Chip Kelly fired

[runthepost]

I would like him as OC if he changes the tempo a little and tweaks the system to fit the colts

[wig]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He seems like a good coach, if we're talking strictly about football. I don't like his offense; I think it's too rigid and simplistic, I think the QB should have more responsibility with play calling and communication, and I think it promotes too many QB runs. But he's had success with it, can't deny that. They also played fast, physical defense before this season, and of course, at Oregon. He had some questionable game management scenarios, but every coach does, especially if the calls don't work out. 

 

I think his issues with player relations are a big problem, though, if you couldn't tell. 

 

I agree that it's hard to judge him as a GM, given the fact that he only had full control for one year. Although, he had a lot of say from the beginning. Lots of high profile decisions that have been second guessed, but I don't have a big problem with his personnel decisions. Just his method of managing personnel, which I think proved to be counter productive. 

 

That's all fair.  

 

I personally like the guy.  I watched him build a culture at Oregon that remains today.  I know what his ex players from Oregon think about him, first hand.  I also think he made mistakes in Philly, for sure.  

 

MeSean and McCoy are both concerned mostly with themselves and popular guys in the locker room.  When you want to create a culture, but in order to do so need to cut popular, outspoken and very talented players, you're playing with fire.  Now, if he can go somewhere with a good locker room presence and leadership, I think he will be very successful.  

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He seems like a good coach, if we're talking strictly about football. I don't like his offense; I think it's too rigid and simplistic, I think the QB should have more responsibility with play calling and communication, and I think it promotes too many QB runs. But he's had success with it, can't deny that. They also played fast, physical defense before this season, and of course, at Oregon. He had some questionable game management scenarios, but every coach does, especially if the calls don't work out. 

 

I agree that it's hard to judge him as a GM, given the fact that he only had full control for one year. Although, he had a lot of say from the beginning. Lots of high profile decisions that have been second guessed, but I don't have a big problem with his personnel decisions. Just his method of managing personnel, which I think proved to be counter productive. 

I think Kelly has said that his system allows it to be successful with non-superstar personnel on offense, but he admits that he needs studs on defense, which is where he wanted to spend his money and draft picks.

 

I also don't think he has had the QB he wanted or needs and it would be interesting to see the offense with all of the pieces in place.

[JCPatriot]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

 

Dude had 2 top 5 offenses and 2 double digit win teams in 3 years with trash at QB. I don't really care who he supposedly alienates if he can give us that.

 

Give us two double-digit-win teams in 3 years???  Pagano did that.  Or is it the two top-five offenses that make the difference?  It seems that if performance over the past 3 seasons is your benchmark, there isn't really any good reason to bring in Kelly to replace Pagano.  They have been pretty much comparable in terms of records in the regular season, and Pagano has had more success in the playoffs.  They both failed to win (probably) woefully weak divisions this season.  I don't see what makes you look at Kelly and say, "Yeah, I want him!!!"

[3nk1du]

Can we get Kiko Alonso for a conditional 5th?.(He was a Chip's guy)

Kiko was pretty good on coverage before the injury.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

This literally sounds like something I would read about Belichick. The dude who cuts people on Christmas and the week of the Super Bowl. The only difference is that BB has won enough to not face criticism.

Not a good comparison IMO. The players who spend time with Belichick says he has a great sense of humor, jst not in front of a camera or in public. The players who have complained are the ones cut or traded. Belichick does not hang onto players that have out done their use. Polian would sign those type of players to high dollar contracts. Big difference.

[BOTT]

5 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Give us two double-digit-win teams in 3 years???  Pagano did that.  Or is it the two top-five offenses that make the difference?  It seems that if performance over the past 3 seasons is your benchmark, there isn't really any good reason to bring in Kelly to replace Pagano.  They have been pretty much comparable in terms of records in the regular season, and Pagano has had more success in the playoffs.  They both failed to win (probably) woefully weak divisions this season.  I don't see what makes you look at Kelly and say, "Yeah, I want him!!!"

Chuck had Luck as QB and Chip had donkey poop

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

I wouldnt mind getting chip. I love his offense and we have the speed with hilton moncrief and dorsett

You want Chip? But you don't want Pagano? Mirror each other is stats except Pagano has a better post game record. Plus Paganos players like him, not so much with Kelly.

[Dustin]

8 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Give us two double-digit-win teams in 3 years???  Pagano did that.  Or is it the two top-five offenses that make the difference?  It seems that if performance over the past 3 seasons is your benchmark, there isn't really any good reason to bring in Kelly to replace Pagano.  They have been pretty much comparable in terms of records in the regular season, and Pagano has had more success in the playoffs.  They both failed to win (probably) woefully weak divisions this season.  I don't see what makes you look at Kelly and say, "Yeah, I want him!!!"

 

The difference is Chip Kelly is a good strategist and Chuck Pagano hands out poker chips with the words "grit" on it.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You want Chip? But you don't want Pagano? Mirror each other is stats except Pagano has a better post game record. Plus Paganos players like him, not so much with Kelly.

 

rather I want pagano or not doesnt really matter. unfortunately hes the scape goat for this lost season

[BOTT]

4 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

rather I want pagano or not doesnt really matter. unfortunately hes the scape goat for this lost season

Not a scapegoat.  Rather Irsay doesn't believe he is the coach good enough to meet his aspirations 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

rather I want pagano or not doesnt really matter. unfortunately hes the scape goat for this lost season

In fairness, I think the front office had questions about Pagano before this lost season, therefore he was given only the one-year extension offer this past summer.

[JCPatriot]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Chuck had Luck as QB and Chip had donkey poop

 

Fair enough, but wasn't one of the main points in the great Luck vs. RG3 debate of '11 that Luck ran a pro-style offense in college and was ready to step right into the NFL while RG3 ran an offense more suited to college ball that wouldn't necessarily carry over well to the NFL?  So now you want to take Luck and put him into Kelly's college-style spread offense?  Would Luck really be well suited to that?  I mean, I think he has the athletic ability to do it, but is it really the best fit for his talents?  Personally, I think Luck would perform better in a more traditional NFL offense.

[crazycolt1]

7 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

rather I want pagano or not doesnt really matter. unfortunately hes the scape goat for this lost season

I have no argument with that comment. I agree that Pagano might be the Colts scape goat for sure but it was Kelly who made the personal moves and has had the players being negative about him.

[BOTT]

Just now, JCPatriot said:

 

Fair enough, but wasn't one of the main points in the great Luck vs. RG3 debate of '11 that Luck ran a pro-style offense in college and was ready to step right into the NFL while RG3 ran an offense more suited to college ball that wouldn't necessarily carry over well to the NFL?  So now you want to take Luck and put him into Kelly's college-style spread offense?  Would Luck really be well suited to that?  I mean, I think he has the athletic ability to do it, but is it really the best fit for his talents?  Personally, I think Luck would perform better in a more traditional NFL offense.

I never said that 

[wig]

1 minute ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Fair enough, but wasn't one of the main points in the great Luck vs. RG3 debate of '11 that Luck ran a pro-style offense in college and was ready to step right into the NFL while RG3 ran an offense more suited to college ball that wouldn't necessarily carry over well to the NFL?  So now you want to take Luck and put him into Kelly's college-style spread offense?  Would Luck really be well suited to that?  I mean, I think he has the athletic ability to do it, but is it really the best fit for his talents?  Personally, I think Luck would perform better in a more traditional NFL offense.

 

Luck would excel in that offense.  It's very QB friendly.

[jet1968]

41 minutes ago, Mrs. Misunderstood said:

And so it begins.....   Who's next?

Probably find out Sunday afternoon after the first games since owners cant wait until Monday anymore

[JCPatriot]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I never said that

 

Okay, I'm confused then.  I'm not really sure what it is that you're advocating.

[BOTT]

Just now, JCPatriot said:

 

Okay, I'm confused then.  I'm not really sure what it is that you're advocating.

I didn't advocate anything.  I merely said Chuck had Luck and Chip had donkey poop at QB.  Maybe you have me confused with another?

[JCPatriot]

11 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Luck would excel in that offense.  It's very QB friendly.

 

Then why does pretty much no team in the NFL (a league with 32 of the best QBs in the world) run it as a primary offense?

[Dustin]

2 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Then why does pretty much no team in the NFL (a league with 32 of the best QBs in the world) run it as a primary offense?

 

Run what as the primary offense? Can you outline the concepts of Chip Kelly's offense?

[JCPatriot]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I didn't advocate anything.  I merely said Chuck had Luck and Chip had donkey poop at QB.  Maybe you have me confused with another?

 

Yeah, but you said it in response to a post in which I was saying that there wasn't any real reason in terms of performance that we should want Kelly over Pagano.  I know you didn't say this verbatim, but the implication that I got from it given the context was that this was reason to want Kelly over Pagano........which I really don't agree with.

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Fair enough, but wasn't one of the main points in the great Luck vs. RG3 debate of '11 that Luck ran a pro-style offense in college and was ready to step right into the NFL while RG3 ran an offense more suited to college ball that wouldn't necessarily carry over well to the NFL?  So now you want to take Luck and put him into Kelly's college-style spread offense?  Would Luck really be well suited to that?  I mean, I think he has the athletic ability to do it, but is it really the best fit for his talents?  Personally, I think Luck would perform better in a more traditional NFL offense.

I think that simply means that Luck was in a system that required the QB to read defenses whereas the Baylor system taught something else.

 

BTW, I think Luck's turnover problem is more related to bad decision making, so a more prescriptive offense might not be a bad thing.

 

I wouldn't realistically want Kelly as our OC/HC, but its not a bad idea.

[OffensivelyPC]

30 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Chuck had Luck as QB and Chip had donkey poop

In an even exchange, no less, by sending horse poop 900 miles west.

[BOTT]

Just now, JCPatriot said:

 

Yeah, but you said it in response to a post in which I was saying that there wasn't any real reason in terms of performance that we should want Kelly over Pagano.  I know you didn't say this verbatim, but the implication that I got from it given the context was that this was reason to want Kelly over Pagano........which I really don't agree with.

No, I was just pointing out their records in context.  The world is easier when you have a QB.  I'm not advocating hiring Kelly, although I would take him in a heatbeat over Chuck.

[wig]

21 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Run what as the primary offense? Can you outline the concepts of Chip Kelly's offense?

 

He can't. 

 

19 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think that simply means that Luck was in a system that required the QB to read defenses whereas the Baylor system taught something else.

 

BTW, I think Luck's turnover problem is more related to bad decision making, so a more prescriptive offense might not be a bad thing.

 

I wouldn't realistically want Kelly as our OC/HC, but its not a bad idea.

 

And Mariota couldn't start right away because he didn't know how to run "pro concepts".  It's ignorant. 

[JCPatriot]

21 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Run what as the primary offense? Can you outline the concepts of Chip Kelly's offense?

 

I'll admit that I haven't watched a lot of Eagles games (even though they are one of my local teams), especially this season.  From what I understand (and maybe I am completely off base), he basically tried to import a college-style spread offense into the NFL.  Flood the field with wide receivers, spread them out horizontally in the formation, and run a lot of deep vertical routes to spread the defenders out on the field.  Use that spreading of the defense to open up running room and depend on QB mobility to make up for the lack of blocking from having so many wide receivers on the field running routes.  Generally works well in college when you have a speed/size advantage and a mobile, athletic QB but is less effective in the NFL where everybody on the field is a world-class athlete.  Like I said, maybe I am completely off base with that.

[oldunclemark]

Chip's going  back to college, I'd guess

[King Colt]

If it weren't for coaches there would be no trailer homes.

[King Colt]

No major college openings. Tennessee Titans may be interested but he has 13.2 mil left on his contract so he does not need to work......must be nice to be a failure and super rich!  

[JCPatriot]

10 minutes ago, King Colt said:

......must be nice to be a failure and super rich!

 

A failure......  He's 26-22 as an NFL head coach.  Not an extraordinary record, but he has held his own against the best football coaches in the world.  Hardly a failure.

[BOTT]

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

[BOTT]

the Huricanes should fire Mark Richt and hire Chip

[LJpalmbeacher2]

I don't know what Irsay has going with other HC candidates But  he has to decide if he wants Chip or go against him in our division(titans). And he needs to decide quickly. A reunion with Mariotta may be difficult to beat.

[twfish]

6 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Why is that bad? Dude has 2 10 win seasons in 3 years.

Pagano had 3 11 win seasons in 4 years and people are calling for his head..

[Surge89]

5 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Whats with this Foles > Bradford meme

 

They both suck, but Foles is clearly worse. He's played 11 games before he got benched an threw 7 TDs (almost half of which can in one game) to 10 INTs and has by far the worst YPA in the NFL.

 

You keep throwing around Foles statistics around like it matters.  What matters is when Kelly had Foles, he performed at a borderline pro bowl level.  When he had Bradford he was suspect all year.  And the main reason why is because Kelly refused to adjust anything for Bradford.  He just saw that Bradford had more natural talent and assumed it was an auto upgrade, when it turns out he proved that Foles was a much better fit for his system.  And that's squarely on Kelly. 

 

And that exact same trend bleeds into his supposed "system".  He thinks he can just have better athletes and his system will never fail, except that isn't how it works on the NFL.  Every team will get talent and you can't just load on special talent because of a name like he did in college.  I'd have to see him actually start bending schemes to fit his players instead of vise versa for me to have any faith in him.

[amfootball]

I really thought Kelly made some awful moves this past off-season that has probably led to this firing but honestly I am shocked he was fired right now. Why on earth would Philly give him all that power and then turn around and fire him? At least give him another season with a new QB and see what he could do. I do wonder if perhaps this was somewhat mutual. Maybe Kelly said go ahead and fire me as I want to go back to college. I don't know. Would be interested to see if another NFL team wants him.

[amfootball]

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

I thought Foles had good stats when he was with Philly.  The problem is I think Kelly thought Bradford was a step up from  that but he looked lost all season, IMO. 

 

Maybe Foles belongs in Philly and Bradford in St Louis.....oops...too late.

 

Your first sentence is spot on. He gave up picks for Bradford so the expectation was that he would be much better than Foles. This is where Kelly made a poor decision. I am all for trying to upgrade but when you run his type of offensive system, you have to have the right guy. Still, I think he should have gotten another season or two with a new QB of his choosing.

[Dustin]

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

You keep throwing around Foles statistics around like it matters.  What matters is when Kelly had Foles, he performed at a borderline pro bowl level.  When he had Bradford he was suspect all year.  And the main reason why is because Kelly refused to adjust anything for Bradford.  He just saw that Bradford had more natural talent and assumed it was an auto upgrade, when it turns out he proved that Foles was a much better fit for his system.  And that's squarely on Kelly. 

 

And that exact same trend bleeds into his supposed "system".  He thinks he can just have better athletes and his system will never fail, except that isn't how it works on the NFL.  Every team will get talent and you can't just load on special talent because of a name like he did in college.  I'd have to see him actually start bending schemes to fit his players instead of vise versa for me to have any faith in him.

 

Ridiculous revisionist history. Every single person called Nick Files a product of the system and lets not forget that Kelly didn't trade him after his 27-2 season, no he traded him after a season where he threw 13 TDs to 10 INTs and completed less than 60% of his passes.

[amfootball]

9 hours ago, Dustin said:

 

Belichick got ran out of Cleveland because his players didn't like him. This is almost the exact same scenario except that Kelly has a better record. 

 

Even Belichick wouldn't have Belichick's resume if he got ran out of New England after they had a losing season.

To the bold - Say what?

 

To the second sentence - Bill has only had ONE losing season in NE - his first with Grier and Carroll's mess of a roster that he remolded in 2001 and won the SB with a 6th round pick at QB.