Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 18:36:54 GMT -6
I think one more key point is worth making here.
There is one main reason John Fox was hired over Adam Gase and IMHO only one. If overall a team is only as good as it's QB then Gase would have been the very best choice to either help Jay Cutler resurrect his career or evaluate that we needed to move on from him and a younger QB for Gase to develop would already have been drafted and all talk about the QB position would now be a moot point.
John Fox was hired because he was deemed to be the best choice to help created a quick turn around. It wasn't his defensive expertise, that's what Vic Fangio was for. And it sure as hell wasn't his offensive expertise because much like Lovie he has little or none. That's what Adam Gase was hired for despite the knowledge that he'd most likely be one and done as the Bears OC. It also wasn't because he's a great strategist and a clever game day coach which has never proven to be the case here in Denver or prior to that based on my knowledge of him.
Fox was hired solely based on his previous reputation for quickly creating a winning culture surrounding the team and assembling a roster of players capable of playing well enough to win and win now. THAT and his previous experience is the only reason Fox was hired over Gase. It seemed to working out that way as long as Gase was here managing just enough offense to keep us in games and the defense from getting worn out from playing 40 minutes of a 60 minute game. Gase is gone now and what's happened?
So when the guy you hired to coach based solely on the thought that you could quickly restock or reconstruct a roster on the fly and at least remain competitive while getting a team back into contention not only can't even come close to meeting that objective but is actually losing ground in year two don't we just have one more Marc Trestman kind of deal going on? The faces have changed, especially on the roster, but the results are much the same.
So I'll ask the same question one of my teachers once asked me. If someone shows you a small piece of plaid cloth. How much more of it do you need to see to recognize the rest of the pattern?
There is one main reason John Fox was hired over Adam Gase and IMHO only one. If overall a team is only as good as it's QB then Gase would have been the very best choice to either help Jay Cutler resurrect his career or evaluate that we needed to move on from him and a younger QB for Gase to develop would already have been drafted and all talk about the QB position would now be a moot point.
John Fox was hired because he was deemed to be the best choice to help created a quick turn around. It wasn't his defensive expertise, that's what Vic Fangio was for. And it sure as hell wasn't his offensive expertise because much like Lovie he has little or none. That's what Adam Gase was hired for despite the knowledge that he'd most likely be one and done as the Bears OC. It also wasn't because he's a great strategist and a clever game day coach which has never proven to be the case here in Denver or prior to that based on my knowledge of him.
Fox was hired solely based on his previous reputation for quickly creating a winning culture surrounding the team and assembling a roster of players capable of playing well enough to win and win now. THAT and his previous experience is the only reason Fox was hired over Gase. It seemed to working out that way as long as Gase was here managing just enough offense to keep us in games and the defense from getting worn out from playing 40 minutes of a 60 minute game. Gase is gone now and what's happened?
So when the guy you hired to coach based solely on the thought that you could quickly restock or reconstruct a roster on the fly and at least remain competitive while getting a team back into contention not only can't even come close to meeting that objective but is actually losing ground in year two don't we just have one more Marc Trestman kind of deal going on? The faces have changed, especially on the roster, but the results are much the same.
So I'll ask the same question one of my teachers once asked me. If someone shows you a small piece of plaid cloth. How much more of it do you need to see to recognize the rest of the pattern?
