What a difference a HC makes, Chip Kelly

[mahoneybill]

The thing is that coaches who have tons of experiences and may have won superbowls would get fired after 2 seasons of .500 ball and losing in dramatic fashion... but we need to keep a guy around who is 'learning on the job'? You do not learn to coach at this level. You may learn the intricacies of the NFL, but you better come in at this level and in a franchise that had the prestige the Cowboys had KNOWING what in the world you are doing. If Jerry wants to help his bud get the experience to learn how to become a great coach, he needs to use his connections and get him a college gig somewhere.

Mike shanahan fits that model of winning and getting the boot. He looked like he was on his way to dominance and 1 injury helped to expose his whole system.

 

[mcmvp]

Total points AND points per game? You know there's always the
So, which would you rather do: score 442 points and give up 382 (Kelly in 2013), or score 416 points and give up 289 (Reid in 2008)?

This is, quite simply, a terrible argument. Andy is 100% offense. Chip is a team builder...even though most still identify him in the same category as Andy...offense only.

As for points given up, that wasn't Andy. That was Jimmy Johnson. Notice where their defensive numbers went once he passed away?

Andy goes to KC and leaves the D alone...smart move by a smart coach (I'm not saying AR is a bad coach). Chip goes to Philly and changes from a wide 9 4-3 scheme to a 3-4 (monumental change) This was what Chip wanted...he is involved in more than just the offense. And for a first year scheme change with the youngest dline in the NFL, I'd say they adjusted just fine.

 

[DanteEXT]

I imagine if we took a poll, far more posters would agree with my position than yours.

Makes you feel all warm and tingly inside, huh?

 

[NinePointOh]

This is, quite simply, a terrible argument. Andy is 100% offense. Chip is a team builder...even though most still identify him in the same category as Andy...offense only.

Huh? Did you even read anything in this thread? We're talking about the overall success of the team, right? So even if we accept your premise, what difference would it make if Kelly had more control over the defense if the end result was no better (or even worse) than what Reid consistently did with less control over the defense? The question isn't whether Kelly made any changes whatsoever. The question is whether Kelly's changes actually turned the team around, or whether 2012 was simply an aberration for a team that had only one other losing season since 2000.

As for points given up, that wasn't Andy. That was Jimmy Johnson. Notice where their defensive numbers went once he passed away?

So, what's your point? Kelly the team builder's point differential this year was still worse than two out of the three years Reid spent in Philly without Jim Johnson, and the year Reid spent in Kansas City without Jim Johnson. The one and only year in that time period when Reid's point differential was lower than Kelly's this year was 2012, which -- as I've said -- looks from the totality of the evidence like an aberration rather than the sudden, long-gestating but apparently short-lived failure of an otherwise consistently successful coach.

Andy goes to KC and leaves the D alone...smart move by a smart coach (I'm not saying AR is a bad coach). Chip goes to Philly and changes from a wide 9 4-3 scheme to a 3-4 (monumental change) This was what Chip wanted...he is involved in more than just the offense. And for a first year scheme change with the youngest dline in the NFL, I'd say they adjusted just fine.

Andy was the one who specifically targeted Jim Johnson and hired him. So, when Chip Kelly chooses Bill Davis and lets him run the defense, that's Chip being a "team builder" ... but when Andy Reid chooses Jim Johnson or Bob Sutton and lets them run the defense, that had nothing to do with Andy (but surely, choosing Juan Castillo did, right)? Your logic is woefully and conveniently inconsistent.

 

[NinePointOh]

And for a first year scheme change with the youngest dline in the NFL, I'd say they adjusted just fine.

Addendum to the above: again, the question is not whether changes were made, but whether they could have been just as successful without those changes. This year, Chip took over a team that had gone 42-37 the previous five years, and made them 10-6 in a very weak division. Meanwhile, Andy took over a team that had gone 25-55 over the previous five years, and made them 11-5 in a very strong division.

 

[mcmvp]

Addendum to the above: again, the question is not whether changes were made, but whether they could have been just as successful without those changes. This year, Chip took over a team that had gone 42-37 the previous five years, and made them 10-6 in a very weak division. Meanwhile, Andy took over a team that had gone 25-55 over the previous five years, and made them 11-5 in a very strong division.

This argument is getting too far off to the side...

Chip did not take over a team that went 42-37, because 90% of the current team wasn't there 5 years ago

Simple question. Say Dallas needs a new head coach because they just fired 'coach x'...and both JG and CK are interviewing for the job...who would you prefer get the job?

 

[jobberone]

Considering that Jerry admitted that he has been training that driver for the last 3 years and wants to benefit from all the mistakes that driver has made.................I dont think the argument for hiring somebody that already knows how to drive is that bad.

You want to spend how many years teaching somebody how to drive your race car?.

I prefer to go out and hire one of the best drivers that already knows how to drive.

I imagine if we took a poll, far more posters would agree with my position than yours.

So now u throw Jerry into the mix because he says something stupid. So what he says matters now but otherwise he is a stupid drunken clown who should be fired. All u do is keep repeating Garrett supporters and excuses and the bottom line even when told they don't support him. When someone talks about specific problems u return to your mantra. It is pointless to have a conversation with monotony.

 

[OhSnap]

What has he learned????? He is still making stupid game / clock management mistakes. If he hasn't figured it out after 3.5 years and a lifetime of being around football, he is not going to figure it out.

I think even a monkey could learn something in 3 years.

 

[Dodger12]

Huh? Did you even read anything in this thread? We're talking about the overall success of the team, right? So even if we accept your premise, what difference would it make if Kelly had more control over the defense if the end result was no better (or even worse) than what Reid consistently did with less control over the defense? The question isn't whether Kelly made any changes whatsoever. The question is whether Kelly's changes actually turned the team around, or whether 2012 was simply an aberration for a team that had only one other losing season since 2000.

So, what's your point? Kelly the team builder's point differential this year was still worse than two out of the three years Reid spent in Philly without Jim Johnson, and the year Reid spent in Kansas City without Jim Johnson. The one and only year in that time period when Reid's point differential was lower than Kelly's this year was 2012, which -- as I've said -- looks from the totality of the evidence like an aberration rather than the sudden, long-gestating but apparently short-lived failure of an otherwise consistently successful coach.

Andy was the one who specifically targeted Jim Johnson and hired him. So, when Chip Kelly chooses Bill Davis and lets him run the defense, that's Chip being a "team builder" ... but when Andy Reid chooses Jim Johnson or Bob Sutton and lets them run the defense, that had nothing to do with Andy (but surely, choosing Juan Castillo did, right)? Your logic is woefully and conveniently inconsistent.

You make some very good points in this thread and your argument is well thought out. I get what you're saying but a team has to approach a Chip Kelly offense believing that they have to put a ton of points on the board so I'm not sure the point differential is all that important of a stat in the sense that many teams are not built that way. Chip Kelly's offense is predicated on putting pressure on a team in two ways, stretch and wear down their defense and force their offense to try and keep up. In other words, he dictates what the other team needs to do.

Chip Kelly himself said in interviews after the game that he could tell our D was worn down and it was obvious when they couldn't stop McCoy in a game defining drive knowing that they were going to run. I firmly believe that there's a method to this madness. Just from the eye test, Denver plays the same way and so does NO from an aggressive offense point of view. Sooner or later, the opposing team is going to make a mistake trying to keep up and that's what we've seen. It's accentuated even more when a team doesn't have a top tier QB that can keep up offensively. When an opposing team tries to keep up and goes to the air, the defensive stats are always going to be skewed

I will say this, Kelly's offense would not have been anywhere near as potent had he not had a QB playing out of his mind. The question I have is that is Foles that good or does the coach and offensive scheme put him a position to make plays? I think it's a lot of the latter. Foles is hitting guys wide open without a defender in sight. Maybe the Cowboys figured them out and played more man coverage instead of getting picked apart in zone but the question remains can you do that the whole day and can you stop McCoy when that happens?

Whether or not Reid could have done what Kelly has is open for debate and we'll never know. I think Reid is a good coach but sometimes the scenery has to change for various reasons. The Eagles were never the same after Jimmy Johnson died. Reid was a good offensive mind but those teams were known for an attacking defense. At the end of the day, we have evidence that we can point to with regards to what Chip Kelly has done in year one. I hope it's an aberration, but I think what sets the guy apart is that he's been innovative and successful before at previous stops. This isn't his first rodeo. Sometimes it's not just luck and you have to give the architect some credit.

 

[Dodger12]

Addendum to the above: again, the question is not whether changes were made, but whether they could have been just as successful without those changes. This year, Chip took over a team that had gone 42-37 the previous five years, and made them 10-6 in a very weak division. Meanwhile, Andy took over a team that had gone 25-55 over the previous five years, and made them 11-5 in a very strong division.

As a follow-up to your point here, Reid's team was on the decline being 8 and 8 and 4 and 12 the previous two years. There's no question the team was on a decline, regardless of how many years you use to help bolster your premise. Reid was a quality QB coach and drafted McNabb and that turned his fortunes around, along with DC Jimmy Johnson who never wanted a HC gig. When Reid lost McNabb, so went his good fortune. Kevin Kolb didn't work out and then Michael Vick came back to earth.

I live in eagles territory and you won't hear one fan, at least the ones that I've spoken to, who didn't think the Eagles needed to be rebuilt and that Reid had worn out his welcome. When you change offensive and defensive schemes, as well as the culture and the way a team does business and you go 10 and 6, you've done something right. I just don;t think Reid could have done that in Philly at the end of his tenure.

 

[Coy]

You see them as excuses. I see them as problems that need fixing. You have some broken or worn out parts on a car. I say fix them. You say get a new driver. Now perhaps we need some new parts and a new driver. I'm not certain that's not the case. But I'm willing to give the guy a better car to race before telling him he's a bad driver.

I guess the question is, how many more cars would you be willing to give the driver before you realize he is indeed a very bad driver? considering you already gave him 3 and you are buying him a fourth this offseason.

 

[Coy]

I wouldn't have hired JG but I sure as hell wouldn't let him get his first 3 years in coaching my team then carry what he's learned somewhere else.

Then you would be in a no win situation just as this team is right now, you really don't know if that hire will panout someday, IMO it won't.

 

[NinePointOh]

This argument is getting too far off to the side...

Chip did not take over a team that went 42-37, because 90% of the current team wasn't there 5 years ago

That's a cop-out, but fine -- would you rather we make the cut-off 4 years? 3? 2? 1? Take your pick -- they all lead to the same conclusion, which is that Chip took over a team that was better than the team Andy took over last year. Over any reasonable time frame you want to look at, the Eagles had been consistently very successful for a long time, and then had a single unusually bad year.

Simple question. Say Dallas needs a new head coach because they just fired 'coach x'...and both JG and CK are interviewing for the job...who would you prefer get the job?

What does Garrett have to do with this argument? If our head coach was Dave Campo, it still wouldn't mean Kelly turned the Eagles around from a bad team to a good one. The question is not Kelly vs. Garrett but Kelly vs. Reid, and in that case I'd take Reid hands down.

 

[jobberone]

I guess the question is, how many more cars would you be willing to give the driver before you realize he is indeed a very bad driver? considering you already gave him 3 and you are buying him a fourth this offseason.

That's fair and my answer would be less than a lot and more than this year. As long as I see substantial improvement then I'd take it one year at a time. I like the continuity, the fact the players like him, I like his approach to the game, I most like the offense, I see the talent improving, I like the coaches, love the improvement of the OL and the drafts have improved. I don't like the predictability of the offense, the lack of a true GM or even a consultant, the cap hell I think we're in, the keeping of aging veterans past a certain point acknowledging that is difficult to do, Jerry's big mouth, the lack of aggressiveness of the offense and the defense, and more.

There is no way a fair minded person or a GM could evaluate this team this year. There was just too many injuries this year to get an idea of what problems remain although most can identify some of the talent problems. I'm very concerned about the cap situation and the problem with Ware, Austin, and Spencer.

I am not enamored with Garrett and I don't care who is the HC. I just want to win. I just think I have a different approach to the problem than some. But I like your question.

 

[NinePointOh]

I get what you're saying but a team has to approach a Chip Kelly offense believing that they have to put a ton of points on the board so I'm not sure the point differential is all that important of a stat in the sense that many teams are not built that way.

Huh? No, every team is built to maximize their point differential, and it's always relevant to winning and losing.

Chip Kelly's offense is predicated on putting pressure on a team in two ways, stretch and wear down their defense and force their offense to try and keep up. In other words, he dictates what the other team needs to do.

Except it really doesn't. You can only score once per possession, and the other team will always get the ball back when you finish your turn. So regardless of how fast you run plays or how many possessions you get, it all comes down to how efficiently you put points on the board (ie. points per possession). A ball control offense that scores points efficiently can keep up just fine. You can beat a team like Philly or Denver or NO lots of different ways: you can score lots of points and win a shootout, you can control the clock and keep the ball out of their team's hands, or you can play great defense and somehow contain their stars.

Chip Kelly himself said in interviews after the game that he could tell our D was worn down and it was obvious when they couldn't stop McCoy in a game defining drive knowing that they were going to run. I firmly believe that there's a method to this madness. Just from the eye test, Denver plays the same way and so does NO from an aggressive offense point of view. Sooner or later, the opposing team is going to make a mistake trying to keep up and that's what we've seen. It's accentuated even more when a team doesn't have a top tier QB that can keep up offensively. When an opposing team tries to keep up and goes to the air, the defensive stats are always going to be skewed

Those systems work because they have Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, who are almost always more efficient than any other QBs in the league. Those QBs would still be successful with virtually any other mainstream offensive scheme, and the Denver/NO schemes would not be as successful with less-than-elite passers under center.

I will say this, Kelly's offense would not have been anywhere near as potent had he not had a QB playing out of his mind. The question I have is that is Foles that good or does the coach and offensive scheme put him a position to make plays? I think it's a lot of the latter. Foles is hitting guys wide open without a defender in sight. Maybe the Cowboys figured them out and played more man coverage instead of getting picked apart in zone but the question remains can you do that the whole day and can you stop McCoy when that happens?

I think Foles' TD-INT will come back to earth next year just like RG3's did, but he's still a very good QB who would be successful in most systems. The Eagles were a pretty mediocre team with Michael Vick starting, even though the offense had lots of yards and lots of points. Again, the team performed much better when the QB was more efficient by committing fewer turnovers.

At the end of the day, we have evidence that we can point to with regards to what Chip Kelly has done in year one.

Yes -- he's done about as good (maybe a little worse) than what Andy Reid consistently did for the previous decade and a half, minus one unusual year.

I hope it's an aberration

I don't think 2013 is the aberration. I think 2012 was the aberration.

but I think what sets the guy apart is that he's been innovative and successful before at previous stops. This isn't his first rodeo. Sometimes it's not just luck and you have to give the architect some credit.

I didn't say it was luck. I said he took over a good team and did about as well as the last guy did. That's not the worst thing in the world, it just doesn't mean he made a huge difference and turned the team around.

 

[Blue&Silver]

As a follow-up to your point here, Reid's team was on the decline being 8 and 8 and 4 and 12 the previous two years. There's no question the team was on a decline, regardless of how many years you use to help bolster your premise. Reid was a quality QB coach and drafted McNabb and that turned his fortunes around, along with DC Jimmy Johnson who never wanted a HC gig. When Reid lost McNabb, so went his good fortune. Kevin Kolb didn't work out and then Michael Vick came back to earth.

I live in eagles territory and you won't hear one fan, at least the ones that I've spoken to, who didn't think the Eagles needed to be rebuilt and that Reid had worn out his welcome. When you change offensive and defensive schemes, as well as the culture and the way a team does business and you go 10 and 6, you've done something right. I just don;t think Reid could have done that in Philly at the end of his tenure.

He's got his blinders on with Andy Reid and doesn't hear the day-to-day inter-workings of Andy Reid's affect on the Eagles as he became more involved with football operations like us in Eagles country. To the blind eye he was a fantastic coach, but to those that want to look deeper his demise from first to worst was a perfect storm of debacles from poor drafts, free-agent acquisitions, and assistant coach selections. Towards the end I honestly thought he was having mental health issues with some of his bizarre moves.
-
He did a fantastic job coaching Kansas City to 11-5 in spite of having the weakest schedule in the NFL, and losing 5 of his last 7. Let's check back in five years when he transforms Scott Pioli's club to his own.

 

[NinePointOh]

There's no question the team was on a decline, regardless of how many years you use to help bolster your premise. Reid was a quality QB coach and drafted McNabb and that turned his fortunes around, along with DC Jimmy Johnson who never wanted a HC gig. When Reid lost McNabb, so went his good fortune. Kevin Kolb didn't work out and then Michael Vick came back to earth.

I agree that the success of the QBs had a lot to do with the Eagles' so-called "decline." Reid's team struggled with an aging Vick as the QB, and so did Chip Kelly's team (he was 2-4 when Vick played). When Nick Foles came in and performed well, Kelly magically started winning games. Funny how that works.

I live in eagles territory and you won't hear one fan, at least the ones that I've spoken to, who didn't think the Eagles needed to be rebuilt and that Reid had worn out his welcome. When you change offensive and defensive schemes, as well as the culture and the way a team does business and you go 10 and 6, you've done something right. I just don;t think Reid could have done that in Philly at the end of his tenure.

It doesn't especially matter what Eagles fans thought. The question is whether they were right. Fans always want everybody canned and everything changed after a losing season, but that's not always necessary, or the right move.

 

[TonyRomo17]

it will be disappointing watching chip kelly and foles dominate the nfc east for the next 8+ years

 

[NinePointOh]

He's got his blinders on with Andy Reid and doesn't hear the day-to-day inter-workings of Andy Reid's affect on the Eagles as he became more involved with football operations like us in Eagles country.

Not true, I'm happy to hear about those things. I'll just expect evidence if you attribute any sort of causal narrative to them. Crazy, I know.

He did a fantastic job coaching Kansas City to 11-5 in spite of having the weakest schedule in the NFL

That is absolutely demonstrably false.

http://sagarin.com/sports/nflsend.htm

The Steelers had the weakest schedule, and the Chiefs' schedule was harder than the Eagles (even without considering that Philly got Dallas without Romo, Green Bay without Rodgers, Minnesota without AP, etc.). Kansas City went 11-5 in a division with 3 playoff teams, while Philly went 10-6 in a division where nobody else had a winning record.

Let's check back in five years when he transforms Scott Pioli's club to his own.

Great, so can we also check back in five years before declaring that Chip Kelly single-handedly turned around the Eagles?

 

[OhSnap]

Then you would be in a no win situation just as this team is right now, you really don't know if that hire will panout someday, IMO it won't.

Maybe not. Maybe Romo is done this year or next and the team spends 5 more years lookin for a QB. He's so far along and the defense has so many question marks that anyone coming in now would have to blow it up and start from scratch. With the team like it is now I think you ride it out and next year be prepared to start over if they cant win these 1-2-3 point games that they've lost the last few years.