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

[Myles]

I think Chip will go back to college.    If not, I would love the Colts to dump Pagano for him.  I think roster control hurt him in Philly, but if Grigson is back, how can Chips roster control be any worse.

 

I'd like Cowher for the job as well.

[Myles]

22 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. 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.

I worry about anyone that has had contact with Marvin Lewis.   I think Marvin may be the worst coach in the NFL.   The guy should be a coordinator, not a head coach.   He gets a pass every year.   Been there for 13 years and has not won a playoff game.   People blame Dalton and say "Dalton can't win the big game".   They seem to forget that Marvin has been losing the "big game" since Dalton was in middle school.  

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

I worry about anyone that has had contact with Marvin Lewis.   I think Marvin may be the worst coach in the NFL.   The guy should be a coordinator, not a head coach.   He gets a pass every year.   Been there for 13 years and has not won a playoff game.   People blame Dalton and say "Dalton can't win the big game".   They seem to forget that Marvin has been losing the "big game" since Dalton was in middle school.  

 

Jay Gruden is doing fine with the Redskins. Hue Jackson had prior head coaching experience with the Raiders. So, unless the coach has been with Marvin Lewis throughout his lifetime, I wouldn't worry about that aspect :).

[indyagent17]

I could not agree more. Kelly is more of a college coach and too much of a dictator for the NFL

 

I would rather have Pagano than Kelly

[CR91]

as I mentioned in another thread, I dont have a problem with chip. I think his offensive would fit perfectly here, but im also open to other coaches. obviously as so many people mentioned I would love to get gruden because I think his west coast offense is perfect for luck, but I doubt he wants to leave ESPN. cowher ive been hearing a lot, but again I dont think cowher wants to leave his similar cushy job. sean payton I would absolutely love, but I cant really see the saints firing him and if they do, a lot of teams will be giving him a call not just us. my darkhorse is josh mcdaniels. I actually think he has a bright mind when comes to offense. heres a name no one has mentioned, James bettcher. hes the DC of the cardinals. their defense killed rodgers getting 9 sacks

[MTC]

I don't have a problem with Chip either.... as a coach.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I worry about anyone that has had contact with Marvin Lewis.   I think Marvin may be the worst coach in the NFL.   The guy should be a coordinator, not a head coach.   He gets a pass every year.   Been there for 13 years and has not won a playoff game.   People blame Dalton and say "Dalton can't win the big game".   They seem to forget that Marvin has been losing the "big game" since Dalton was in middle school.  

Mike Zimmer's panning out pretty well in Minnesota, and he's from the Lewis coaching tree. But I do agree with your stance on Lewis himself though. He's basically the elephant in the room at this point in Cincy. Seems like everyone in that organization has upheld their end of the bargain except for him. Mike Brown finally figured out how to draft, and as a result Lewis gets a stellar draft classes every season, so something's got to give at some point. If they lay an egg in the playoffs this year, he's a goner.

[hawkeyes]

ROFL - who in the world would even think this was a possibility?     Child PLEASE!

[Superman]

2 hours 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. 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.

 

He's definitely on my wanted list.

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Mike Brown finally figured out how to draft, and as a result Lewis gets a stellar draft classes every season, 

 

Mike Brown actually just turned over personnel to Duke Tobin, who is on my list for GM candidates.

[Dustin]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Mike Brown actually just turned over personnel to Duke Tobin, who is on my list for GM candidates.

 

Isn't Lewis the de facto GM?

[Superman]

4 hours 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 isn't that important, but there are certain instances where your team would be well served by a long offensive drive. Sometimes a long drive with no points is better than a short drive with points, especially at the end of a game. 

 

In that respect, my problem with Chip is his reluctance to slow down situationally when it would actually benefit the team. 

[Superman]

Just now, Dustin said:

 

Isn't Lewis the de facto GM?

 

They have a weird setup that no one really understands. Mike Brown is the GM, Tobin is VP of Player Personnel, and Lewis is the HC. But Lewis has a significant say in personnel, and all the coaches are closely involved in scouting. In fact, the Bengals have the smallest scouting staff in the league because they use their coaching staff to scout. 

 

Based on what I've read, I think Lewis is now the ultimate decider, with Brown having some oversight. But Tobin sets the table for him.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000367536/article/mike-brown-ceding-bengals-control-to-marvin-lewis

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/23/4021186/duke-tobins-big-role-with-the-bengals-front-office-and-the-nfl-draft-nfl-combine

[NorthernBlue]

I wouldn't mind Chip Kelly, just as long as he doesn't get full control of the trades and signings. And as long as he can keep the players happy. For of all Pagano's faults, he seemed to do a great job of keeping good relations with his players.

 

In terms of who I want, Sean Payton is on the top of my wish list. I think if NOLA fires him, that's who we'll go for. But I also think Irsay is going to take his time. Interview as many people as he can before making a decision. Which is good.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Chip Kelly sucks and on top of it is a power hungry *!! I say NO PLEASE!

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

TOP isn't that important, but there are certain instances where your team would be well served by a long offensive drive. Sometimes a long drive with no points is better than a short drive with points, especially at the end of a game. 

 

In that respect, my problem with Chip is his reluctance to slow down situationally when it would actually benefit the team. 

 

Yeah, TOP serves its purpose while combating another team's offensive strength, IMO. That is probably its biggest purpose. Saints shrinking SB 44 vs the Colts' offense, and Giants shrinking SB 42 vs the Pats' offense is pretty much what TOP helps for. Defensive efficiency or rankings, you are as good as the sum of the defensive parts to get off the field, and that is all there is to it.

[Superman]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, TOP serves its purpose while combating another team's offensive strength, IMO. That is probably its biggest purpose. Saints shrinking SB 44 vs the Colts' offense, and Giants shrinking SB 42 vs the Pats' offense is pretty much what TOP helps for. Defensive efficiency or rankings, you are as good as the sum of the defensive parts to get off the field, and that is all there is to it.

 

Yeah, if your defense sucks, then controlling the ball helps protect your defense. But your offense better be ending drives with points, hopefully TDs, otherwise you're undermining yourself.

 

Best argument against TOP being a causal stat is 2009, Week 2, Colts @ Dolphins. But that's more of a statistical anomaly...

[Myles]

52 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Mike Zimmer's panning out pretty well in Minnesota, and he's from the Lewis coaching tree. But I do agree with your stance on Lewis himself though. He's basically the elephant in the room at this point in Cincy. Seems like everyone in that organization has upheld their end of the bargain except for him. Mike Brown finally figured out how to draft, and as a result Lewis gets a stellar draft classes every season, so something's got to give at some point. If they lay an egg in the playoffs this year, he's a goner.

They did just sign him to an extension.  They seem awfully lenient with him.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Mike Brown actually just turned over personnel to Duke Tobin, who is on my list for GM candidates.

In other words, Mike Brown finally stopped drafting.

[RockThatBlue]

The people who hate Grigson, should want nothing to do with Chip Kelly. Kellys roster management is pitiful, at best.

[Myles]

15 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

The people who hate Grigson, should want nothing to do with Chip Kelly. Kellys roster management is pitiful, at best.

I don't know of anyone who wants Chip to have GM control.

[wig]

Let me clear up this whole "Chip doesn't care about TOP" talk.

 

First things first, he absolutely doesn't care about it.  Crazy, right?  Sure. . . if you don't know what he cares about.  

 

Second - what does he care about?  Number of plays.  He wants to run more plays than the other team. He believes that is the key. Can anyone argue that this doesn't make sense?  If your team runs more plays, giving you more opportunities to move the ball, leading to more opportunities to score, is that wrong?  

[Coltsman1788]

I definitely want Griggs replaced.  At the same time, no thank you to Chip Kelly especially if he insists on being a coach/GM hybrid like he was in Philly. As a coach he was decent enough minus the fact that he alienated many of his players and lost the locker room.  However in his GM role with Philly, Chip Kelly was that city's worst nightmare.  I remember after his flurry of questionable to outright horrible offseason moves, ESPN posted the Eagles bird logo with a duck bill.  Too funny.

[antipatriot]

Amen to that I would have to consider my allegiance if Jim were naive enough to hire Chip ( I wouldnt stop being a Colts fan ........I think ).  I wouldnt mind Payton or Gruden not a big Cowher fan.  I just want a coach who is realistic and not all the we will be a power running team garbage when that isnt possible with the personnel you have and when you dont need to be that and we do not need to be that.  A coach that takes advantage of the players we have and a GM who looks to improve where we are weak not just add more of what we are already good at. 

 

Not sure who our next coach will be I just hope it isnt Kelly or Saban because either would be a complete disaster and you can write that down.

[wig]

13 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't know of anyone who wants Chip to have GM control.

 

Chip doesn't want that. He told Glazer he just wants to coach wherever he goes next. 

 

He also told him, as I have told everyone here since the beginning of the season, that he wants to stay in the NFL and has no interest in college. 

 

If Chip goes to Tennessee, it is terrible news for us. 

[antipatriot]

1 minute ago, wig said:

 

Chip doesn't want that. He told Glazer he just wants to coach wherever he goes next. 

 

He also told him, as I have told everyone here since the beginning of the season, that he wants to stay in the NFL and has no interest in college. 

 

If Chip goes to Tennessee, it is terrible news for us. 

Why would it be terrible news for us?  His highly touted system is nothing to fear, he is not as innovative as advertised he just runs a lot of plays with little to no variation between games, he is what I said he would be when he came into the league just another guy with a huge ego.  As far as what he said well it is easy to say those things when you are looking for a job wait until he gets the job and lets see how he feels about no control, just sayin a guy doesnt shelf his ego that quickly.  I REALLY do not want that overrated, egomaniac wind bag as a coach.

[wig]

3 minutes ago, antipatriot said:

Why would it be terrible news for us?  His highly touted system is nothing to fear, he is not as innovative as advertised he just runs a lot of plays with little to no variation between games, he is what I said he would be when he came into the league just another guy with a huge ego.  As far as what he said well it is easy to say those things when you are looking for a job wait until he gets the job and lets see how he feels about no control, just sayin a guy doesnt shelf his ego that quickly.  I REALLY do not want that overrated, egomaniac wind bag as a coach.

 

This response is a waste of time, but anyways. . .

 

It's bad because he's a very good coach that went 26-21 with bad QBs and a bad secondary. If you think he's a failure as a coach, please let me know who has or would do better with below average QBs and terrible secondary personnel. 

[DougDew]

19 minutes ago, wig said:

Let me clear up this whole "Chip doesn't care about TOP" talk.

 

First things first, he absolutely doesn't care about it.  Crazy, right?  Sure. . . if you don't know what he cares about.  

 

Second - what does he care about?  Number of plays.  He wants to run more plays than the other team. He believes that is the key. Can anyone argue that this doesn't make sense?  If your team runs more plays, giving you more opportunities to move the ball, leading to more opportunities to score, is that wrong?  

Whether its number of plays or TOP, what Chip really is saying that first downs or better yet, scores, are what's important, not necessarily how long it takes to get them.

[wig]

What I hope happens is Irsay and Grigson talk to him.  If they like what they hear, to bring Luck in and ask what he feels about his system and him as a person.  They've talked in their time in the PAC.  If Andrew is on board, or excited about the possibility, they hire him. Luck's thoughts are important. If he would be behind it, the rest of the locker room would follow suit, and Chip could build the culture he wanted to in Philly.  He wants to build a good culture, that turned impossible when the leaders in Philly were two knuckleheads.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, wig said:

What I hope happens is Irsay and Grigson talk to him.  If they like what they hear, to bring Luck in and ask what he feels about his system and him as a person.  They've talked in their time in the PAC.  If Andrew is on board, or excited about the possibility, they hire him. Luck's thoughts are important. If he would be behind it, the rest of the locker room would follow suit, and Chip could build the culture he wanted to in Philly.  He wants to build a good culture, that turned impossible when the leaders in Philly were two knuckleheads.

Much truth to this......

[wig]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Whether its number of plays or TOP, what Chip really is saying that first downs or better yet, scores, are what's important, not necessarily how long it takes to get them.

 

Partially true.  Scores are more important, for sure, but his main strategy on scoring is to run more plays than the other team. 

 

Scoring is the ultimate goal.  Running more plays than the opposition is his strategy to achieve said goal. I have been in the same room with him as he discussed this more in depth. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Partially true.  Scores are more important, for sure, but his main strategy on scoring is to run more plays than the other team. 

 

Scoring is the ultimate goal.  Running more plays than the opposition is his strategy to achieve said goal. I have been in the same room with him as he discussed this more in depth. 

I think some would argue that winning the TOP battle indicates that you are running more plays than the opposition.....so I would think that he would think that stat is important.

 

[ThaCaliColt]

9 hours ago, Gavin said:

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

God yes. I would LOVE to have Bill Cowher coach the Colts. Emphasis on defense, good, tough guy, hard nosed take no crap attitude. And, still is highly respected. Not a cheerleader but an enforcer...

[wig]

Just now, DougDew said:

I think some would argue that winning the TOP battle indicates that you are running more plays than the opposition.....so I would think that he would think that stat is important.

 

 

Those people wouldn't get the point. If team A runs 3 plays a minute and holds the ball for 25 minutes, while team B runs 2 plays per minute, that means team A runs 75 plays in 25 minutes while team B ran 70.

 

Would you prefer your team running 5 more plays, or taking 10 extra seconds between plays (30 seconds to 20)?  Does the extra 10 seconds between plays wear a defense out, or do the extra 5 plays wear them out?

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Those people wouldn't get the point. If team A runs 3 plays a minute and holds the ball for 25 minutes, while team B runs 2 plays per minute, that means team A runs 75 plays in 25 minutes while team B ran 70.

 

Would you prefer your team running 5 more plays, or taking 10 extra seconds between plays (30 seconds to 20)?  Does the extra 10 seconds between plays wear a defense out, or do the extra 5 plays wear them out?

I don't disagree by looking at the numbers that way, but I think the key is that those extra plays need to actually result in moving the ball and not just more three and outs.  Its not statistical probability thing like blackjack that if you keep doing the same thing over and over again the odds will eventually play out.  If the offense sucks, more plays just means more three and outs.  You can't just run more plays in the same amount of minutes and expect to score more points by simply that alone.

 

The bottom line is that TOP or number of plays are equally meaningless if you can't make first downs or scores with the opportunities you have. 

[wig]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't disagree by looking at the numbers that way, but I think the key is that those extra plays need to actually result in moving the ball and not just more three and outs. 

 

The bottom line is that TOP or number of plays are equally meaningless if you can't make first downs or scores with the opportunities you have. 

 

Yeah, nobody would disagree. Certainly not Chip.  If you go 3 and out consistently, you're not running more plays. The most important play in his offense is first down.  2nd and 4-6 gives him options and the ability to use tempo.  Options means he can use tempo, which means the defense can't sub.  If you have your base D on the field and can't sub, your big hogs remain on the field, you have fewer pass rushers and you can't move to nickel or dime.  This is why first down is so important, and why he wants receivers that excel at blocking.  Also why he wants RBs that can run and catch.  If his offense has players that are multiple against a base defense, bad things happen.

 

 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 hours ago, Horse Shoe Heaven said:

Chip Kelly sucks and on top of it is a power hungry *!! I say NO PLEASE!

So we don't want a GM that meddles in our head coaches' business, but we also don't want a coach who wants control? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we can't have it both ways.

 

Also, Chip has a winning record after 3 years and coached in a division that's typically pretty competitive. I honestly don't think he sucks.

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

So we don't want a GM that meddles in our head coaches' business, but we also don't want a coach who wants control? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say we can't have it both ways.

 

Also, Chip has a winning record after 3 years and coached in a division that's typically pretty competitive. I honestly don't think he sucks.

I agree.   I can't argue in favor of his player moves.   Not the greatest.   But most agree that he won't have that control at his next stop.  He has a pretty good record with a questionable team he put together.  We have a questionable team with a good QB.   I think he can be successful here.

I'd rather have Cowher, Payton, Harbaugh or Bevell out of Seattle.   I'd be fine with Kelly though.

[BOTT]

Would be a ballsy move. I'm not sure I could pull the trigger, but as a fan I would be pretty excited.

 

i think a lot of people wanted Chip to fail and are now using this season to claim he sucks.

[BOTT]

57 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree.   I can't argue in favor of his player moves.   Not the greatest.   But most agree that he won't have that control at his next stop.  He has a pretty good record with a questionable team he put together.  We have a questionable team with a good QB.   I think he can be successful here.

I'd rather have Cowher, Payton, Harbaugh or Bevell out of Seattle.   I'd be fine with Kelly though.

The only player move I questioned was signing a RB for big money.  I think he got rid of meatheads like Jackson and McCoy because they werent the type of players that fit into his long term plans.