Oh, well thank God we cleared that up.
and half the teams in the NFL gave up more points than Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense.
False.
Andy Reid gave up more points multiple times as the Eagles head coach.
If by "multiple times" you mean twice in 14 years (two of the three only losing seasons in his career), yeah. But I'm not sure that's much of a compliment to Kelly. Remember when you said you weren't cherry picking?
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.
Nope, none of the rules that affect my argument have changed. The opposing team still gets a possession every time you finish yours, so maximizing your number of possessions still also maximizes the opponent's possessions. The rules that have changed make it easier to score points, which -- if anything -- should make Kelly's "accomplishments" less impressive.
Moreover, my argument does not ignore the quality of the offense or defense. I have said repeatedly that no matter how many possessions you get or how many
total points you score, it comes down to how
efficient you can be in terms of points-per-possession, both offensively and defensively -- and therefore your point differential. That's why scoring more total points by running more plays really fast doesn't automatically make Kelly a genius coach.
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.
You chose seven years arbitrarily because it fits your narrative, which is the definition of cherry picking. And if you doubt that even "a .516% coach" could realistically have gone 10-6 in a horrible division with a cupcake schedule, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Could have Andy Reid won 10 games this year? Nobody knows.
Then why are you (and others) arguing so vehemently that Chip Kelly's a genius who single-handedly turned the team around? The title and content of this thread directly presuppose a very specific answer to that question.
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.
Yes, I am. All of the numbers I've cited include the bad years. What I'm questioning is whether the failures of 2012 were an aberration (as I've suggested) or (as others have suggested) some sort of "permanent" collapse that magically was no longer permanent as soon as he went to Kansas City.
