I don't know why if Fox isn't the guy to take us to the next level people are even talking about keeping him. If he's not the guy, you don't hire him in the first place, or you fire him now and find the guy who is.
If you are looking at a coaching changes what...one or two years down the line...make it now. Just my opinion.
You hire a guy you think is "the guy" until he proves that he is not. I never thought he was "the guy" and in his two years here, he has proven me right (at least in my own mind).
Contracts/commitments are meant to be broken. Once you make up your mind on someone, you either keep them or send them packing.
My interpretation of fair shake looks at it from both sides -- to be "fair". What value has been given? What has been received in return? Has enough time been given to accomplish the goals given the circumstances?
Once again, all of this is subject to individual viewpoints and is subjective. For me the answers for the first two are easy. Fox gets paid a whole lot. I do not think what we have gotten back reflects our expectations.
As far as the third item..... well that's where the crux of the disagreements really revolve.
Here is where I sit on this. after reflecting on this (mucho toilet seat time)....
There is the general concept .... has he been given enough time? And then there is the specific circumstance here. For me, the answers are different.
In general, I would say that two years are not enough time for a turnaround, but even in a general concept where you have many injuries, adding talent and going backwards raise an eyebrow. I think in general, my answer to this is two years is really not enough and he deserves a third to see if the downward trend will be reversed.
To get specific with the Bears (which is really the only pertinent thing), you have the above general situation, but you also now have a pattern you can see that is not there in a general situation. You have talent being let go on a basis that is probably not based on talent alone but the coaches desire not to deal with the situation. You have talent being brought in (Barth) that is really not any better than we had. You see a lack of adjustments. You see a person that does not seem to have a true grip on making the changes (granted an outsiders look). You see a lack of game time savvy and clock management. Any you see the team going down. Too many injuries. Bad luck (certainly) or perhaps some resistance to new age training methods that an old stubborn coach refuses to believe will help? Along with any sort of player metrics.
You take a look at that specific picture and then you factor in the desire to accelerate any build process (don't put it off for years like with Lovie or you just delay the rebuild) and you ask "is this the person I want to lead the team even in good times? Does he have the ability to shift strategies to accommodate different strategies from really good opposing coaches (the kind you must face in playoffs). At this point, to me anyway, the contract commitment is irrelevant. You want to see if this is the right leader. If not, cut your losses and get the right guy.
For me, the answer to this particular situation is that we would be better off moving away. I think just like Lovie, the writing is on the wall to read for anyone willing to read it and it will happen anyway. The sooner we do it, the sooner we have the ability to get set in our long term solution. Assuming we pick the right guy.
How many years, in your opinion is a "fair shake" since you stated 2 is not? Three? Four?
How many HCs should a single GM be allowed to hire? How many drafts?
Personally, I believe that it is a case by case basis. In some cases one year would be enough to show someone the door.
Hey Benj!
Not sure if you were able to get through all of that dribble or not, but I stated that there is no number of years. It is dependent upon the individual circumstances. In one situation, two years may not be enough, while in another it is enough time. I tried to relay why in this situation, I felt that he had been given enough time. My own belief of course.
Denver's not looking so dominant anymore. Makes me question the reasoning behind Fox's departure. Is the goal one and done? If Denver fails to make the playoffs this year and then is a middling team for a few more years does that make that one trophy worthwhile? Manning was with the Colts for how many year? How many times did he win an SB there?
I also take issue with this notion that he underperformed in Denver. The dude brought his team to the SB. They lost but I think ridiculing him for getting to the SB and falling one step short of the title undermines the talent on the Seahawk's roster and, in general, the any given Sunday realities. Denver with Fox was a dominant force. Carolina was not nearly as good a team as the Seahawks Fox faced the prior year.
I don't know that Fox is 'THE' coach that's gonna make this team great but I do believe you stick with your commitments and give the dude a fair shake.
Shhhhh....Belli...stop...it was all just dumb luck. LOL
And with Fox case, the emphasis should be on the word "dumb"
Like most coaches , John Fox wins when he has the talent . Plus I don't believe that he's just collecting a paycheck . I've seen too much genuine emotion and encouragement coming from him on the sidelines . I'd like to see how he does if he has the horses . If , then , he doesn't 'measure up ' , I'll buy into these arguments ... but not until .
Denver's not looking so dominant anymore. Makes me question the reasoning behind Fox's departure. Is the goal one and done? If Denver fails to make the playoffs this year and then is a middling team for a few more years does that make that one trophy worthwhile? Manning was with the Colts for how many year? How many times did he win an SB there?
I also take issue with this notion that he underperformed in Denver. The dude brought his team to the SB. They lost but I think ridiculing him for getting to the SB and falling one step short of the title undermines the talent on the Seahawk's roster and, in general, the any given Sunday realities. Denver with Fox was a dominant force. Carolina was not nearly as good a team as the Seahawks Fox faced the prior year.
I don't know that Fox is 'THE' coach that's gonna make this team great but I do believe you stick with your commitments and give the dude a fair shake.
I don't know that anyone would argue with that. I think it is all in the interpretation of a "fair shake"
Ya beat me to it. Give him a fair shake? Two years and a 9-21/.290 W/L % isn't? Why hasn't Charlie Manson been paroled? He wasn't even there when all those murders took place. Surely he deserves a fair shake too. I'm sure he won't be a bad boy again. He's old now.
And why is Blagojevich in prison anyway? All he did was try to make a few buck selling off Obama's senate seat. Hell, that just makes him a good businessman right? I'm sure Trumpy will see that give him a fair shake and pardon him. Ya' gotta have a respect for a pair like that huh? They're just smart businessman not crooks.
Denver is 8-6 playing with it's rookie and 7th round draft pick QBs Belli but they did just come of a very impressive SB win. We're 3-11 following 6-10 season and the closest Fox has come to a SB here is the game program GMcC brought him back from the last one.
Earlier today I called Foxy the captain of a sinking ship and I admit that I was wrong. He's more like the commander of a submarine with defective ballast tanks. Glub Glub, Glub Glub....say hello to Sponge Bob for us Foxy!
I don't know why if Fox isn't the guy to take us to the next level people are even talking about keeping him. If he's not the guy, you don't hire him in the first place, or you fire him now and find the guy who is.
If you are looking at a coaching changes what...one or two years down the line...make it now. Just my opinion.
If the Bears keep hiring and firing coaches, the Bears will be like the Cleveland Browns.. Hell no decent coach will even want to coach the Bears.. Hell no decent coach wants to coach the Browns.
I don't know why if Fox isn't the guy to take us to the next level people are even talking about keeping him. If he's not the guy, you don't hire him in the first place, or you fire him now and find the guy who is.
If you are looking at a coaching changes what...one or two years down the line...make it now. Just my opinion.
If the Bears keep hiring and firing coaches, the Bears will be like the Cleveland Browns.. Hell no decent coach will even want to coach the Bears.. Hell no decent coach wants to coach the Browns.
Yeah..But I don't think firing coaches all the time is why the Browns are the Browns. I think drafting poorly is why the Browns are the Browns. Look at the recent history of the Raiders (6 coaches in 9 years) and TB (4 coaches in 6 seasons, now up and coming.) I guess the Raiders should have kept Cable and the Bucs should have kept Lovie if we use the arguments proposed around here.
I also think people are underestimating the attraction of an NFL Head Coaching job. Whats the proof that no decent coach wants to go to Cleveland? If its that their coaches keep getting fired than that's a nice bit of circular reasoning there. The HC job here in Chicago is an attractive job. Original NFL franchisee, engaged fan base, major TV market...add all that to the fact that any HC who can turn this team around will be set for life in Chicago.
As far as I know, no 'decent' NFL coaches have turned Chicago down recently. The McCasky's just keep hiring the wrong ones. I'm also still (at the risk of being 'one of those guys') still waiting for a list of decent, respected, established HCs currently looking for jobs.
If the Bears keep hiring and firing coaches, the Bears will be like the Cleveland Browns.. Hell no decent coach will even want to coach the Bears.. Hell no decent coach wants to coach the Browns.
Yeah..But I don't think firing coaches all the time is why the Browns are the Browns. I think drafting poorly is why the Browns are the Browns. Look at the recent history of the Raiders (6 coaches in 9 years) and TB (4 coaches in 6 seasons, now up and coming.) I guess the Raiders should have kept Cable and the Bucs should have kept Lovie if we use the arguments proposed around here.
I also think people are underestimating the attraction of an NFL Head Coaching job. Whats the proof that no decent coach wants to go to Cleveland? If its that their coaches keep getting fired than that's a nice bit of circular reasoning there. The HC job here in Chicago is an attractive job. Original NFL franchisee, engaged fan base, major TV market...add all that to the fact that any HC who can turn this team around will be set for life in Chicago.
As far as I know, no 'decent' NFL coaches have turned Chicago down recently. The McCasky's just keep hiring the wrong ones. I'm also still (at the risk of being 'one of those guys') still waiting for a list of decent, respected, established HCs currently looking for jobs.
Well I guess we shall what happens when this season is over.
Just hope we get a new HC, I don't think it will happen.
I don't think Fox is getting fired. Just because I believe that playing hard should let a coach retain his job after going 6-10 & 3-11 doesn't mean the FO will agree. One more year should cement Fox's doom.
(As usual, I have irritional anti-Fox derangement syndrome. It affects everything I type.)