Post by brasilbear on Dec 21, 2018 13:59:37 GMT -6
With much fear and trembling I ask (because its an interesting debate on twitter)
How much credit do you give Fox for this team?
My Answer:
Not much.
INMO Fox failed in three ways.
(1) I refuse to believe that Fox was hired to simply 'change the culture' (whatever that means). No one, not even Fox, would take a HC position simply because he was expected to 'change the culture.' IMO Fox was hired to win games and be the quick turnaround artist he is often credited with in the media. He was expected to provide cover for Pace, not let Pace get in over his head and stop the losing. I'll give Fox credit for cutting the 'problem players' (again, what does that even mean) even though it set back any chance he Bears had of forming an identity. Fox goes down as one of the top 3 losing coaches in Bears history. In the end, no matter what we all say, wins and loses matter. Fox had too many losses and not enough wins.
(2) His losing cost the team 3 years of the primes of various players, or the beginning of various careers. I'm talking about the disgraceful use of Shaneen and Cohen, his inability to identify Howard as the top RB in the room, doing Lord knows what with Mitch last year, wasting Long's potential is losing, etc
(3) His offense and his approach was worse than Lovie's (and that is saying something) and it was reported that he and Fangio clashed over how to run the DEF. So either Fox was the mind behind the DEF and Pace overpayed for Fangio's extension or Fangio was the brain and Fox was the meddler.....I'm going with meddler.
Honestly I"d give Fox 15% of the credit for this team, and split the rest between Pace/Nagy/Fangio however you like.
So....what do you think? How much credit does Fox deserve?
How much credit do you give Fox for this team?
My Answer:
Not much.
INMO Fox failed in three ways.
(1) I refuse to believe that Fox was hired to simply 'change the culture' (whatever that means). No one, not even Fox, would take a HC position simply because he was expected to 'change the culture.' IMO Fox was hired to win games and be the quick turnaround artist he is often credited with in the media. He was expected to provide cover for Pace, not let Pace get in over his head and stop the losing. I'll give Fox credit for cutting the 'problem players' (again, what does that even mean) even though it set back any chance he Bears had of forming an identity. Fox goes down as one of the top 3 losing coaches in Bears history. In the end, no matter what we all say, wins and loses matter. Fox had too many losses and not enough wins.
(2) His losing cost the team 3 years of the primes of various players, or the beginning of various careers. I'm talking about the disgraceful use of Shaneen and Cohen, his inability to identify Howard as the top RB in the room, doing Lord knows what with Mitch last year, wasting Long's potential is losing, etc
(3) His offense and his approach was worse than Lovie's (and that is saying something) and it was reported that he and Fangio clashed over how to run the DEF. So either Fox was the mind behind the DEF and Pace overpayed for Fangio's extension or Fangio was the brain and Fox was the meddler.....I'm going with meddler.
Honestly I"d give Fox 15% of the credit for this team, and split the rest between Pace/Nagy/Fangio however you like.
So....what do you think? How much credit does Fox deserve?
