Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

John Fox to ESPN


oldunclemark

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Man you guys are pretty judgmental on him before he ever has his first broadcast.  His record has zero to do with his ability to be a part of a pre game show.

 

Rotoworld also not a huge fan of this move......

 

Capture.PNG

 

Edit: text too small so copied and pasted:

 

ESPN hired ex-Bears head coach John Fox as a studio analyst.

When are these networks going to learn that hiring these past-their-time former head coaches and players who have seen the sport completely pass them by isn't good for their viewership? Fox is another atrocious hire in a laundry list of them made by ESPN and NFL Network over the years. It's time for forward-thinkers rather than stone-age "football guys" who still live in a 1998 world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I didn't know they were the authority on the subject?  I don't know, I just see a lot of pre judgmental comments made. I wasn't aware that Fox was disliked so much.

 

I only knew about this as they mentioned it on a podcast I listen to, in reference to the fact that Rotoworld should not really be agenda driven, and more reporting based.

 

I agree with you though, the difference between being a coach and the team's identity under that coach is very different to what someone could be like as an analyst. The podcast crew (Around the NFL) were saying that, whenever there has been a large event like the combine or owners meetings, Fox was often seen to be "holding court" and the life of the party, so I will be reserving judgement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I didn't know they were the authority on the subject?  I don't know, I just see a lot of pre judgmental comments made. I wasn't aware that Fox was disliked so much.

I don't think he's necessarily disliked, just that this isn't an exciting move.  I think part of it has to do with him not having much of a personality.  People like Jon Gruden or Tony Romo had some personality, which led to them doing well in the booth.  John Fox is pretty vanilla, so to speak.  If a network had the option to hire Peyton Manning or Jay Cutler (football accomplishments aside), it's easy to be more excited about Manning because he actually has a personality whereas Cutler doesn't.  I think Roto's problem is his football mentality doesn't fit today's game, so his insights won't be as useful as someone else who better appreciates the modern game.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 21isSuperman said:

I don't think he's necessarily disliked, just that this isn't an exciting move.  I think part of it has to do with him not having much of a personality.  People like Jon Gruden or Tony Romo had some personality, which led to them doing well in the booth.  John Fox is pretty vanilla, so to speak.  If a network had the option to hire Peyton Manning or Jay Cutler (football accomplishments aside), it's easy to be more excited about Manning because he actually has a personality whereas Cutler doesn't.  I think Roto's problem is his football mentality doesn't fit today's game, so his insights won't be as useful as someone else who better appreciates the modern game.

So you have put him out to pasture before hearing a word he has said. OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 6:22 AM, 21isSuperman said:

I don't think he's necessarily disliked, just that this isn't an exciting move.  I think part of it has to do with him not having much of a personality.  People like Jon Gruden or Tony Romo had some personality, which led to them doing well in the booth.  John Fox is pretty vanilla, so to speak.  If a network had the option to hire Peyton Manning or Jay Cutler (football accomplishments aside), it's easy to be more excited about Manning because he actually has a personality whereas Cutler doesn't.  I think Roto's problem is his football mentality doesn't fit today's game, so his insights won't be as useful as someone else who better appreciates the modern game.

Ive listened to his media 'briefings' during Peyton's time in Denver and recently in Chicago..

 

On TV, I'd assume he's got to be candid..and actually say something......interesting and informative...

John has skillfully avoided that for 7 years now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • that’s simplifying something that is far from being simple…    if no one is putting pressure up front, professional receivers are going to get open regardless of the coverage… and the top qb’s are going to pick it apart. 
    • we risk losing Paye and company in the next year or two… Right? 
    • Thats easy. Having great coverage. If noone is open the rush will get there.    Or, I wish we blitzed more like Spaignola does as QB's are considerably less accurate under duress.    The best offenses have QB's that get rid of the ball quickly which negates to a degree the pass rush.  Scholars here are buzzing madly about pressures. Joey Bosa had a crazy number of pressures but how many resulted in incompletions? He had 2 more sacks than Kwity and played roughly 175 more snaps.  Detroit's Hutchinson, in their playoff loss, had no pressures, no sacks, and 1 tackle as I recall. And a heckuva player. Truth is you better have really good ability at both, including highly intelligent fast players in the back seven.
    • Any news on the attempted talks with Blackmon?   Worst case scenario:  we don't sign Blackmon, or any other safety FA, miss out on what few guys there are in this very non-deep safety draft, and wind up going into the season with Cross and Thomas as our best two guys.  Ewwww.
    • My follow up is about what you think is the most cost-efficient way to acquire the needed players to make the defense work as designed.    As to your point about risk, I guess... If you think specific DE prospects just aren't that good, that's one thing. I'm definitely against propping up a prospect just because he plays a position of perceived need. But I would think that if the Colts take a DE at #15, they see him as a potential game changing pass rusher, and the expectation is for him to exceed what the guys on the roster have shown so far. No one can know for sure, but that's the nature of the draft.   At corner, I just think that a fundamental reason why the Colts prefer their zone heavy scheme is because it's easier to find corners who can excel at zone coverage. So there's less of a premium on the position in this scheme, and that's by design. I also don't think the top 4-5 corners in this class fit Ballard's preferred profile. (Side point: This is not conventional thinking, but I think the order of importance in this defense is 3T, Edge, Will, FS, then CB. I think the objective is to take away big plays, funnel routes to the middle, and have rangy playmakers at Will and FS who can create turnovers. I'm not saying that's how I would build a defense, but I think that's the intention. Which also influences my thinking on Ballard's preferences in the draft.)    The scheme element doesn't necessarily apply at WR, but I think the value at WR favors taking one on Day 2, and I think Ballard's appetite for second round WRs is well established. I'd be open to drafting a WR at #15, but I don't think the Colts will do it.   So if I was an oddsmaker, I'd favor the Colts going DE or DT at #15, just based on how I think the top of the draft will fall, and the players available. I think most fans prefer corner or WR, mostly because of perceived need, but I don't see that happening. Nothing would shock me, though.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...