Not bad but I laughed when he said the Bears were and unlucky team because of the close games they lost. If he watched those games I think he'd find that it had more to do with poor coaching than bad luck. A team that is coached well would win those games and a team that is talented enough would win despite the poor coaching.
Or you could argue coaching kept them in games despite the lack of talent. All depends which way you want to spin it.
In reality, it was two things..
1. The players didn't quit (well until the last two games). 2. Unlike Trestman, Fox kept the players motivated (well until the last two games).
Except the Bears were bad in close games Fox's first season as well. So...lack of regression or bad coaching? And giving Fox credit for guys not quitting until the last two games really isn't something to hang a hat on. Seems to me a good coach would have kept them interested for....I don't know...16 games?
(Warning: I have irrational Anti-Fox derangement syndrome. Its only curable through a firing.)
EDIT:
Even an irrational Anti-Fox derangement patient has to admit when he was wrong. Bears went 5-6 in Fox's first season in one-score games (my memories were/are distorted by the games they blew late--see Gould, Robbie and that instant classic the Lion's game.) And 1-7 last season. So maybe regression to the mean will show up.
On the other hand Fox is 51-53 in one score games over his career.