Playing to Win v. Playing not to Lose

[jtm]

This was the biggest difference I saw tonight. It is so refreshing to see the Panthers playing to win rather than playing not to lose.

[Put_It_In]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

[Wither]

I think Rivera will balance being conservative in situations where it is warranted with going all out. I have an odd amount of faith in him and the rest of the coaching staff.

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

Exactly. You're playing not to lose to win so that you don't lose while winning at playing to not lose as winning.

[Swarly]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

there is a gigantic difference

[Dpantherman]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

yea, thats obvious

[PandaMan]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

Pretty sure it means taking chances and not being conservative as f*ck the whole time

[Jangler]

Trying to score instead of running the clock out.

[mwright350]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

In theory sure - but in practice it's very different. Playing not to lose involves a lot of boring play and trying not to make mistakes at the expense of doing anything to actively try to win the game. You rely on the other team to make mistakes and let you win rather than taking the risks needed to win without them fuging up.

[jtm]

How many times did Fox get a touchdown lead and start running dive plays trying to play ball control. It is real tough to do that now with all the high powered offenses. Also, once we got leads, we didn't blitz often and would never take any chances. Huge difference in philosophy. I can't see how people didn't see this huge difference.

If you look at the top teams like the Pats and Packers; once they get a lead they step on the gas. Seems we will have a similar philosophy this year v. having Fox that started burning the clock.

[Wither]

Guys, I think he might have been facetious, or am I giving him too much credit?

yea, thats obvious

DPM!

[Proudiddy]

dont get it. It's the same thing lol if you "play to win" that's "playing not to lose" :out:

You sir, have not met one John Fox.

[Proudiddy]

And JTM, you are right on the money... The whole presence of this team is different with Rivera. It's just hard nosed, all-out, punch you in the mouth, "whatever tough cliche you want to use", football.

Seriously, it's a huge difference and it shows in the way the players play and carry themselves.

[nagai]

Put it in:

The point is about aggression vs conservativism. I play a lot of games, and whenever you're faced with the question 'should I play it safe or go for it?' the answer is always 'it depends on your risk and reward'. What happens if you get it right? What happens if you get it wrong? Do the risks outweigh the rewards? Are you throwing to Revis Island when you're up by 2 scores and can just run it in, or are you down by 3 and think you can pull a double move on a rookie corner? The problem with Fox is that he'll just about always go for the conservative move, regardless of the risk/rewards. When he finally decides to take a risk, it's because it's late in the 4th quater and we're down mulitple scores. It's too late. I'm glad that kind of bad decision making has left Charlotte.

[Wither]

Put it in

I wonder if he chose that name just to make everyone who quotes him or addresses him uncomfortable?