What a difference a HC makes, Chip Kelly

[mcmvp]

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.

This sort of squashes your argument:

@FlyEaglesNation: #Eagles threw for more yards this year than any year under Andy Reid, despite attempting the 3rd-least amount of passes

And let's not even talk about the rushing game with Chip vs Andy. Unless anyone wants a good laugh...

 

[NinePointOh]

This sort of squashes your argument:

@FlyEaglesNation: #Eagles threw for more yards this year than any year under Andy Reid, despite attempting the 3rd-least amount of passes

And let's no even talk about the rushing game with Chip vs Andy. Unless anyone wants a good laugh...

If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd understand we are talking about the team's overall success, not just the offense's stats.

But since you apparently haven't read it yet, I'll just quote you what I told the last guy:

"... as I said earlier, anyone can score lots of points by running a super fast-paced offense. The problem is, that usually also means you give up lots of points, and head coaches are judged by the total performance of the team, not just the number of points they score. Coincidentally, for all the points Chip Kelly's offense scored, his point differential was rather mediocre -- lower than 11 of Andy Reid's 15 seasons. And that was while playing Dallas without Romo, Green Bay without Rodgers, Minnesota without AP, Washington with a crippled RG3, New York during Eli's worst year, etc."

 

[blindzebra]

If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd understand we are talking about the team's overall success, not just the offense's stats.

But since you apparently haven't read it yet, I'll just quote you what I told the last guy:

"... as I said earlier, anyone can score lots of points by running a super fast-paced offense. The problem is, that usually also means you give up lots of points, and head coaches are judged by the total performance of the team, not just the number of points they score. Coincidentally, for all the points Chip Kelly's offense scored, his point differential was rather mediocre -- lower than 11 of Andy Reid's 15 seasons. And that was while playing Dallas without Romo, Green Bay without Rodgers, Minnesota without AP, Washington with a crippled RG3, New York during Eli's worst year, etc."

And Detroit with a foot of snow on the field.

 

[mcmvp]

If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd understand we are talking about the team's overall success, not just the offense's stats.

But since you apparently haven't read it yet, I'll just quote you what I told the last guy:

"... as I said earlier, anyone can score lots of points by running a super fast-paced offense. The problem is, that usually also means you give up lots of points, and head coaches are judged by the total performance of the team, not just the number of points they score. Coincidentally, for all the points Chip Kelly's offense scored, his point differential was rather mediocre -- lower than 11 of Andy Reid's 15 seasons. And that was while playing Dallas without Romo, Green Bay without Rodgers, Minnesota without AP, Washington with a crippled RG3, New York during Eli's worst year, etc."

Sounds like someone looking for excuses...and then actually believing them.

 

[Beast_from_East]

If you guys are going to discuss Garrett, then use his proper title.................Trainee Garrett......................he does not get the Head Coach title until he finishes his training program which is still ongoing into 2014, per Jerry.

 

[Brooksey]

The same as any coach, taking a step back under optimum conditions. And no playing 26 different players in your front 7 is not optimum conditions. Neither was playing your #4 center with both guards hurt and losing your NT, both inside LBs and having Ware play with one arm the second half of the season.

If people would honestly look at the circumstances instead of blind hatred they would realize that being 3 points from the playoffs this season was actually damn good coaching.

Really... "Damn good coaching"? Blowing 2-3 games per year and missing the playoffs because of poor clock or game management is damn good coaching? We should have been 10-6 or 11-5 regardless of the injuries in the last three years. Garrett blew it. Not to mention passing the ball 65% of the plays equals no balance. We ran it 17x and passed it 48x against Philly, that's absurd. We bailed on the run up 26-3 against the Pack. The only time we stuck to the run was when we were down 42-14 to CHI, LOL with 15 minutes left in the game. When the defense is injured you should plan to keep them off the field and fresh.

I'll root for Garrett, he's our coach...I can't say he won't improve next year but as of right now he's the worst coach in the league left standing.

 

[Blue&Silver]

If you had bothered to read the thread, you'd understand we are talking about the team's overall success, not just the offense's stats.

"... as I said earlier, anyone can score lots of points by running a super fast-paced offense.

When you make a quote like that you lose all credibility. If anyone could score lots of points, everyone would be doing it. The discussion is about the difference a good coach can make in a short period of time. You want to challenge that, and that's fine. You're just running into problems with your assertion Andy Reid could have done the same thing. His boss gave him an opportunity, and he failed miserably. with his feet to the fire he was able to muster 4 wins.

 

[tecolote]

LOL funny how when it doesn't fit the agenda it is a bad argument.

I find it funny when guys like you use the term 'agenda' to describe reality.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Instead of being all superior about your football knowledge you should be a little humble and accept the fact that your 'Garrett is a great head coach' talking point hasn't panned out yet, not by a long shot. Now it might someday, but it's certainly not looking too good.

'But the players like him', well boo freaking hoo.

I swear Kin Jung il would envy having some of the followers Garrett has.

 

[blindzebra]

I find it funny when guys like you use the term 'agenda' to describe reality.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Instead of being all superior about your football knowledge you should be a little humble and accept the fact that your 'Garrett is a great head coach' talking point hasn't panned out yet, not by a long shot. Now it might someday, but it's certainly not looking too good.

'But the players like him', well boo freaking hoo.

I swear Kin Jung il would envy having some of the followers Garrett has.

Sorry for not being a sheep...not really.

 

[cml750]

Really... "Damn good coaching"? Blowing 2-3 games per year and missing the playoffs because of poor clock or game management is damn good coaching? We should have been 10-6 or 11-5 regardless of the injuries in the last three years. Garrett blew it. Not to mention passing the ball 65% of the plays equals no balance. We ran it 17x and passed it 48x against Philly, that's absurd. We bailed on the run up 26-3 against the Pack. The only time we stuck to the run was when we were down 42-14 to CHI, LOL with 15 minutes left in the game. When the defense is injured you should plan to keep them off the field and fresh.

I'll root for Garrett, he's our coach...I can't say he won't improve next year but as of right now he's the worst coach in the league left standing.

Good post! I agree on ALL points!!!

 

[mcmvp]

Sorry for not being a sheep...not really.

Jerry is the shepherd...and in this case, you actually are one of the sheep

 

[OhSnap]

So you'd be willing to fire Garrett if next year we have a fourth staright season of 8-8 or you would wait and see why we finished 8-8?
Your comment about romo is why I'm so frustrated with Garrett, i believe we wasted his prime (Witten and Ware's as well) because of Garrett's learning curve, Jerry said so himself (about the learning curve) and IMO that's just not fair, I really believe that we will see these 3 players start to decline a bit next year.

I think the bad drafting during the Wade years(not saying it was his fault) has wasted their prime more than Garrett, the lack of an O-line after 2009 has cost Romo allot of cracked bones. If Garrett can't win those close games next year it would be a great move to bring in a new coach IMO. They'd be getting allot of young players and an O-line with 2 1st rounders and the 015 draft to work with.

 

[Coy]

I think the bad drafting during the Wade years(not saying it was his fault) has wasted their prime more than Garrett, the lack of an O-line after 2009 has cost Romo allot of cracked bones. If Garrett can't win those close games next year it would be a great move to bring in a new coach IMO. They'd be getting allot of young players and an O-line with 2 1st rounders and the 015 draft to work with.

I agree with this, it's just that I would have done it this year instead of waiting for him to fail again next year. I mean we lost 5 games by 8 points, those are the games that a good coach should win.

 

[NinePointOh]

When you make a quote like that you lose all credibility. If anyone could score lots of points, everyone would be doing it.

*facepalm* Please go back and read.

No they wouldn't, because, as I said in the very next sentence, "the problem is that usually also means you give up lots of points." NBA teams could score lots of points by constantly running a fast break offense and chucking up three pointers such as in the Grinnell System, but they don't. NHL teams could score lots of points by racing down the ice as fast as possible, crowding all five skaters around the opposing goal, and firing everything on net, but they don't. Why? Because scoring points isn't everything. The goal is to win games, and a strategy that puts up points but gives them up just as fast isn't necessarily a good one.

You're just running into problems with your assertion Andy Reid could have done the same thing. His boss gave him an opportunity, and he failed miserably. with his feet to the fire he was able to muster 4 wins.

Please go back and read, because I've addressed the 4-win season repeatedly and don't feel like re-hashing the same argument fifteen times if you're not going to acknowledge any of it. Cherry-picking a single season that fits your narrative, while ignoring a dozen or more seasons that don't, is an absolutely terrible way to interpret evidence. Obviously the 4-12 season was a bad one. My question from the beginning is whether that season was simply an aberration for a coach who had only had one other losing season since 2000, and who came back the very next year to go 11-5 in a very difficult division with a different team.

Is it really that controversial of an assertion to suggest that a coach with nine 10-win seasons out of fifteen (including three out of his five years without Jim Johnson, since that's the excuse du jour) could possibly have won 10 games with a weak schedule, a terrible division, and the same roster Chip Kelly had? I don't think so, and you'll have to do a heck of a lot better than "he went 4-12 last year" to prove your point.

 

[Blue&Silver]

No they wouldn't, because, as I said in the very next sentence, "the problem is that usually also means you give up lots of points." NBA teams could score lots of points by constantly running a fast break offense and chucking up three pointers such as in the Grinnell System, but they don't. NHL teams could score lots of points by racing down the ice as fast as possible, crowding all five skaters around the opposing goal, and firing everything on net, but they don't. Why? Because scoring points isn't everything. The goal is to win games, and a strategy that puts up points but gives them up just as fast isn't necessarily a good one.

This is football, and half the teams in the NFL gave up more points than Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense. Andy Reid gave up more points multiple times as the Eagles head coach. It has more to do with the quality of the defense, not speed of the offense. You're using old logic. Offenses have changed, the rules have changed.

Cherry-picking a single season that fits your narrative, while ignoring a dozen or more seasons that don't, is an absolutely terrible way to interpret evidence. Obviously the 4-12 season was a bad one. My question from the beginning is whether that season was simply an aberration for a coach who had only had one other losing season since 2000, and who came back the very next year to go 11-5 in a very difficult division with a different team.

I'm going from 2005 on. Measuring Andy Reid's success in a seven-year period of time is not cherry picking. He was a .516% Coach. They were a deteriorating team. I'm not arguing Andy Reid's first 6 years. They had an All-Star coaching staff, and Andy Reid was an All-Star coach.

Could have Andy Reid won 10 games this year? Nobody knows. I suppose if Andy Reid the general manager fired his coaching staff, and hit pay dirt with free agency, and with the draft. But his track record suggests that never would have happened.

I know what you're trying to say, trust me. You just aren't taking into consideration the colossal failures of Andy Reid the general manager. Lurie had too much respect for the guy to strip him of all his power that he fault so hard to get over the years. He probably would have resigned in disgrace. Lurie did the only humane thing by firing him altogether.

 

[jterrell]

This is football, and half the teams in the NFL gave up more points than Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense. Andy Reid gave up more points multiple times as the Eagles head coach. It has more to do with the quality of the defense, not speed of the offense. You're using old logic. Offenses have changed, the rules have changed.



I'm going from 2005 on. Measuring Andy Reid's success in a seven-year period of time is not cherry picking. He was a .516% Coach. They were a deteriorating team. I'm not arguing Andy Reid's first 6 years. They had an All-Star coaching staff, and Andy Reid was an All-Star coach.

Could have Andy Reid won 10 games this year? Nobody knows. I suppose if Andy Reid the general manager fired his coaching staff, and hit pay dirt with free agency, and with the draft. But his track record suggests that never would have happened.

I know what you're trying to say, trust me. You just aren't taking into consideration the colossal failures of Andy Reid the general manager. Lurie had too much respect for the guy to strip him of all his power that he fault so hard to get over the years. He probably would have resigned in disgrace. Lurie did the only humane thing by firing him altogether.

Andy Reid was not the General Manager in Philly. Roseman has been their GM for 4 years. He largely ran the drafts before taking over as GM.

Reid had a much larger GM role in KC which he addressed when asked what he found refreshing about taking the new job.

But beyond that Kelly just won the games he has with 95% of the talent in place already.
That was not Kelly's GMship shining through by any means.

His shiny new offense did very well but the players were the same ole guys. In fact he started out with Vick then went to Foles SAME AS REID DID.

Reid performed an even bigger turn around THE SAME SEASON.
So these are just dumb arguments.

Kelly runs an innovative and fun offense but he has one year of NFL experience and was hardly impressive versus Dallas in two games.

28 points in 2 games versus a historically, terrible defense.

Reid was only the 5th coach to win 100 games in a decade as a HC of one team.
The other 4 are Landry, Belichek, Shula, Dungy.

 

[mcmvp]

This is football, and half the teams in the NFL gave up more points than Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense. Andy Reid gave up more points multiple times as the Eagles head coach. It has more to do with the quality of the defense, not speed of the offense. You're using old logic. Offenses have changed, the rules have changed.



I'm going from 2005 on. Measuring Andy Reid's success in a seven-year period of time is not cherry picking. He was a .516% Coach. They were a deteriorating team. I'm not arguing Andy Reid's first 6 years. They had an All-Star coaching staff, and Andy Reid was an All-Star coach.

Could have Andy Reid won 10 games this year? Nobody knows. I suppose if Andy Reid the general manager fired his coaching staff, and hit pay dirt with free agency, and with the draft. But his track record suggests that never would have happened.

I know what you're trying to say, trust me. You just aren't taking into consideration the colossal failures of Andy Reid the general manager. Lurie had too much respect for the guy to strip him of all his power that he fault so hard to get over the years. He probably would have resigned in disgrace. Lurie did the only humane thing by firing him altogether.

This guy has the pulse of what really happened

 

[mcmvp]

Andy Reid was not the General Manager in Philly. Roseman has been their GM for 4 years. He largely ran the drafts before taking over as GM.

Reid had a much larger GM role in KC which he addressed when asked what he found refreshing about taking the new job.

But beyond that Kelly just won the games he has with 95% of the talent in place already.
That was not Kelly's GMship shining through by any means.

His shiny new offense did very well but the players were the same ole guys. In fact he started out with Vick then went to Foles SAME AS REID DID.

Reid performed an even bigger turn around THE SAME SEASON.
So these are just dumb arguments.

Kelly runs an innovative and fun offense but he has one year of NFL experience and was hardly impressive versus Dallas in two games.

28 points in 2 games versus a historically, terrible defense.

Reid was only the 5th coach to win 100 games in a decade as a HC of one team.
The other 4 are Landry, Belichek, Shula, Dungy.

Roseman did not run the drafts before he was GM.

 

[Blue&Silver]

Andy Reid was not the General Manager in Philly. Roseman has been their GM for 4 years. He largely ran the drafts before taking over as GM.

Reid was the head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, a post he held from 1999 to 2012.[1] From 2001 to 2012, he was also the Eagles' executive vice president of football operations, effectively making him the team's general manager. 2012 was the exception, he kept the title, but lost his control of the draft.

But beyond that Kelly just won the games he has with 95% of the talent in place already.
That was not Kelly's GMship shining through by any means.

Chip Kelly's not the GM, and there's a whopping 3 Eagles defensive starters Andy Reid was responsible for, and all but Johnson, and Ertz on offense. So it's closer to 50%

His shiny new offense did very well but the players were the same ole guys. In fact he started out with Vick then went to Foles SAME AS REID DID.

And yet Chip Kelly was able to take most of those same players on offense, and make them better than any year under Andy Reid.

Reid performed an even bigger turn around THE SAME SEASON.
So these are just dumb arguments

Not in Philadelphia he didn't, and not with the players he went 4-12 with the year before.
.

Kelly runs an innovative and fun offense but he has one year of NFL experience and was hardly impressive versus Dallas in two games

.

I would say the credit goes to us more than I would blame a rookie coach with a previously underachieving team with a first-year quarterback.

 

[OhSnap]

I agree with this, it's just that I would have done it this year instead of waiting for him to fail again next year. I mean we lost 5 games by 8 points, those are the games that a good coach should win.

At the beginning of this year I was all for giving him 2 more years but I thought if they got a better line, cut down on penalties and could get rid of the minus 9 turnover ratio it would win at least 2-3 of those close games, they did all of that and should have won at least 2 more games but every damn QB they faced was having the best year of his career. It's forward in one area and backing up in another. It's bizarre some of the things that have happened to this team the last couple years so I just wonder if it was even meant to be in Romo's career or with Garrett. Maybe Romo is this generations Don Meridith.