they are expecting what the NFL is hoping for...exciting football.

the run game is important, but "run the ball, stop the run" as your core philosophy won't work anymore. the run game is mainly there to help out the passing game. it is no longer the core of the game.

[TheRealDeal]

you haven't been paying attention to the rule changes and the effects they are having on the game and outcomes. also the direction that teams are going.

that formula used to work, but it is becoming outdated.

fox is playing oldschool football. he's bringing knives to gun fights and sticking with what he knows.

any team that hires him is going to be disappointed if they are expecting what the NFL is hoping for...exciting football.

the run game is important, but "run the ball, stop the run" as your core philosophy won't work anymore. the run game is mainly there to help out the passing game. it is no longer the core of the game.

I respectfully disagree. I've posted my opinions and backup many times in other threads but if you'd like to continue this discussion on why we each feel the way we do we should do it in another thread so we don't hijack the "Fox is a bad coach thread" so awesomely started by Killer

[rayzor]

also, those who are under the belief that he will land a HC job somewhere are very likely going to be disappointed. the vast majority of teams aren't looking for retreads and don't hire them. there have been very few coaching changes in the past few years that have resulted in retreads getting the job.

if there are 10 HC changes, i would expect only 2...at the most 3 will be retreads. fox will have some serious competition ahead of him (cowher and gruden will get jobs before he does if they want them) and he will be in a crowded market for the remaining jobs.

it can happen, but it's more unlikely than you realize. he just isn't the draw that many think he is.

[rayzor]

I respectfully disagree. I've posted my opinions and backup many times in other threads but if you'd like to continue this discussion on why we each feel the way we do we should do it in another thread so we don't hijack the "Fox is a bad coach thread" so awesomely started by Killer

nah, i'll keep it in this thread.

i've posted my backed up thoughts on the matter as well in several threads as well.

no need in showing how wrong the argument you have is. it's already been done.

[Happy Panther]

That's fine. if you think Fox's philosophy has become obsolete then sure he will not get a job. i just think he fits the coach's mold to a "T"

[TheRealDeal]

nah, i'll keep it in this thread.

i've posted my backed up thoughts on the matter as well in several threads as well.

no need in showing how wrong the argument you have is. it's already been done.

Good post?

[carpanfan96]

The Nfl goes through Cycles - where Passing will take a fore front for a a 5-6 year time period then a team with a journey QB will make / win the SB with a strong Defense and Run game... Then Running takes over - and the cycle repeats...

Fox does have pull

He has Pull in NY for the Giants if Coughlin is let go for sure. He's very good Friends with the Owner up there. Could also see him going to SD or the Browns...

Most Panther Fans have soured on him over the last 3 seasons, which is understandable, but he had a solid record (top 7 in the NFL over his time here) before he was screwed this season. He will get a coaching job when he wants one.

[magnus]

If you read it you'll see that Coaches that have 5 or less more wins than losses overall lasted just as long or a little bit less than Fox and wasn't hired as a HC as soon as their last stint was over with. All those coaches, besides Childress, coached within 100-150 games (Bum Phillips with about 15 more than Fox - Fox has coached 143). Also look at the names of those same coaches that have a higher win percentage with 5 or less more wins than losses. Brad Childress? Jim Fassell? Art Shell? Steve Mariucci? Jack Del Rio? Those guys were considered as terrible coaches after they were gone (Del Rio is going to be gone soon), yet had a better percentage. What makes people think Fox is going to have a better chance at finding a HC job the next offseason with a worse percentage?

Most of the coaches in the whole list overall, minus the last 6 coaches mentioned, either were recently fired or on their way out right now or were considered mediocre through out their coaching tenure. And Wade Phillips has coached exactly the same amount as Fox and has a higher win percentage. If anything, that should tell you something. People just have to accept that this is the group Fox is in. It is going to be very hard for him to find a head coaching job any time soon if he even does at all.

the idea is based on "+5 w/l" and then winning percentage. So under that criteria, the only thing to learn is that the longer you're at a job the worse you are. Which logically is inconclusive at best, flat wrong on average.

[frash.exe]

The bottom line is Fox's style of play wins in the NFL.

Run the ball and play defense is the formula for success, always has been always will be unless the NFL makes passing touchdowns worth 9 points instead of 6.

lol keep telling yourself that

[Sam Mills Fan]

John Fox's winning percentage in the past 5 years (around the time the league started to go pass-centric) is only 46%. That's around Dennis Green levels. The era of Foxball is over. It may return one day, but it's not here now.

Also, that has to sting that Jack Del Rio has a better winning percentage than he does.

[KillerKat]

the idea is based on "+5 w/l" and then winning percentage. So under that criteria, the only thing to learn is that the longer you're at a job the worse you are. Which logically is inconclusive at best, flat wrong on average.

No, The longer you coach doesn't mean the worse you are. Look at the last 6 coaches I posted.