Joe Cox Gets Defensive
by hailtogeorgia on Sep 9, 2009 9:03 AM EDT
Email
Print
I heard about this on the radio this morning and then found Jeff Schultz's article with the actual quotes. You can read them here: http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2009/09/08/joe-cox-suddenly-has-critics-but-he-really-doesnt-care/
My issue with this is that Joe Cox is essentially playing the equivalent of the race card, and in doing so, is alienating fans. It doesn't take playing football to know what constitutes a poor performance by a quarterback of a nationally ranked FBS football team. Rather than being ultra sensitive and defensive to criticism, Joe should've said something to the extent of "I know my performance was not up to the expectations of the fans and that I am going to receive criticism, some warranted, some not. Rather than let this criticism get me down, I'm going to use it as motivation to prove the skeptics wrong."
The fact is, Joe did play a poor game, and he is going to have critics. Are fans who are critical of his performance saying that they could go out and do it better? No. They're simply making observations.
For the record, there are six FBS head coaches who never played college football. While I realize that Joe used football in general, I would be interested to hear his reaction to the criticism of these six men, were he ever subjected to it. Would he also not care about their opinions and discount them as chumps because they did not play college football? Judging by their pedigrees, I highly doubt it. These six men? Mike Leach, Paul Johnson, George O'Leary, David Cutcliffe, Charlie Weis, and Mark Mangino.
On another note, he COULD care less? Really? I think he means that he couldn't care less. Come on, Joe (and for the record, I have been in an English class before, so I can make that criticism).
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cox exercises a common fallacy: i.e., that people have no right to criticize someone else’s work or performance if they are not able to create like works or preform in the same capacity. Yes, it is a logical fallacy; however, it is a common response from anyone whose performance comes under close scrutiny (say, filmmakers or ballerinas).
Should Cox have said it? No. But he’s upset, he said it, big deal. I’m not sure it warranted the kind of response you give here. Much like the way you gratuitiously point out his incorrect grammar in phrasing to which degree he could or couldn’t care (again, an error that is extremely common in everyday speech and writing), your point about those six coaches, while valid (except possibly in Weis’ case) wasn’t really necessary to bring up.
All this talk over the offseason about Joe Cox’s undefeated record as a starter in high school (31-0) and college (Ole Miss ‘06, which he started but didn’t finish) may have dulled us to another reality: Joe Cox, prior to the OSU game, never had the experience of having a game on his shoulders and then letting it go. Being undefeated as a starter means he may be completely new to the concept of losing a game.
Being the starter, having the game (or at least a significant portion of it) on your shoulders, then losing in frustrating fashion — these are things Cox may be experiencing for the first time. And if that’s true, it may be that Cox is not used to losing, and thus his public comments aren’t as considerate or well-thought-out as they should be.
I don’t think we should judge Cox on his less-than-stellar response to this loss. If the trend continues after his second, we may have to worry. Until then, though, we should probably cut the guy a little slack.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
You certainly make valid points about
him never having to deal with losing while he was at the helm of a team before. However, I think you’re allowing him a little too much slack. Does the fact that the fallacy is common make it any less rude or pretentious? I am certainly not one to jump ship quickly and I have been in support of Joe Cox since Stafford decided to leave.
I take issue with the fact that he fell back on a classic cop-out to sidestep criticism. Is it tough for one to handle ignorant fans who tear a quarterback apart after one mediocre game? Of course it is. Where you err is using this as an excuse. Joe Cox may be new to defeat, but he’s not new to the spotlight. For months, we’ve heard about how Cox is level-headed, a great leader, a role model, etc. and this simply was not the type of behavior that I expected from him. It isn’t okay to belittle one’s fanbase (and the vast majority of the fanbase, at that) because one’s feelings are hurt. If Joe wants to shut up the critics (of which, again, I am not one), he needs to prove it on the field. Nothing he can say in a press conference will make these individuals feel more boorish than to go out and win on Saturday. Even Tim Tebow’s legendary promise would have been nothing more than something for all of us to laugh about, had he not gone out and made good on his word.
Was Joe’s reaction natural? Yes. Does that make it okay? No. Not that it matters, but I used to work at a bar. It took a little time to get used to drunks calling me their choice of profanities night-in and night-out. Occasionally, it got to me. However, I got over it because my boss sat me down on my first night and specifically explained to me that they weren’t throwing obscenities at me, the person; the cursing was directed at the door guy at the bar. Perhaps this would be a fine time for Mark Richt to teach a bit of humility, patience, and understanding to (the admittedly fiery) Joe Cox.
As for the point pertaining to the six coaches…they are all fine coaches, Weis included. Don’t be fooled by Notre Dame’s paltry last couple of years. Pear Bryant knows offense.
Last, I did not mean the grammar jab as a personal attack at Joe, it was directed more as comic relief and an example that everyone is fallable. I understand the frequency at which this particular phrase is misused (it’s one of my pet peeves) and do not think any less of our ginger-haired quarterback for the misuse of it.
by hailtogeorgia on Sep 9, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Humor is hard to convey/decipher on the Internet, so I apologize for misreading your intentions. My Weis jab was in the same vein.
Anyway, I understand where you’re coming from but I stand by my main point: we should cut Cox some slack because he is, in all probability, in a place he’s never been before as a quarterback. If his attitude toward the critics doesn’t improve after his second loss, then I think there may be a problem. (I’d just prefer that situation not arise this Saturday. Or the next Saturday. Or the one after that. Not occurring on the fourth Saturday from now would be preferable, but understandable if it did occur.)
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
Speaking of pet peeves
“him never having to deal with losing” should have been “his never having to deal with losing”. The functional subject of a participle used as a noun is almost always in the possessive. Other constructions can be correct, depending on the meaning of the sentence, but not in this case.
Please forgive my having pointed this out.
But to your point
I agree. I think Cox shouldn’t have said what he said. It would have been better if he’d given a general acknowledgement of the criticisms, some of which have been ridiculous, and then reaffirmed his commitment to improving his game and playing to his capability, in which he is confident. Or he shouldn’t have said anything about it at all. His comments were a mistake, but I won’t hold them against him. We’ve all been a little grumpy this week.
The problem that guys like Cox make is...
He thinks criticism is a personal shot. This isn’t like 2002 when jerks were calling Terrence Edwards and leaving hate voicemails and the such. There’s a difference between objectively criticizing Joe Cox the QB’s performance on the field, and taking a shot at Joe Cox the person. The problem with a lot of athletes is they don’t seem to distinguish the two.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I'm not sure why . . .
We should expect them to. Plenty of people I know (myself included) have a very hard time distinguishing, on a knee-jerk, emotional level — between criticism of their performance and criticism of themselves as people. Though irrational, it is usually a natural response. No, Cox hasn’t responded the right way, but I think he deserves some slack.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
I don’t know that a majority of the criticism of Joe Cox I’ve seen on the internet since Saturday has been “objective.”
Not that there’s not room to criticize… certainly there is. And I agree that he didn’t address it in the most constructive way… but this is really the first time he’s probably ever been asked “tough questions” about his performance on the field in his life, and he just shot from the hip and hit his foot.
I just think that far too many people are not keeping a level head about this whole thing. (Not that I’m saying that applies to you, AuditDawg… I’m just sayin’ in general.)
That's a fair point
Regarding “objective criticism” as most of the venom spewed has been along the lines of “Cox is the worst QB ever/season’s over/get the bum out of there/et al”. The problem I have with athletes in general (my comment wasn’t directed at Cox in particular) is that they hide behind this veil of “having played the game”. Apparently if you haven’t played the game at the colleigate level then you or I have no basis for which to qualify comments such as “Joe Cox didn’t play so good on Saturday”.
It doesn’t take me having played 4 or 5 years at the highest level of college football to conclude that Joe Cox didn’t play well on Saturday. I was able to conclude that by watching his performance on the field. That is merely calling a spade a spade.
I take offense that athletes pull that card to discount others who have a fair criticism. I equate it to the mainstream sports journalist vs. blogger debate wherein the journalist claims that bloggers have no credibility because they don’t have access. It doesn’t take a journalism degree from Northwestern and a press pass for me to come to the conclusion that “Derek Lowe looked tired in the 8th inning, maybe Bobby Cox should have pulled him.”
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
