Dan Hampton takes shot at John Fox

[soulman]

Bears Hall of Famer Dan Hampton takes shot at John Fox

 

https://bearswire.usatoday.com/2019/06/10/bears-hall-of-famer-dan-hampton-takes-shot-at-john-fox/

By: Alyssa Barbieri | 5 hours ago

John Fox’s reputation certainly preceded him before he came to the Chicago Bears. He’d led winning teams in Carolina and Denver. But his tenure in Chicago was marred by frustration and an abundance of losses.

During his three-year tenure as Bears coach, Fox had a 14-34 record, including back-to-back-to-back last-place finishes in the NFC North.

The Bears fired him after a 5-11 season in 2017, with a top-10 defense and rookie quarterback Mitch Trubisky, and brought in Matt Nagy to succeed him. In his first season, Nagy led the Bears to a 12-4 record and an NFC North championship.

At the Bears100 celebration, one of the most talked-about panels featured Bears defensive linemen from past and present. When someone mentioned Nagy, Hall of Fame defensive tackle Dan Hampton took a shot at Fox.

“Thank God John Fox’s *** is out of town,” Hampton said. “Thank God.”

Hampton wasn’t the only member of the 1985 team to criticize Fox. Former safety Gary Fencik had his own opinion about Fox, although more diplomatic.

“What I find refreshing, I liked John Fox, but John Fox didn’t treat fans with respect,” Fencik said. “And I’m a [Bears] fan. I’m a season-ticket holder. And it was kind of like, ‘You don’t deserve to know,’ or ‘I’m not going to give you a lot of information.’

“What I really like about Matt is I think he recognizes and respects that the fans aren’t idiots.”

Nagy is well-respected and loved by his players and staff. But he’s also widely respected by former Bears, who are now fans.

[soulman]

Danimal has always been one of my favorite '85 Bears.  The guy not only told it like it is but as a player he was a throwback to the '30s. A true warrior on the field. Can anyone recall and offseason when he didn't have a procedure on one of his knees?

But I think it's Fencik who really nailed him here.  John Fox was arrogant.  He was arrogant here in Denver and he brought his arrogance to Chicago with him.  For the most part Bears fans and media are pretty savvy football people yet he treated both like we couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of the game and the reasons behind some of his dumb decisions. 

What's the great secret behind being the second losingest HC in Bears history.  When only Abe Gibron did worse and mostly because he had Bobby Douglass for his QB where's the humility?  I knew of Fox's issues before he was hired and I was always opposed to it.

Contrast him with Nagy and it's just one reason why fans are so optimistic and excited again.....and his team as well.  He's a winner.

[WindyCity]

John Fox sucks and he phoned in his Bears tenure.

[soulman]

2 hours ago, WindyCity said:

John Fox sucks and he phoned in his Bears tenure.

Amen....Amen....Amen!

[beardown3231]

Consequently, what was the point of this? It was Fangio's defense when Fox was here and the talent was lacking. Offensively the talent was brutal. It was a complete teardown. Emery left the roster void of talent. Hampton is such a meathead. He can't put 3 consecutive sentences together. I can't wait for the next championship because some of those '85 guys are insufferable. Fox sucked, but let's not act like he had a ton of good players.

[soulman]

2 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

Fox sucked, but let's not act like he had a ton of good players.

OK, fair enough.  But let's not act like he was a good coach either or really gave a **** about anything more than keeping his last paychecks coming in. Windy is right.  Fox was mailing it in from the moment he stepped off his flight at O'Hare to sign his deal.

Beardown, I live in Denver making me at least a 1/2 Broncos fan too and Fox couldn't win the big ones here even with the Super Bowl ready team Elway presented him with.  He had defensive personnel as good as what we have here now and one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game practically running his offense for him and he still couldn't win crucial games.

He struggled to get his teams past the first round of the playoffs and Seattle and Pete Carroll tore him a new exhaust port in the Super Bowl yet he told everyone firing him was unfair because after all he'd always won the AFC West each year.  That's the kind of arrogance and incompetence I'm talking about.  It's just that Hampton expresses his displeasure in a more concise manner than I do.

Fox is a f'n ahole.  As a Bears HC he was a disaster and based on over 7 years of personal experience no one will convince me otherwise.

[beardown3231]

8 hours ago, soulman said:

OK, fair enough.  But let's not act like he was a good coach either or really gave a **** about anything more than keeping his last paychecks coming in. Windy is right.  Fox was mailing it in from the moment he stepped off his flight at O'Hare to sign his deal.

Beardown, I live in Denver making me at least a 1/2 Broncos fan too and Fox couldn't win the big ones here even with the Super Bowl ready team Elway presented him with.  He had defensive personnel as good as what we have here now and one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game practically running his offense for him and he still couldn't win crucial games.

He struggled to get his teams past the first round of the playoffs and Seattle and Pete Carroll tore him a new exhaust port in the Super Bowl yet he told everyone firing him was unfair because after all he'd always won the AFC West each year.  That's the kind of arrogance and incompetence I'm talking about.  It's just that Hampton expresses his displeasure in a more concise manner than I do.

Fox is a f'n ahole.  As a Bears HC he was a disaster and based on over 7 years of personal experience no one will convince me otherwise.

I 100% agree with all of that, but what does Hampton get out of bringing this up at a Bears 100th anniversary event? Keep your mouth shut. No one there even gave a **** about John Fox at that point and honestly he feels like a distant memory at this point, and in a time where the organization is looking up, there's no need to discuss a bad coach. What was next, talking about how Jay Cutler didn't smile enough for his liking?

Edited June 11, 2019 by beardown3231

[dll2000]

Fox is a good all around coach. 

He saw Bears as a no win, and it was a no win, and he just played 4 corners football so he wouldn’t get blown out.

But doing that makes it terrible product to watch (so are blow outs, but people quickly forget).  To me I would much rather try to win creatively and get blown out instead of planning to keep it close and hoping for a miracle or mistakes from other team in 4th quarter.  You have to do one or other when over matched. But in NFL world blowouts mean fans would have boycotted and media would have howled until he was fired instantly.  Embarrassment they would have screamed! So I can understand his decision. 

He took Belichick route of I am not going to tell you anything and that doesn’t play when you are losing.  

Predictably people hated him for all of it. 

But Fox is kind of coach that just does what he already knows and has worked to some extent before. He lacks inventiveness and risk taking.  So he will win games with a talented team, and be okay or better than most with a bad team, but he will never do anything special.  

He’ll never try a concept in NFL no one else is doing that he saw a college coach do.  Everything he does will be predictable in a small range of possibilities. He can out talent you and he won’t easily beat himself, but in end he will always lose to the people who are at least a little outside the box and more adaptable in long run as a result. 

 

[soulman]

10 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

I 100% agree with all of that, but what does Hampton get out of bringing this up at a Bears 100th anniversary event? Keep your mouth shut. No one there even gave a **** about John Fox at that point and honestly he feels like a distant memory at this point, and in a time where the organization is looking up, there's no need to discuss a bad coach. What was next, talking about how Jay Cutler didn't smile enough for his liking?

I don't how or why it came up other than somehow in the course of conversation about how much the team has changed as far as their camaraderie and attitude goes but Hampton has never been one to not be blunt and to the point about much of anything.

Maybe it was just a comment for all to realize how much better things are and how this team now has the same possibilities in front of them the '80s Bears did.  I suppose he could've challenged Ditka too and then we could've seen too old guys duke it out.  LOL

[Sugashane]

On 6/11/2019 at 7:04 AM, beardown3231 said:

I 100% agree with all of that, but what does Hampton get out of bringing this up at a Bears 100th anniversary event? Keep your mouth shut. No one there even gave a **** about John Fox at that point and honestly he feels like a distant memory at this point, and in a time where the organization is looking up, there's no need to discuss a bad coach. What was next, talking about how Jay Cutler didn't smile enough for his liking?

While I lack context to why the answer response came up, I have to agree. It seems like he is just picking "low-hanging fruit" to get himself cheers. Obviously Fox sucked. Did he also bother to mention that it sucked that our kicker missed the GW field goal against the Eagles? Might as well go for all the obvious statements. It just seems petty from the little I have seen. Hype up THIS team and coach, hype up THIS staff. Don't bring up Fox, Emery, or other failings at a celebration.

If he wants to go on about colossal failings, he was part of some first-hand. Instead of being known as the "85 Bears" they should have been the "Bears Decade" or the "80's Dynasty." Ditka being overrated as a coach, McMahon being unable to stay healthy and overrated due to being beloved in Chicago, and not having even a remotely decent reserve to rely on cost the Bears a chance at being one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history. They won the Super Bowl, but with how ridiculous the roster was that was still underachieving. I mean seriously, Kyle Orton wins 3 Super Bowls with that team in 5 years IMO. Dilfer would, Doug Williams and Brad Johnson would, etc. Its easy to spin things in a negative light, that didn't seem like the place to do it.

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

While I lack context to why the answer response came up, I have to agree. It seems like he is just picking "low-hanging fruit" to get himself cheers. Obviously Fox sucked. Did he also bother to mention that it sucked that our kicker missed the GW field goal against the Eagles? Might as well go for all the obvious statements. It just seems petty from the little I have seen. Hype up THIS team and coach, hype up THIS staff. Don't bring up Fox, Emery, or other failings at a celebration.

If he wants to go on about colossal failings, he was part of some first-hand. Instead of being known as the "85 Bears" they should have been the "Bears Decade" or the "80's Dynasty." Ditka being overrated as a coach, McMahon being unable to stay healthy and overrated due to being beloved in Chicago, and not having even a remotely decent reserve to rely on cost the Bears a chance at being one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history. They won the Super Bowl, but with how ridiculous the roster was that was still underachieving. I mean seriously, Kyle Orton wins 3 Super Bowls with that team in 5 years IMO. Dilfer would, Doug Williams and Brad Johnson would, etc. Its easy to spin things in a negative light, that didn't seem like the place to do it.

Problem with Bears '85 crew is they were all too combustible and many key guys were at end of their careers by time they assembled that group. 

Ditka charismatic leader, but John Fox has more imagination and knows more X's and O's.  

Buddy Ryan was charismatic and imaginative, but egotistical a hole who doesnt play well with others.

Walter Payton was at end of his career by then.

Mcmahon was great, but literally insane and rebelious.  

Perry was a great d linemen his rookie year, but had mental illness/depression that doomed him.

Hampton's knees were gone. 

And on and on. It couldnt last. It wasnt built to. 

'85 was a dream season though in every way imaginable.   

[Sugashane]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Problem with Bears '85 crew is they were all too combustible and many key guys were at end of their careers by time they assembled that group. 

Ditka charismatic leader, but John Fox has more imagination and knows more X's and O's.  

Buddy Ryan was charismatic and imaginative, but egotistical a hole who doesnt play well with others.

Walter Payton was at end of his career by then.

Mcmahon was great, but literally insane and rebelious.  

Perry was a great d linemen his rookie year, but had mental illness/depression that doomed him.

Hampton's knees were gone. 

And on and on. It couldnt last. It wasnt built to. 

'85 was a dream season though in every way imaginable.   

True but they were a damn good team before 85. They were 10-6 in 84 (with 5 starting QBs), 8-8 in 83 (McMahon had a pretty poor year and the defense was on a solid point) as well. 86 they still had the best defense in the NFL and exited the postseason due to Flutie's horrendous game, 87 they could have won it too but had Doug Williams starting in the postseason, etc. While 83 was their "culture change" year, they could have challenged in 84 easily. 85 obviously was a pretty easy cake walk overall compared to most super bowl runs, they would have challenged for multiple Super Bowls with competent QB play in the postseason. McMahon was somewhere between Kyle Long and Kevin White in injury luck.

Fox I don't believe had imagination, but rather attracted good coordinators to him. I will credit him for that, but this defense was built by Fangio, not Fox. And regardless, the team at least fought for Ditka, they gave up on Fox, just as he gave up on the team.

Agree wholeheartedly on Ryan. But this is a business. Bilichick is often seen the same way but he's the GOAT. MJ was the best basketball player ever but is the GOAT. Winning matters more to me than being likable. Otherwise Lovie would be the HC still, players would run through a wall for the man. But he was a failure for most of his career (post-season related mostly of course).

I don't see the McMahon love. He was the cool rebel of the 80s, but he was a mediocre QB. He was more a product of the talent around him than the one who made others better. I'd take a number of Bears QBs over him without hesitation.

Sure Hampton was declining, but he was still a damn fine player. He wasn't a liability by any means even at the end of his career, though of course missing games sucks. Plus we are talking about a 5 year window (84-88), he was still stellar for the bulk of that. With the talent around him the defense was still damn good while he was down. McMichael and Perry would still be a quality starting duo for any team.

Perry absolutely had his own demons to fight, but he was more like McMahon IMO, a great rookie year and some fantastic splash plays scattered through his career made him seem better than he really was. He was never the best DT but likely the best #3 DT in the NFL for several years.

Dynasties never last, the Brady Era has been ridiculous and I doubt is ever seen again. But with THAT level of talent being together only getting 1 Super Bowl in 5 years of potential dominance is a shame.

[dll2000]

10 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

True but they were a damn good team before 85. They were 10-6 in 84 (with 5 starting QBs), 8-8 in 83 (McMahon had a pretty poor year and the defense was on a solid point) as well. 86 they still had the best defense in the NFL and exited the postseason due to Flutie's horrendous game, 87 they could have won it too but had Doug Williams starting in the postseason, etc. While 83 was their "culture change" year, they could have challenged in 84 easily. 85 obviously was a pretty easy cake walk overall compared to most super bowl runs, they would have challenged for multiple Super Bowls with competent QB play in the postseason. McMahon was somewhere between Kyle Long and Kevin White in injury luck.

Fox I don't believe had imagination, but rather attracted good coordinators to him. I will credit him for that, but this defense was built by Fangio, not Fox. And regardless, the team at least fought for Ditka, they gave up on Fox, just as he gave up on the team.

Agree wholeheartedly on Ryan. But this is a business. Bilichick is often seen the same way but he's the GOAT. MJ was the best basketball player ever but is the GOAT. Winning matters more to me than being likable. Otherwise Lovie would be the HC still, players would run through a wall for the man. But he was a failure for most of his career (post-season related mostly of course).

I don't see the McMahon love. He was the cool rebel of the 80s, but he was a mediocre QB. He was more a product of the talent around him than the one who made others better. I'd take a number of Bears QBs over him without hesitation.

Sure Hampton was declining, but he was still a damn fine player. He wasn't a liability by any means even at the end of his career, though of course missing games sucks. Plus we are talking about a 5 year window (84-88), he was still stellar for the bulk of that. With the talent around him the defense was still damn good while he was down. McMichael and Perry would still be a quality starting duo for any team.

Perry absolutely had his own demons to fight, but he was more like McMahon IMO, a great rookie year and some fantastic splash plays scattered through his career made him seem better than he really was. He was never the best DT but likely the best #3 DT in the NFL for several years.

Dynasties never last, the Brady Era has been ridiculous and I doubt is ever seen again. But with THAT level of talent being together only getting 1 Super Bowl in 5 years of potential dominance is a shame.

49ers had a few good players too. 

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

49ers had a few good players too. 

True, and they made one Super Bowl in the 5 year span I mentioned. In 84 they got the Bears while the Bears did squat with Fuller at QB - Montana did little vs the Bears defense.

Bears beat the hell out of them in 1985

49ers destroyed the Bears in 87 as a no name was under center and threw 4 INTs - Young threw 4 TDs but under 50% completion, just fed off perfect field position.

Then won 10-9 vs the 49ers in 88, making Montana look like crap as McMahon played like... well, McMahon (Montana played better).

 

To me they were pretty evenly matched while SF had Montana and Rice plus a damn great team, while Chicago split it with them with completely inept QB play. I'll call even for Rice vs Payton ONLY because of the value Payton had to the offense and the way rules were set up to value RBs over WRs, SF had Walsh and we had Ditka (seems easy to see SF wins that comparison handily), etc.

 

Our QB situation is IMO the only thing that held this team back from having a historically remarkable 5 year span.

[soulman]

I'm gonna make this simple because it is simple.

Dan Hampton has a Super Bowl ring.  John Fox failed to earn one with two shots at it.

Dan Hampton earned that gold jacket he wears.  To me that means something.

The only gold jacket John Fox will ever own is one he buys himself. 

If you wanna talk the talk then you gotta walk the walk.  Hampton did.....end of story.