Broncos Hire John Fox (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Typical Fox. He lucked into getting Manning, so he'll probably be ok as a head coach the next couple years, but I expect Denver fans are growing tired of his style just like we did in Carolina.

Very few outside of the area understood why our fan base disliked him as a head coach. Today was a perfect example.

Guy should probably realize he has Peyton Manning back there.

you mean that guy that turned the ball over 3x, including a pick 6?it's pretty easy to beat the guy up when all your counterpoints are drawn from your imagination.

You seem much more emotionally invested in this discussion than you should be. As someone who watched a lot of Panthers games with Fox coaching (and as a PSU alum who watched the last 10-12 years of Paterno's coaching career), I know "Coaching not to lose in a big game" when I see it. I saw it last night. It's sad.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Typical Fox. He lucked into getting Manning, so he'll probably be ok as a head coach the next couple years, but I expect Denver fans are growing tired of his style just like we did in Carolina.

Very few outside of the area understood why our fan base disliked him as a head coach. Today was a perfect example.

Guy should probably realize he has Peyton Manning back there.

you mean that guy that turned the ball over 3x, including a pick 6?it's pretty easy to beat the guy up when all your counterpoints are drawn from your imagination.

You seem much more emotionally invested in this discussion than you should be. As someone who watched a lot of Panthers games with Fox coaching (and as a PSU alum who watched the last 10-12 years of Paterno's coaching career), I know "Coaching not to lose in a big game" when I see it. I saw it last night. It's sad.

 

[solorca]

It makes me happy to see that people around the country are finally realizing the pain we Panthers fans felt for years with this guy.

John Fox did have some good years with the Panthers.

Never said he didn't. The team had three good years under John Fox (out of nine seasons), but the fact remains that his bend but don't break style, along with the conservative playcalling was maddening to watch, year after year.

 

[pizzatyme]

It makes me happy to see that people around the country are finally realizing the pain we Panthers fans felt for years with this guy.

John Fox did have some good years with the Panthers.

Never said he didn't. The team had three good years under John Fox (out of nine seasons), but the fact remains that his bend but don't break style, along with the conservative playcalling was maddening to watch, year after year.

Insert, Tony Dungy, Lovie Smith, and about 10 other former coaches. Fox sucks!I think the Broncos win at the end of regulation there if they're down by 1 with 31. But tied and taking a knee...so sad.

 

[meanjoegreen]

It makes me happy to see that people around the country are finally realizing the pain we Panthers fans felt for years with this guy.

John Fox did have some good years with the Panthers.

Never said he didn't. The team had three good years under John Fox (out of nine seasons), but the fact remains that his bend but don't break style, along with the conservative playcalling was maddening to watch, year after year.

You never have anything nice to say about Fox, and your "happiness" based on yesterday is weird. The Panthers had some solid teams under Fox. He was also well liked by the players. His conservative offense was more prominent in his late years with the team, but with the quarterback play they were getting it wasn't surprising. He has his flaws and makes mistakes, but so do other coaches.

 

[solorca]

It makes me happy to see that people around the country are finally realizing the pain we Panthers fans felt for years with this guy.

John Fox did have some good years with the Panthers.

Never said he didn't. The team had three good years under John Fox (out of nine seasons), but the fact remains that his bend but don't break style, along with the conservative playcalling was maddening to watch, year after year.

You never have anything nice to say about Fox, and your "happiness" based on yesterday is weird. The Panthers had some solid teams under Fox. He was also well liked by the players. His conservative offense was more prominent in his late years with the team, but with the quarterback play they were getting it wasn't surprising. He has his flaws and makes mistakes, but so do other coaches.

I wouldn't say I was "happy" for his failure as much as I was at others seeing what I have always saw in him. I hate watching overly conservative coaches and he is one of the worst. The fact he coached the team I loved and couldn't build a consistent squad in 9 seasons gives me double the reason to dislike watching him.

 

[BassNBrew]

You are generating no pass rush, so where were the adjustments? you weren't running the ball well all day, yet they came out running the ball non-stop in OT, constantly putting themselves in 2nd and 3rd and longs. It was mind-numbing to watch.

I think I went a couple of years w/o seeing a blitz in Carolina. Fox seems to have success when his front 4 can generate pressure.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Typical Fox. He lucked into getting Manning, so he'll probably be ok as a head coach the next couple years, but I expect Denver fans are growing tired of his style just like we did in Carolina. Very few outside of the area understood why our fan base disliked him as a head coach. Today was a perfect example.

Guy should probably realize he has Peyton Manning back there.

you mean that guy that turned the ball over 3x, including a pick 6?it's pretty easy to beat the guy up when all your counterpoints are drawn from your imagination.

You seem much more emotionally invested in this discussion than you should be. As someone who watched a lot of Panthers games with Fox coaching (and as a PSU alum who watched the last 10-12 years of Paterno's coaching career), I know "Coaching not to lose in a big game" when I see it. I saw it last night. It's sad.

As one Bills fan to another, I'm fairly sure he's pissing in the Shark Pool. No need to follow the trail.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I wonder what Fox thought when he saw Matt Ryan go down the field for the game winning FG with 30 seconds left and a couple timeouts.

 

[moleculo]

I'm happy. Fox is basically the anti-McD. He brings a stout D, commitment to a running game, loyalty to his QB, ability to share in decision making processes, experience, and most of all, integrity.It's not a sexy pick, but right now Denver is not one of those teams looking to go from good to great, it's a team looking to get back to good, and that's something that Fox has demonstrated he can do.

Its now time for Broncos to from good to great. Hope Fox can change his stripes wrt in-game management.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Typical Fox. He lucked into getting Manning, so he'll probably be ok as a head coach the next couple years, but I expect Denver fans are growing tired of his style just like we did in Carolina. Very few outside of the area understood why our fan base disliked him as a head coach. Today was a perfect example.

Guy should probably realize he has Peyton Manning back there.

you mean that guy that turned the ball over 3x, including a pick 6?it's pretty easy to beat the guy up when all your counterpoints are drawn from your imagination.

You seem much more emotionally invested in this discussion than you should be. As someone who watched a lot of Panthers games with Fox coaching (and as a PSU alum who watched the last 10-12 years of Paterno's coaching career), I know "Coaching not to lose in a big game" when I see it. I saw it last night. It's sad.

As one Bills fan to another, I'm fairly sure he's pissing in the Shark Pool. No need to follow the trail.

Thanks. Don't really know him so I wasn't sure. Go Bills!

 

[BigJim®]

I wonder what Fox thought when he saw Matt Ryan go down the field for the game winning FG with 30 seconds left and a couple timeouts.

 

[Popinski]

I wonder what Fox thought when he saw Matt Ryan go down the field for the game winning FG with 30 seconds left and a couple timeouts.

Exactly what I was thinking after that happened.

 

[meanjoegreen]

It makes me happy to see that people around the country are finally realizing the pain we Panthers fans felt for years with this guy.

John Fox did have some good years with the Panthers.

Never said he didn't. The team had three good years under John Fox (out of nine seasons), but the fact remains that his bend but don't break style, along with the conservative playcalling was maddening to watch, year after year.

You never have anything nice to say about Fox, and your "happiness" based on yesterday is weird. The Panthers had some solid teams under Fox. He was also well liked by the players. His conservative offense was more prominent in his late years with the team, but with the quarterback play they were getting it wasn't surprising. He has his flaws and makes mistakes, but so do other coaches.

I wouldn't say I was "happy" for his failure as much as I was at others seeing what I have always saw in him. I hate watching overly conservative coaches and he is one of the worst. The fact he coached the team I loved and couldn't build a consistent squad in 9 seasons gives me double the reason to dislike watching him.

Fox had a huge amount of injuries to significant players during several seasons, which played a part in the inconsistencies. There used to be an ongoing joke that the stadium was built over an ancient buriel ground, which is why the Panthers had such bad luck with injuries. I don't dislike watching him, and I was hoping the Broncos would win. He made some bad decisions, as did Peyton who also decides some of the plays, but there were some bad decisions by some other coaches today too. It happens.

 

[SSOG]

I'm absolutely thrilled to have John Fox as our head coach. He's a fantastic coach, and the job he's done on this team in two years is remarkable. It's easy to play armchair coach, but none of his decisions were indefensible, or clearly wrong. On the whole, he certainly played a very conservative game, but what do you expect? The reality is that he is who he is, and who he is got Denver from 4-12 to 13-3. You want an aggressive coach? We had one before- he's how we wound up at 4-12. We had one before that, too- his tenure came to an end because of blown leads and historic collapses. Sure, I wish I could transfuse some of Shanahan's chutzpah into Fox's otherwise unflappable calm, but I can't do that- you have to take the whole package or leave it, and I take it. No questions whatsoever. You want to start pointing fingers for today's game, start with Von Miller, Elvis Dumervil, or Derrick Wolfe. Maybe JDR. Where was that league-leading pass rush today? The best defense against the deep ball is to not give the opposing QB all day to throw the deep ball. Even a modicum of pressure, and Denver wins it going away, and nobody's here questioning his decision to try a 52 yard field goal instead of a 7 yard 4th down conversion.

Uhhh not trying to win the game in this situation is indefensible. A lot is being made of the kneeling, which I agree was pretty bad, but I thought the far worse mistake was the previous possession. The Broncos get the ball with like 3:30 left after BAL failes to convert the 4th, and they made pretty much no attempt to close the game down. Run, run, run, right up the middle, mostly. They got a first down from two runs, which is great. Then run on 1st and 2nd down, fine. Then it was what, 3rd and 6 or 7, with like 1:20 left, BAl with zero time outs, and they have a choice - risk the 40 seconds to win the game. Put the ball in Peyton Manning's hands, and let him throw a pass to win the game. Literally, game is OVER if one of the best of all time can complete a pass for a first down. Instead, yep, dive up the middle. Ravens get the ball with like 1:20 left, and they leave 40 seconds on the clock after scoring the tying TD, lol.Sorry, but there was plenty that was indefensible. Fox cost them this game. I thought Manning was great, personally. The lack of a pass rush was also bad, but at some point you need to adjust, bring an extra rusher. I think DN rushed 4 the whole game, despite it not generating any rush, and Flacco having plenty of time to chuck these 60 yard bombs. Badly, badly coached game.

Yes, there were other decisions that would have improved his team's chances of winning. Fox came up in a different era, an era where coaching rules were passed down from the heavens and considered inviolable. Taking a knee at the end of each half results in a lower chance for your team to win... but the world he grew up in said that's what you do, and he's far too old to let things like statistical analysis change his mind now. That's going to be a weakness of his for the rest of his career. That's also maybe 5% of the coaching job. A guy can be terrible there, and still be a phenomenal coach. It's the most visible 5%, so most fans want to can the guys who are terrible at that 5% and great at the other 95% in favor of a guy who is mediocre at the 95% but great at the 5%. And even then, most fans are too focused on outcomes, so they crucify even the guys who get the 5% right (witness Belichick when he went for it on 4th vs. Indy two years ago). I question how much of the calling runs falls on Fox and how much falls on Manning. The 3rd and 5 run was ludicrous, but iirc, Manning audibled into that one- hard to pin it on Fox. The constant runs at the end of the game were maddening, but Manning could have audibled out at any time, and those runs DID leave Baltimore 70 yards from the end zone with 40 seconds and no timeouts, a situation where they have less than 5% chance of winning. And, again, all of this is such a small percentage of a head coach's job. Bill Cowher was a guy who always had people calling for his head because he was too conservative and stuck in his ways. Tony Dungy got fired because Tampa was convinced he was too conservative to ever win the SB. Would I prefer John Harbaugh or Bill Belichick to Fox? Yeah, but those guys aren't available. I'd prefer Fox to any other realistically available coaching candidate out there, with the exception of Chip Kelly or Bill Cowher. Otherwise, I'd rather stick with Fox, who is a pretty darn good coach, and someone Denver can easily win with.

 

[BRONG]

 

[LuckyOne]

Successful leaders (and people in general) learn from other successful leaders. Belichick would not tell Brady to take a knee if his star QB had 30 seconds to win a game. Fox would. One has three rings as a head coach. One has zero. If he doesn't play to win (instead of playing to not lose), I think his fingers will remain bare.

 

[BRONG]

I'm happy. Fox is basically the anti-McD. He brings a stout D, commitment to a running game, loyalty to his QB, ability to share in decision making processes, experience, and most of all, integrity.

It's not a sexy pick, but right now Denver is not one of those teams looking to go from good to great, it's a team looking to get back to good, and that's something that Fox has demonstrated he can do.

Its now time for Broncos to from good to great. Hope Fox can change his stripes wrt in-game management.

You serious? Please list the old, defensive-minded coaches that suddenly changed their nature/tendencies (and became good coaches). It's not in them. And they can't all of a sudden become something they're not. Would love to see examples of such drastic turnarounds.

 

[moleculo]

I'm happy. Fox is basically the anti-McD. He brings a stout D, commitment to a running game, loyalty to his QB, ability to share in decision making processes, experience, and most of all, integrity.

It's not a sexy pick, but right now Denver is not one of those teams looking to go from good to great, it's a team looking to get back to good, and that's something that Fox has demonstrated he can do.

Its now time for Broncos to from good to great. Hope Fox can change his stripes wrt in-game management.

You serious? Please list the old, defensive-minded coaches that suddenly changed their nature/tendencies (and became good coaches). It's not in them. And they can't all of a sudden become something they're not. Would love to see examples of such drastic turnarounds.

Of course I don't think he can... doesn't stop me from hoping for better days. Realistically, best chance for improvement is Fox turning complete control to Manning.

 

[moleculo]

Here's an example of a great play-call on 3rd & 7, game on the line, in playoffs, against a great D. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ20t2H1oXIHopefully Fox can get a chance to talk to that guy.

 

[JetMaxx]

I'm absolutely thrilled to have John Fox as our head coach. He's a fantastic coach, and the job he's done on this team in two years is remarkable. It's easy to play armchair coach, but none of his decisions were indefensible, or clearly wrong. On the whole, he certainly played a very conservative game, but what do you expect? The reality is that he is who he is, and who he is got Denver from 4-12 to 13-3. You want an aggressive coach? We had one before- he's how we wound up at 4-12. We had one before that, too- his tenure came to an end because of blown leads and historic collapses. Sure, I wish I could transfuse some of Shanahan's chutzpah into Fox's otherwise unflappable calm, but I can't do that- you have to take the whole package or leave it, and I take it. No questions whatsoever. You want to start pointing fingers for today's game, start with Von Miller, Elvis Dumervil, or Derrick Wolfe. Maybe JDR. Where was that league-leading pass rush today? The best defense against the deep ball is to not give the opposing QB all day to throw the deep ball. Even a modicum of pressure, and Denver wins it going away, and nobody's here questioning his decision to try a 52 yard field goal instead of a 7 yard 4th down conversion.

Uhhh not trying to win the game in this situation is indefensible. A lot is being made of the kneeling, which I agree was pretty bad, but I thought the far worse mistake was the previous possession. The Broncos get the ball with like 3:30 left after BAL failes to convert the 4th, and they made pretty much no attempt to close the game down. Run, run, run, right up the middle, mostly. They got a first down from two runs, which is great. Then run on 1st and 2nd down, fine. Then it was what, 3rd and 6 or 7, with like 1:20 left, BAl with zero time outs, and they have a choice - risk the 40 seconds to win the game. Put the ball in Peyton Manning's hands, and let him throw a pass to win the game. Literally, game is OVER if one of the best of all time can complete a pass for a first down. Instead, yep, dive up the middle. Ravens get the ball with like 1:20 left, and they leave 40 seconds on the clock after scoring the tying TD, lol.Sorry, but there was plenty that was indefensible. Fox cost them this game. I thought Manning was great, personally. The lack of a pass rush was also bad, but at some point you need to adjust, bring an extra rusher. I think DN rushed 4 the whole game, despite it not generating any rush, and Flacco having plenty of time to chuck these 60 yard bombs. Badly, badly coached game.

Yes, there were other decisions that would have improved his team's chances of winning. Fox came up in a different era, an era where coaching rules were passed down from the heavens and considered inviolable. Taking a knee at the end of each half results in a lower chance for your team to win... but the world he grew up in said that's what you do, and he's far too old to let things like statistical analysis change his mind now. That's going to be a weakness of his for the rest of his career. That's also maybe 5% of the coaching job. A guy can be terrible there, and still be a phenomenal coach. It's the most visible 5%, so most fans want to can the guys who are terrible at that 5% and great at the other 95% in favor of a guy who is mediocre at the 95% but great at the 5%. And even then, most fans are too focused on outcomes, so they crucify even the guys who get the 5% right (witness Belichick when he went for it on 4th vs. Indy two years ago). I question how much of the calling runs falls on Fox and how much falls on Manning. The 3rd and 5 run was ludicrous, but iirc, Manning audibled into that one- hard to pin it on Fox. The constant runs at the end of the game were maddening, but Manning could have audibled out at any time, and those runs DID leave Baltimore 70 yards from the end zone with 40 seconds and no timeouts, a situation where they have less than 5% chance of winning. And, again, all of this is such a small percentage of a head coach's job. Bill Cowher was a guy who always had people calling for his head because he was too conservative and stuck in his ways. Tony Dungy got fired because Tampa was convinced he was too conservative to ever win the SB. Would I prefer John Harbaugh or Bill Belichick to Fox? Yeah, but those guys aren't available. I'd prefer Fox to any other realistically available coaching candidate out there, with the exception of Chip Kelly or Bill Cowher. Otherwise, I'd rather stick with Fox, who is a pretty darn good coach, and someone Denver can easily win with.

This can't be a serious post. You sound like Jason Wood mindlessly defending an indefensible Andy Reid in the Eagles' thread.

 

[BRONG]

 

[pizzatyme]

He is serious. He's as serious as those out there who think Dungy was a GREAT coach. I get flamed here in Indy when I suggest Dungy kept the Colts from more success rather than helped us achieve success.IMO the ratio of player to coaching impact within the game itself is 80/20 players to coach. So, when the coaches control 20% and then fail at that, it is the difference between winning in the regular season and winning in the playoffs. It's a razor thin margin, the difference between winning and losing in most cases.The HC has maybe 10 chances within a game to make impactful decisions. Fox (and Dungy, Lovie, etc) failed on about half of those 10. That's what makes a loss.Not all decisions work out, case in point Belichick going for it on 4th and 2 and not making it against the Colts. But, I believe most fans would prefer the coach that has the fortitude to try.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Successful leaders (and people in general) learn from other successful leaders. Belichick would not tell Brady to take a knee if his star QB had 30 seconds to win a game. Fox would. One has three rings as a head coach. One has zero. If he doesn't play to win (instead of playing to not lose), I think his fingers will remain bare.

there are really quite a few head coaches with bare fingers.I don't know if he's the best coach in history, but if you're intent on running him out of town you'd better be careful what you wish for.apparently, most fans would prefer a new coach every year.

 

[SSOG]

He is serious. He's as serious as those out there who think Dungy was a GREAT coach. I get flamed here in Indy when I suggest Dungy kept the Colts from more success rather than helped us achieve success.

IMO the ratio of player to coaching impact within the game itself is 80/20 players to coach. So, when the coaches control 20% and then fail at that, it is the difference between winning in the regular season and winning in the playoffs. It's a razor thin margin, the difference between winning and losing in most cases.

The HC has maybe 10 chances within a game to make impactful decisions. Fox (and Dungy, Lovie, etc) failed on about half of those 10. That's what makes a loss.

Not all decisions work out, case in point Belichick going for it on 4th and 2 and not making it against the Colts. But, I believe most fans would prefer the coach that has the fortitude to try.

So, in-game coaching makes up 20% of the game, and bad in-game coaches blow 50% of their decisions, and this is why John Fox, Tony Dungy, and Lovie Smith lose so much (I'm presuming you mean especially in the playoffs, because I've seen this argument before, and people usually assert it goes double in the playoffs). Let's examine your theory and see if it holds water. John Fox has taken over two TERRIBLE franchises (Carolina had the #1 pick and Denver the #2 pick when Fox was hired). Also, in his last season in Carolina, his owner was busy purging the roster in preparation for the lockout/new CBA, setting Fox up for failure. Despite this, Fox has a 94-82 career record (92-68, .575 discounting his last year in Carolina). His playoff résumé includes a winning career record, two NFCCG appearances, and a SB appearance- all with Jake Delhomme at QB- and a win with Tebow at the helm.

Tony Dungy is 139-69 lifetime, despite taking over the biggest laughingstock franchise in history, guiding them to their first sustained success. His 70 games above .500 are the 9th best total in NFL history. While he has a losing career playoff record (9-10), he does have a SB title and an NFCCG appearance with Shaun King (as a rookie).

Lovie Smith is 81-63 lifetime, with a SB appearance with Rex Grossman at QB, and a second NfCCG appearance (which might have been another SB had Cutler not gotten injured).

The three coaches that you specifically mentioned have combined for a ridiculous 314 wins (vs 214 losses, for a combined .595 winning percentage), and are 18-18 lifetime in the playoffs with 3 SB appearances (1-2 record) and 7 championship game appearances (3-4 record). And these are the guys that you are specifically naming to prove that... What, conservative coaching leads to losses? Their record suggests otherwise. That conservative coaching leads to poor results in the playoffs? Again, their record suggests otherwise. That a conservative coach can't win a title? If his QB is Grossman or Delhomme, that's true. If his QB is Peyton Manning, that's false. Who is John Fox's QB again?

I will say it again- in-game decision making is really such a small part of a head coach's job, which is why those three gentlemen (and Andy Reid, the patron saint of terrible in-game management, and Bill Cowher, the patron saint of conservative play calling) have been able to be so consistently successful over their careers. It's why a guy like Marty Schottenheimer can make a 21 year career out of taking over terrible teams and only post a losing record 3 times. There is so unbelievably much more to coaching than just deciding when to go for it and when to kneel. Someone can be absolutely rubbish at history and still get a 3.5 GPA. He can't get a 4.0, but how many 4.0-type coaches are out there? Maybe 5? And they all seem to have jobs right now. If you can't get a 4.0-GPA coach, though, you could do a hell of a lot worse (and not a whole lot better) than one of the 3.5 guys. As I keep saying, in-game management is the most visible aspect of coaching, so casual fans think that's all there is to it, but the amazing careers that have been carved out by some terrible in-game guys demonstrates just how wrong that is.

 

[SSOG]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver.

And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

 

[Ernol]

Besides, the 30 second kneel down didn’t end up hurting the Broncos in the end. Manning had the ball anyway in OT needing only a FG to win it (this time with no time constraints). No harm no foul?

 

[pizzatyme]

When statboy tossed out his advanced stats of 85 versus 87%, was that considering all QBs or Hall of Fame QBs named Peyton Manning?I wonder the career playoff win percentages of more aggressive head coaches. Lets pick 3 I can think of of the top of my head- Sean Payton, Jeff Fisher, and Bill Belichick. Lets put those up against Lovie, Dungy, and Fox. And I don't even have to know the results to know which set of coaches I want leading my playoff team. And, Dungy taking over the Colts coincided with a Peyton Manning in his prime. I contest 9/10 coaches could have done as well or likely better than Dungy did during that span, especially during the playoffs.

 

[shader]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver. And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

Come on. You can't put percentages on how likely you are to kick a field goal.In virtually the same situation, Matt Ryan went right down the field and got a field goal with 13 seconds to spare.Taking the ball out of Peyton's hands was indefensible. Of course there is more to coaching than in game calls.Conservative safe play wins games more often than not. Some coaches have figure out the regular season and know how to build a consistent playoff team.But that doesn't mean they are the type of coach to get you to the big game.Fox blew it. There is no rational way to say otherwise.

 

[The Comedian]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver.

And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

For teams that need a touchdown to survive, time makes a big difference. With 1:09 to play, a team typically has a 13 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. With 1:49 to go, they have around a 26 percent chance. The choice, then, is between conceding Baltimore the 13 percent shot or gambling that you'll either win the game outright or give Baltimore a 26 percent chance to win. League-wide, third-and-7 situations are converted 42 percent of the time. That means if Denver drops back to pass, Baltimore's chance of winning is (1 - 0.42) * 0.26 = 0.15 = 15 percent. According to the math, then, Fox made the right call: Punting was, just barely, the right probabilistic call.

Really? So you take the %'s based on a league-wide average ignoring, you know, everything specific about this game?

 

[RUSF18]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver.

And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

For teams that need a touchdown to survive, time makes a big difference. With 1:09 to play, a team typically has a 13 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. With 1:49 to go, they have around a 26 percent chance. The choice, then, is between conceding Baltimore the 13 percent shot or gambling that you'll either win the game outright or give Baltimore a 26 percent chance to win. League-wide, third-and-7 situations are converted 42 percent of the time. That means if Denver drops back to pass, Baltimore's chance of winning is (1 - 0.42) * 0.26 = 0.15 = 15 percent. According to the math, then, Fox made the right call: Punting was, just barely, the right probabilistic call.

Really? So you take the %'s based on a league-wide average ignoring, you know, everything specific about this game?

You're right, but that's not what the writer is arguing and it's why he kept saying "according to the math" and "probabilistic". His job is to calculate those and that's all he's doing.The coach's job is then to apply all those qualitative factors to the math and make the call. And that's where Fox failed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Besides, the 30 second kneel down didn’t end up hurting the Broncos in the end. Manning had the ball anyway in OT needing only a FG to win it (this time with no time constraints). No harm no foul?

This is like saying that a dropped TD pass on second down doesn't matter because you still have a chance to score on third down.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Besides, the 30 second kneel down didn’t end up hurting the Broncos in the end. Manning had the ball anyway in OT needing only a FG to win it (this time with no time constraints). No harm no foul?

Pretty sure there's a positive correlation between the number of times you attempt to score and the number of times you actually score.

 

[The Comedian]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver.

And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

For teams that need a touchdown to survive, time makes a big difference. With 1:09 to play, a team typically has a 13 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. With 1:49 to go, they have around a 26 percent chance. The choice, then, is between conceding Baltimore the 13 percent shot or gambling that you'll either win the game outright or give Baltimore a 26 percent chance to win. League-wide, third-and-7 situations are converted 42 percent of the time. That means if Denver drops back to pass, Baltimore's chance of winning is (1 - 0.42) * 0.26 = 0.15 = 15 percent. According to the math, then, Fox made the right call: Punting was, just barely, the right probabilistic call.

Really? So you take the %'s based on a league-wide average ignoring, you know, everything specific about this game?

You're right, but that's not what the writer is arguing and it's why he kept saying "according to the math" and "probabilistic". His job is to calculate those and that's all he's doing.The coach's job is then to apply all those qualitative factors to the math and make the call. And that's where Fox failed.

Important point: I'm not criticizing the writer.

 

[fightingillini]

When statboy tossed out his advanced stats of 85 versus 87%, was that considering all QBs or Hall of Fame QBs named Peyton Manning?I wonder the career playoff win percentages of more aggressive head coaches. Lets pick 3 I can think of of the top of my head- Sean Payton, Jeff Fisher, and Bill Belichick. Lets put those up against Lovie, Dungy, and Fox. And I don't even have to know the results to know which set of coaches I want leading my playoff team. And, Dungy taking over the Colts coincided with a Peyton Manning in his prime. I contest 9/10 coaches could have done as well or likely better than Dungy did during that span, especially during the playoffs.

30 seconds and 3 timeouts, Peyton Manning, and Prater's big leg....I don't understand why DEN didn't put the ball in Manning's hands and try to give Prater a chance to win the game.

 

[moleculo]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver. And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

Interesting.

 

[bostonfred]

Besides, the 30 second kneel down didn’t end up hurting the Broncos in the end. Manning had the ball anyway in OT needing only a FG to win it (this time with no time constraints). No harm no foul?

Pretty sure there's a positive correlation between the number of times you attempt to score and the number of times you actually score.

Unless you are more likely to turn the ball over than score, in which case you should kneel down. Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

 

[JetMaxx]

Nfl network's Steve wyche says that several Ravens players told him that Mannings arm strength was waning by the end of the game. FWIW

 

[Warrior]

Besides, the 30 second kneel down didn’t end up hurting the Broncos in the end. Manning had the ball anyway in OT needing only a FG to win it (this time with no time constraints). No harm no foul?

Pretty sure there's a positive correlation between the number of times you attempt to score and the number of times you actually score.

Unless you are more likely to turn the ball over than score, in which case you should kneel down. Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Nfl network's Steve wyche says that several Ravens players told him that Mannings arm strength was waning by the end of the game. FWIW

I thought it seemed weak all game. He never really tried to throw downfield at all and it looked like he was throwing as hard as he could on those 5-10 yard outs and the ball was still slow in getting there.

 

[bostonfred]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

I remember the time my AA lost to 72o. I guess 72o must be a better hand.

 

[shader]

Nfl network's Steve wyche says that several Ravens players told him that Mannings arm strength was waning by the end of the game. FWIW

I thought it seemed weak all game. He never really tried to throw downfield at all and it looked like he was throwing as hard as he could on those 5-10 yard outs and the ball was still slow in getting there.

I always find it really sad to see great players decline. With Peyton I'm surprisingly sad. This is a guy I have hated for years and years, from the time he wore the disgusting Tennessee Orange until the days he dominated my hometown Titans for a decade.I've laughed at his season ending playoff games and I got a chuckle out of this one at the time.But I can't help but be a little sad as we watch his skills erode. He still led the Broncos to the number 1 seed and I wish we could have seen the Manning to Demaryius show at the peak of his skill level.I think he probably has one more year left in him. But we will see.I never thought the day would come where I'd be sad to see Peyton retire, but I am. A great player.

 

[Popinski]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

Huh? Warrior's point is absolutely correct. The Broncos were more likely to score than turn the ball over and lose, although the most likely event was neither team scoring.

 

[bostonfred]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

I remember the time my AA lost to 72o. I guess 72o must be a better hand.

It only SEEMS like AA loses 11 out of 20 times to 72o. At some point, you can't call it variance anymore. But let's use your analogy. If your aces keep getting cracked by weaker hands, maybe the problem is the player, not the hand. Maybe you win a lot of small hands, but when you get any real competition, you find you overplay it and end up losing a big pot. If that happens once, you might call it variance. A few times, and you can say you're just unlucky. But at some point, you have to recognize that there's a leak in your game.

 

[BusMan]

Wish they would have run more of those WR screens to Thomas. Dude is a beast on those.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

I remember the time my AA lost to 72o. I guess 72o must be a better hand.

It only SEEMS like AA loses 11 out of 20 times to 72o. At some point, you can't call it variance anymore. But let's use your analogy. If your aces keep getting cracked by weaker hands, maybe the problem is the player, not the hand. Maybe you win a lot of small hands, but when you get any real competition, you find you overplay it and end up losing a big pot. If that happens once, you might call it variance. A few times, and you can say you're just unlucky. But at some point, you have to recognize that there's a leak in your game.

I think I understand the analogy. If you have the best cards but you keep coming up short, maybe the problem is in your game. But what does Tom Brady failing to get the job done for six seasons in a row despite having the best team in the AFC many of those seasons have to do with this? We're talking about John Fox, Peyton Manning and the Broncos here.

 

[Popinski]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver.

And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

For teams that need a touchdown to survive, time makes a big difference. With 1:09 to play, a team typically has a 13 percent chance of scoring a touchdown. With 1:49 to go, they have around a 26 percent chance. The choice, then, is between conceding Baltimore the 13 percent shot or gambling that you'll either win the game outright or give Baltimore a 26 percent chance to win. League-wide, third-and-7 situations are converted 42 percent of the time. That means if Denver drops back to pass, Baltimore's chance of winning is (1 - 0.42) * 0.26 = 0.15 = 15 percent. According to the math, then, Fox made the right call: Punting was, just barely, the right probabilistic call.

Really? So you take the %'s based on a league-wide average ignoring, you know, everything specific about this game?

The math on the 3rd and 7 is incredibly superficial and misleading. For one, as mentioned above, this doesn't consider the specific trends and players (Manning had been very efficient on short yardage, Flacco/Ravens' WRs were getting deep completions all day) in this game. But he also doesn't consider the possibility of 1) a catch being made and falling down in bounds short of the 1st down or 2) Manning not liking what he sees and just taking a knee/sack - both of which result in the clock running.

 

[bostonfred]

Can you think of any reason why fox would have had manning kneel down there besides "he was afraid manning would throw an interception"?

He wasn't more likely to turn the ball over than score. But I bet Fox believed he WAS more likely to turn the ball over than score.This is due to Fox being an idiot.

What happened in overtime?

Huh? Warrior's point is absolutely correct. The Broncos were more likely to score than turn the ball over and lose, although the most likely event was neither team scoring.

I agree that the most likely event was neither team scoring. But that's irrelevant in the decision to kneel down, since no score doesn't change the game either way. The only reason - literally the only reason - that you don't go for it with time left in regulation and timeouts in hand is that you're more afraid of a game ending turnover than you are confident in a game winning score. Warrior and I seem to agree that fox felt the turnover was more likely than the score. Where we disagree, and you seem to disagree as well, is whether fox was correct to feel that way. And so we look at overtime. Denver had the ball more than once, and each time it was sudden death, field goal wins, just like at the end of regulation. And what happened? Manning turned it over, and didn't score. That doesnt mean that they shouldnt have tried to score, or that it was a certainty that manning would throw a game ending interception. But your contention that the broncos were more likely to score than turn the ball over and lose is a tough one when they did exactly the opposite. Fox can never come out and say that he was afraid his franchise qb would choke, but it is literally the only explanation for his actions, and he was proven right. Its unfair to criticize fox for being too conservative here.There is probably a good reason for it, too. Manning relies heavily on the check with mes, and the presnap reads, which are much more difficult in a hurryup offense. the defense can be one dimensional against the pass with short time left on the clock, which takes his audible out of the equation. the entire offensive system is predicated on mismatches - if they show eight in the box, we pass, if they go cover 2, we run, if they play off coverage, the receivers go short, if they blitz, we go to the hot read, eyou motion guys to get them to show their defense, and you take what they give. Manning lost badly in new england when they disguised their coverages and baited him into making the obvious adjustments, and the pats picked him off four times. The following season, just the threat of it kept him from playing aggressively, and they held him to just three points. He has adjusted over time, obviously, but the fact remains that his style is more about accuracy and intelligent decision making than gunslinging and improvisation, and that is probably what keeps him from excelling in some of these late game situations. Couple that with his deteriorated arm strength, and it seems like asking him to go bombs away with short time left was a recipe for disaster. Fox knew it, and he didn't try to make manning throw deep routes to get in field goal range because he was correctly afraid of what might happen. Fifteen minutes of game time later, his fears came true. That doesn't make fox an idiot, or overly conservative. He just correctly assessed the situation and tried to put his team in the best position to win.

 

[charlatan]

Just saw this: Brian Burke from Advanced NFL Stats ran the numbers on Fox's conservative calls to see just how terrible they were. His conclusion? Surprisingly enough, not very terrible. The run on 3rd down was flat out the correct call (running there gives Denver an 87% chance to win, passing gives them an 85% chance). The kneels at the end of both halves were both the wrong call, but it wasn't as bad as it first seems when you account for the weather (the wind was in Denver's face both times) and temperature (field goal kickers are less accurate in the cold). Both choices left very few points on the field (maybe a 10% chance for a FG in the first half, or just 0.3 expected points, and maybe a 5% increase in win probability in the second half). And Burke points out that, as the heavy favorite, pursuing a low-variance strategy made more sense for Denver. And lest you think Burke is some sort of old-school football fan who doesn't believe in aggressive play, he says one of Fox's worst calls was actually choosing not to go for it on 4th-and-1 from his own 39 in sudden death overtime. He's a big advocate for aggressive play when the numbers support it. It just happened that this time, the numbers didn't support it. Not that this will change anyone's opinion of Fox that gutless spineless coward who cost his team a win through sheer indefensible idiocy and who deserves to be fired immediately.

My take from this... I thought the Bronco's paid Manning what they're paying him TO INCREASE OUR CHANCES OF SUCCESS IN THESE SITUATIONS! Hell, if we're playing the numbers, then why the hell do we bother with Manning? I can see how you don't want to give the game away (which ironically, Manning played a hand in), but I cannot in all good consciousness excuse the horrible coaching (among other things) that caused the Broncos' epic fail. When you have an alleged HOF QB and you're preparing to pay him +$50M, you damn well better use him. If he doesn't cut it, he goes.