Please Jim - DO NOT HIRE CHIP KELLY!!!!

[coltsfeva]

I've seen different opinions form Colts fans, regarding hiring Chip Kelly. Living near Philly, I've been surrounded by Eagles fans and press and my concern is that Grigson will lean towards hiring him. I think it would be a mistake for the following reasons:

 

"Time of possession is overrated": I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Chip spout this off. Time of possession doesn't matter when you have a lead and need to run the ball? What about your defense being on the field for extended periods? 

 

EGO/Arrogance: You have to be confident to be a good coach or player but the arrogance that Chip expressed, not only in press conferences but a philosophy that says; " I'm smarter than these other coaches and will change the NFL" by running a super-fast offense" or : "I need to be GM and get rid of players like Shady 'McCoy, Macklin, etc" (how did that work out?)

 

Eagles gassed by the end of the season: A result of the warp-speed training and play calling. The human body can only take so much. Or as Booger McFarland quoted this morning; " He who runs fast, doesn't run for long"

 

Chuck Pagano is a better NFL coach than Chip Kelly: I know I've lost a lot on of you on this point, and I know Chuck has to take some of the blame for this year because the team was so inconsistent, but part of the problem this year has been injuries, lack of talent and mental mistakes by the players. I'd rather see Grigson go than Pagano.

 

So, please Mr. Irsay DO NOT HIRE CHIP KELLY!!!!

[Gavin]

He isn't gonna hire Chip, I think Cowher will come out of retirement to coach Luck

[Dustin]

> Time of possession is overrated

Yes, it is incredibly overrated. What is the point of long time consuming drives if you don't score TDs on them? If your offense works better being fast-paced then that is what you do.

 

"Teams who win the TOP battle typically win" is classic results based analysis. Those teams aren't winning the game because they're winning TOP; they're winning TOP because they are winning the game.

 

>Chuck Pagano is a better NFL coach than Chip Kelly

 

No, he isn't. Both will be available on Monday and Kelly will draw far more interest from teams.

 

I would also say that Chip Kelly understands opportunity cost better than any other person in the NFL, but him signing Demarco Murray kind of puts a damper on that.

[Smonroe]

I kind of hope he goes to the Titans.  Not that I wish injury on any player, but that would certainly ensure that Mariota wouldn't be a long term threat in the division.  No NFL QB would last with the Oregon offense.

[Defjamz26]

We're not getting Kelly. He'll go to the Titans or maybe the Dolphins.

 

The Colts are probably looking at Cowher, Gruden, or Payton if the Saints fire him.

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

> Time of possession is overrated

Yes, it is incredibly overrated. What is the point of long time consuming drives if you don't score TDs on them? If your offense works better being fast-paced then that is what you do.

 

"Teams who win the TOP battle typically win" is classic results based analysis. Those teams aren't winning the game because they're winning TOP; they're winning TOP because they are winning the game.

 

>Chuck Pagano is a better NFL coach than Chip Kelly

 

No, he isn't. Both will be available on Monday and Kelly will draw far more interest from teams.

 

I would also say that Chip Kelly understands opportunity cost better than any other person in the NFL, but him signing Demarco Murray kind of puts a damper on that.

 

TOP does matter because if your defense doesn't get a decent break they will be gassed being on the field for 3/4ths of the game.

 

 

[Dustin]

Just now, Valpo2004 said:

 

TOP does matter because if your defense doesn't get a decent break they will be gassed being on the field for 3/4ths of the game.

 

 

 

That's the prevailing wisdom, but the Saints have had the best TOP in the NFL the past 3 years and have had the worst defense overall in that span, meanwhile the Broncos currently have the best defense in the NFL and are 20th in TOP. 

 

There's no real correlation between defensive rankings and TOP to say definitively either way if it makes a difference. Also, typically a team having a good defense means shorter drives for the opposing offenses thus less TOP, giving the illusion that the defense is good because of TOP and not the other way around. 

[Valpo2004]

40 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

That's the prevailing wisdom, but the Saints have had the best TOP in the NFL the past 3 years and have had the worst defense overall in that span, meanwhile the Broncos currently have the best defense in the NFL and are 20th in TOP. 

 

There's no real correlation between defensive rankings and TOP to say definitively either way if it makes a difference. Also, typically a team having a good defense means shorter drives for the opposing offenses thus less TOP, giving the illusion that the defense is good because of TOP and not the other way around. 

 

TOP is important but it doesn't replace the fact that you also need talent on defense and the Saints have none.  

I'm sorry but when I see a defensive team clearly gassed out there after being forced to play a lot due to 3 and outs there is nothing that makes me think they are performing at their highest possible level..  

[OffensivelyPC]

5 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

That's the prevailing wisdom, but the Saints have had the best TOP in the NFL the past 3 years and have had the worst defense overall in that span, meanwhile the Broncos currently have the best defense in the NFL and are 20th in TOP. 

 

There's no real correlation between defensive rankings and TOP to say definitively either way if it makes a difference. Also, typically a team having a good defense means shorter drives for the opposing offenses thus less TOP, giving the illusion that the defense is good because of TOP and not the other way around. 

Whether it's the defense or the offense being the ones contributing most, the bottom line is you want to win the TOP battle. It almost always invariably means you are sustaining longer drives, increasing your chance to put points on the board with the added bonus of gIving your dedense rest so they have more energy at the end of the game. Anyone who thinks TOP is meaningless needs to stick their head in a bucket of ice water.

[Valpo2004]

35 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Whether it's the defense or the offense being the ones contributing most, the bottom line is you want to win the TOP battle. It almost always invariably means you are sustaining longer drives, increasing your chance to put points on the board with the added bonus of gIving your dedense rest so they have more energy at the end of the game. Anyone who thinks TOP is meaningless needs to stick their head in a bucket of ice water.

 

I think the pro Kelly argument is that it's not TOP that matters so much as it is having more offensive snaps.

 

There is some truth to that but what I also believe is that going straight for more offensive snaps and doing them as quickly as possible puts your defense in a bind because they get very little time to rest.

 

Most of it really is about having more snaps but IMO that still ignores the fact that your defense needs time to rest so that they can be at their best when they do go out there.  

[Dustin]

7 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

TOP is important but it doesn't replace the fact that you also need talent on defense and the Saints have none.  

I'm sorry but when I see a defensive team clearly gassed out there after being forced to play a lot due to 3 and outs there is nothing that makes me think they are performing at their highest possible level..  

 

7 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Whether it's the defense or the offense being the ones contributing most, the bottom line is you want to win the TOP battle. It almost always invariably means you are sustaining longer drives, increasing your chance to put points on the board with the added bonus of gIving your dedense rest so they have more energy at the end of the game. Anyone who thinks TOP is meaningless needs to stick their head in a bucket of ice water.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/01c5afec4a554b2381d7954202eee723/time-possession-has-turned-meaningless-stat

 

The things @OffensivelyPC listed are what you want, but TOP is just a byproduct of that. TOP is completely meaningless. The problem is that you are equating low TOP to 3 and outs when that's not the case. 

 

Do you care how long the Colts time of possession is on a drive where Luck throws a 70 yard bomb to TY Hilton on the 2nd play of the drive? 

[OffensivelyPC]

13 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/01c5afec4a554b2381d7954202eee723/time-possession-has-turned-meaningless-stat

 

The things @OffensivelyPC listed are what you want, but TOP is just a byproduct of that. TOP is completely meaningless. The problem is that you are equating low TOP to 3 and outs when that's not the case. 

 

Do you care how long the Colts time of possession is on a drive where Luck throws a 70 yard bomb to TY Hilton on the 2nd play of the drive? 

Not sure where that guy gets his numbers, but it looks like he cherry picked. You tell me which spectrum of this list you would rather be on.

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot

[Dustin]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

Not sure where that guy gets his numbers, but you tell me which spectrum of this list you would rather be on.

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/average-time-of-possession-net-of-ot

 

Quote

"Teams who win the TOP battle typically win" is classic results based analysis. Those teams aren't winning the game because they're winning TOP; they're winning TOP because they are winning the game.

 

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

 

"They win because they are winning" - that's as circular as it gets. It doesn't explain anything. TOP isn't the scoreboard, but coaches know, if they win the TOP battle, their chances of winning are higher. Like turnovers, you don't NEED more turnovers to win, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if you have more takeaways than giveaways, your chances of winning are higher.

[buccolts]

57 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

We're not getting Kelly. He'll go to the Titans or maybe the Dolphins.

 

The Colts are probably looking at Cowher, Gruden, or Payton if the Saints fire him.

 

Yeah, Chip's up tempo offense would go over swimingly in hot humid Miami.

Too bad Denver's covered.

[Dustin]

6 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

"They win because they are winning" - that's as circular as it gets. It doesn't explain anything. TOP isn't the scoreboard, but coaches know, if they win the TOP battle, their chances of winning are higher. Like turnovers, you don't NEED more turnovers to win, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if you have more takeaways than giveaways, your chances of winning are higher.

 

It's basically the same thing as those stats where it goes "X team is undefeated when *starting runningback* gets Y carries". Yes, they're undefeated because they're running the ball to run out the clock at the end of games. Same scenario here. More runs at the end of games = higher time of possession. 3 straight runs at the end of a game is 120 seconds of TOP which is the difference from #1 in the league and 16th in the league. 

 

BTW, Bill Belichick is also a HC who says that time of possession is overrated.

[OffensivelyPC]

3 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

It's basically the same thing as those stats where it goes "X team is undefeated when *starting runningback* gets Y carries". Yes, they're undefeated because they're running the ball to run out the clock at the end of games. Same scenario here. More runs at the end of games = higher time of possession. 

 

BTW, Bill Belichick is also a HC who says that time of possession is overrated.

The issue is not that it's overrated, the original accusation is that it is meaningless - which you also saI'd yourself. It is not. If TOP was meaningless, coaches wouldnt care about clock management. Winning the TOP battle may be devalued, but it is not meaningless.

[Dustin]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

The issue is not that it's overrated, the original accusation is that it is meaningless - which you also saI'd yourself. It is not. If TOP was meaningless, coaches wouldnt care about clock management. Winning the TOP battle may be devalued, but it is not meaningless.

 

The only time it's meaningful is when you are trying to run out the clock at the end of the game. And even then you're not trying to "win the TOP battle" you're just trying to end the game. And clock management is much more than TOP. 

[Valpo2004]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

 

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/01c5afec4a554b2381d7954202eee723/time-possession-has-turned-meaningless-stat

 

The things @OffensivelyPC listed are what you want, but TOP is just a byproduct of that. TOP is completely meaningless. The problem is that you are equating low TOP to 3 and outs when that's not the case. 

 

Do you care how long the Colts time of possession is on a drive where Luck throws a 70 yard bomb to TY Hilton on the 2nd play of the drive? 

 

No I don't but that's because he's scoring a TD and the worst the opposing offense can do is score another TD and keep up.

 

But if he goes out there and uses only a minute of game time just to get a FG or uses even less and gets nothing then it's concerning.

 

Not every offensive drive ends in a TD and if you didn't get a TD then the amount of time that yoru defense had to rest on the sidelines comes into play. 

[OffensivelyPC]

 

3 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

The only time it's meaningful is when you are trying to run out the clock at the end of the game. And even then you're not trying to "win the TOP battle" you're just trying to end the game. And clock management is much more than TOP. 

We are obviously not going to agree.

[Dustin]

6 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

No I don't but that's because he's scoring a TD and the worst the opposing offense can do is score another TD and keep up.

 

But if he goes out there and uses only a minute of game time just to get a FG or uses even less and gets nothing then it's concerning.

 

Not every offensive drive ends in a TD and if you didn't get a TD then the amount of time that yoru defense had to rest on the sidelines comes into play. 

 

Yeah, but that's a whole different factor, which is the efficiency of the offense. If the Colts had 9 drives and possesses the ball for 24 minutes, but scored a TD on 3 of them and a field goal on two others, then I (nor should anyone else) have a problem with this. 

 

In the same scenario, if the Colts only score 14 points, then that's not a result of the quick paced offense, but as a result of the play-calling and efficiency of the offense as a whole. Yeah it'd suck that the defense MAY be a little more tired, but the fact of that matter is that the offense didn't do it's job regardless of how much time on the clock it ate up.

[Dustin]

2 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

 

We are obviously not going to agree.

 

Yup.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Dustin said:

> Time of possession is overrated

Yes, it is incredibly overrated. What is the point of long time consuming drives if you don't score TDs on them? If your offense works better being fast-paced then that is what you do.

 

"Teams who win the TOP battle typically win" is classic results based analysis. Those teams aren't winning the game because they're winning TOP; they're winning TOP because they are winning the game.

 

>Chuck Pagano is a better NFL coach than Chip Kelly

 

No, he isn't. Both will be available on Monday and Kelly will draw far more interest from teams.

 

I would also say that Chip Kelly understands opportunity cost better than any other person in the NFL, but him signing Demarco Murray kind of puts a damper on that.

Agreed.  In the end, I think Kelly's Ego/Arrogance towards others is what did him in.  If he had a bit more of Chuck's outward humbleness, he would have had more time to fully implement his personnel philosophy.

 

I think you said it before.  Kelly is actually a strategist where as Pagano hands out poker chips.  Maybe if one were a little more like the other they would have steadier employment.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

We're not getting Kelly. He'll go to the Titans or maybe the Dolphins.

 

The Colts are probably looking at Cowher, Gruden, or Payton if the Saints fire him.

Where do these Cowher/Gruden rumors keep coming from? Is that just wishful thinking on our fanbase's behalf, or is there an article out there somewhere stating that Irsay has expressed interest in those 2?

[Dustin]

Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Where do these Cowher/Gruden rumors keep coming from? Is that just wishful thinking on our fanbase's behalf, or is there an article out there somewhere stating that Irsay has expressed interest in those 2?

 

Idk about Gruden, but Irsay had an "informal" dinner with Cowher a few weeks back, 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

"Time of possession is overrated": I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Chip spout this off. Time of possession doesn't matter when you have a lead and need to run the ball? What about your defense being on the field for extended periods? 

It is to overrated a degree, but it depends on the scheme. Our offense clicks much better when they're in the no-huddle and moving the chains. When we try to go ground and pound, the 3 and outs start to pile up pretty quickly.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

2 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

Idk about Gruden, but Irsay had an "informal" dinner with Cowher a few weeks back, 

I do remember hearing about that now. I'd prefer that to Saban, no doubt about it.

[Pelt]

2 hours ago, Smonroe said:

I kind of hope he goes to the Titans.  Not that I wish injury on any player, but that would certainly ensure that Mariota wouldn't be a long term threat in the division.  No NFL QB would last with the Oregon offense.

Yeah, I live down in Memphis now and my wife, a native Tennessean, is scared to death that the Titans are going to hire this guy. She wants the Titans to have nothing to do with Chip.

[jbaron04]

3 hours ago, coltsfeva said:

I've seen different opinions form Colts fans, regarding hiring Chip Kelly. Living near Philly, I've been surrounded by Eagles fans and press and my concern is that Grigson will lean towards hiring him. I think it would be a mistake for the following reasons:

 

"Time of possession is overrated": I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Chip spout this off. Time of possession doesn't matter when you have a lead and need to run the ball? What about your defense being on the field for extended periods? 

 

EGO/Arrogance: You have to be confident to be a good coach or player but the arrogance that Chip expressed, not only in press conferences but a philosophy that says; " I'm smarter than these other coaches and will change the NFL" by running a super-fast offense" or : "I need to be GM and get rid of players like Shady 'McCoy, Macklin, etc" (how did that work out?)

 

Eagles gassed by the end of the season: A result of the warp-speed training and play calling. The human body can only take so much. Or as Booger McFarland quoted this morning; " He who runs fast, doesn't run for long"

 

Chuck Pagano is a better NFL coach than Chip Kelly: I know I've lost a lot on of you on this point, and I know Chuck has to take some of the blame for this year because the team was so inconsistent, but part of the problem this year has been injuries, lack of talent and mental mistakes by the players. I'd rather see Grigson go than Pagano.

 

So, please Mr. Irsay DO NOT HIRE CHIP KELLY!!!!

I hopened Jim is smart enough to fire Grigson and don't hire chip or any other hc that wants total control or gm that interferes with coach , 

[steveeoaktree33]

3 hours ago, Gavin said:

He isn't gonna hire Chip, I think Cowher will come out of retirement to coach Luck

Man, that would be great, hope you're right. I also second the no hire of Kelly.

[CanuckColtsFan]

I'd keep Chuck over hiring Chip but that's just me.

[coltsfeva]

10 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

It is to overrated a degree, but it depends on the scheme. Our offense clicks much better when they're in the no-huddle and moving the chains. When we try to go ground and pound, the 3 and outs start to pile up pretty quickly.

  Ideally, if an offense can run to take time off the clock (when needed) or score quickly (when needed), it becomes much more difficult to defend. To your point, if the Colts find a productive run game, it opens up the passing offense.

  Obviously, scoring is the most important thing so, if a team chews up clock and does not score or hits long plays downfield but fails in the red zone, it doesn't matter. 

  My objection to Chip's philosophy is that it disregards the fact that there are times in a game that TOP is the difference between winning and losing. TOP without scoring is overrated, but it does matter at points in time of every NFL game.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

I will say this to be perfectly fair: Kelly is the MOST qualified HC that's currently available, he WOULD be an improvement over Pagano, and our offense is practically custom-built for a Chip-type scheme.

 

Try to keep in mind, Kelly went 26-21 in a typically competitive NFC East with scrubs like Mark Sanchez, Nick Foles, Mike Vick, and Sam Bradford playing under center. I could see him having quite a bit of success with Andrew Luck as his QB.

 

Also, the sheer fact that so many Colts fans are against this is making me lean toward wanting it to happen. If for no other reason than to just see this forum light up like a pinball machine!

[steveeoaktree33]

2 minutes ago, coltsfeva said:

  Ideally, if an offense can run to take time off the clock (when needed) or score quickly (when needed), it becomes much more difficult to defend. To your point, if the Colts find a productive run game, it opens up the passing offense.

  Obviously, scoring is the most important thing so, if a team chews up clock and does not score or hits long plays downfield but fails in the red zone, it doesn't matter. 

  My objection to Chip's philosophy is that it disregards the fact that there are times in a game that TOP is the difference between winning and losing. TOP without scoring is overrated, but it does matter at points in time of every NFL game.

I agree. I specifically remember the Steelers' playoff game where they killed us in T.O.P. and we still could've won -- but only due to a fumble -- and I'll bet the odds favor the team that dominates the clock... just my opinion.

[Larry Horseman]

Chip is one of the brightest coaches in the league. He made mistakes, especially wanting roster control, but he's the type of dude who learns from mistakes. Based on available options and Chip's upside, I think he warrants serious consideration and I will be fine with hiring him. I think he will thrive in his next HC gig after making note of what worked and what didn't in Philly. He's not an egomaniac; he's confident and uncomfortable talking to the media. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 minute ago, Larry Horseman said:

Chip is one of the brightest coaches in the league. He made mistakes, especially wanting roster control, but he's the type of dude who learns from mistakes. Based on available options and Chip's upside, I think he warrants serious consideration and I will be fine with hiring him. I think he will thrive in his next HC gig after making note of what worked and what didn't in Philly. He's not an egomaniac; he's confident and uncomfortable talking to the media. 

I agree 100%. My question to anyone who's vehemently so against it: who's a better option?

[chad72]

Does anyone here think we may go after Hue Jackson, OC of the Bengals, for a head coaching position? I feel he might be a good hire. No one, I repeat, no one did well for the Raiders for the longest time due to their lousy QB play, and Hue Jackson was no different. Now that the Raiders have a QB and have a good GM that has been drafting decent players not based on their 40 time, they may be better.

 

Hue Jackson understands O-line, understands offensive football and if paired with a good DC, he can succeed with the Colts, IMO. He can bring the offensive consistency we have desired vs teams outside our division.

[MFT5]

Chip Kelly 2016 or Sean Payton

[Larry Horseman]

5 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

I agree 100%. My question to anyone who's vehemently so against it: who's a better option?

 

I'd much rather have Chip than Gruden, Cower, or Payton (common names around here). 

 

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Does anyone here think we may go after Hue Jackson, OC of the Bengals, for a head coaching position? I feel he might be a good hire. No one, I repeat, no one did well for the Raiders for the longest time due to their lousy QB play, and Hue Jackson was no different.

 

I'm a big fan of Hue and think the Colts should give him a look for sure. He was .500 with Oakland. 

 

[runthepost]

Hire Chip as a coach not as a hybrid gm coach. He's better than Chuck.