A History of Rookie RBs Under John Fox (1 Viewer)

[kface]

Still makes me nervous however....he'll go early in our modified keeper league.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I'm of the opinion that the history of rookie RBs under John Fox doesn't much matter.

I've never been in any Broncos or Panthers coaches meetings, and I'm not claiming any inside knowledge here.

But in general, the head coach usually plays less of a role in determining playing time than the position coach or the coordinator. That is even more true where the position in question is on offense and the head coach is more of a defensive guy.

I doubt that DeShaun Foster's or Jonathan Stewart's or Ronnie Hillman's lack of playing time as rookies had much to do with John Fox himself. And in determining how much playing time Montee Ball is likely to get this year, I'd look to Eric Studesville and Adam Gase before I looked to John Fox.

i also wonder if there is any possibility elway has input?

he just compared ball's running style to terrell davis yesterday...

one of the first things i thought of after drafting ball, was elway might be reminded of how he only experienced super bowl success late in his career once he had a strong running game, and now manning is in a very similar situation to where elway was late in his career...

mayock during the draft stated that ball turned when blocking (not squaring up), which sounds correctable... don't get me wrong, technique is important, but that can be coached up... and is more likely to be coached up, and more quickly, if the desire and want to is there... maybe they had a sense of this through their background vetting?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm of the opinion that the history of rookie RBs under John Fox doesn't much matter.

I've never been in any Broncos or Panthers coaches meetings, and I'm not claiming any inside knowledge here.

But in general, the head coach usually plays less of a role in determining playing time than the position coach or the coordinator. That is even more true where the position in question is on offense and the head coach is more of a defensive guy.

I doubt that DeShaun Foster's or Jonathan Stewart's or Ronnie Hillman's lack of playing time as rookies had much to do with John Fox himself. And in determining how much playing time Montee Ball is likely to get this year, I'd look to Eric Studesville and Adam Gase before I looked to John Fox.

i also wonder if there is any possibility elway has input?

he just compared ball's running style to terrell davis yesterday...

one of the first things i thought of after drafting bell, was elway might be reminded of how he only experienced super bowl success late in his career once he had a strong running game, and now manning is in a very similar situation to where elway was late in his career...

mayock during the draft stated that ball turned when blocking (not squaring up), which sounds correctable... don't get me wrong, technique is important, but that can be coached up... and is more likely to be coached up, and more quickly, if the desire and want to is there... maybe they had a sense of this through their background vetting?

Yeah, this is a great point, was just coming in here to post something similar. Someone mentioned a few posts ago that the position coach is more meaningful than John Fox....not sure I agree with that logic. That said, bob's point above resonates - John Fox is no longer part of a piss-poor organization. He's at a place led by John Elway. It would be shocking if Elway let Fox continue to make idiotic decisions - if that happens, my gut is that Fox will end up out the door. Fox is there because he is executing Elway's vision for this team.

 

[BigTex]

You folks are some serious Ball busters

Gian's right. Cecil dropped the ball on this one...

What is the name of the player we are discussing here?

Is it not obvious??? Lance is the only true Baller on this team! Come on man, pay attention.

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

I listen to the pod cast sometimes. This is not a personal attack it is honesty. I said you have some very good qualities that make the pod cast the success that it is. But your logic and opinions, in my opinion are often flawed, as they were in the article you wrote. I spent time of my day to read that. I think you constructed an argument before looking at the objective information and then very poorly used facts that did not support that argument. This is not the fault of scouts, GMs or players who I am sure very much like you. I myself think you are a very nice guy. At the same time what those people tell you is vague, hopeful and sometimes just putting on a happy face/best case scenario. Readers are counting on you to be able to see through all of that and divine what will really happen. Not what just makes a nice story.

I'm sure you didn't write it with the intention of attacking Cecil, but saying someone lacks critical thinking skills and needs to rethink how much they understand football is about as ad hominem as it gets. I also happen to disagree- he gets some things right and he gets some things wrong, which makes him exactly like everyone else- hell, I once spent a summer posting that Ron Dayne was likely to win the starting RB job in Denver. Instead, he got cut in training camps. Anyway, the access and journalistic cred Cecil brings to FBGs is unique, and frankly, I think FBGs would be better off with 31 more Cecil's, not one fewer.

I would trade a thousand Cecils for one Yudkin. If FBGs does add more content such as Cecil's I may have to just stop reading FBG all together. Not that I read much of it now.

My problem with Cecil is not just from this article. It is basically every time he opens his mouth for the past decade or so. I do not suffer this foolishness easily. When listeners/readers are looking for insight into a situation instead Cecil sends them on a fools errand, chasing red herrings. I think Cecil and fellow staff should be embarrassed of this nonsense and be looking to change the cause of that, which is the intent of my comments. I know I would be embarrassed if I were in those shoes and I would be looking to change that however I can. Or even just the presentation and attitude towards it. If I just look at Cecil as a fluff commentary type pieces then I get what I am expecting. But when Cecil tries to post something serious then I expect it to be serious and thoroughly thought through, not pieced together haphazardly and presented as cutting edge analysis. I think the FBG history of quality articles and analysis are cheapened by such poor work by comparison. Your jumping to the defense of this poor quality work only shows that you and other FBG staff are willing to overlook these weaknesses, that your standards are not that excellent, which in my opinion diminishes the credibility of the whole site by demonstrating that.

There is a reason why many staff have been vetted through their participation here in the Shark Pool. So that they know what their readers are interested in and what kind of information/analysis those readers are looking for.

Well I, as I assume many others do, love the energy and information Cecil brings to the website and the podcast and I would be disappointed if he and other staff members were driven away from message board participation, we would all be poorer for it. If you don't value his opinion that's not a crime, I'm sure we all have writers we like and others we don't. I just don't get the point of calling someone out because what they write doesn't do it for you. Disagree with the points they make, offer a counter opinion, but to say someone should be embarrassed for nonsense is ridiculous and out of line.

Here's a suggestion, treat the mountain of information Footballguys provides us as a resource to make your own decisions. Use the differing staff opinions as a way to help formulate your own conclusions. If there's someone you find you disagree with more than the others, that doesn't mean that contribution isn't valuable to your own effort, incorporate that counterpoint into your own strategy because to win you ought to have a good understanding of how other people in your league may be viewing players and team actions, and not all of them may think along the same lines as you do.