What a difference a HC makes, Chip Kelly

[JBS]

Kelly abandoned the run? They ran the ball 34 times!!!!

 

[jobberone]

But what about 2011 and 2012? At the end of the day he has to win with or without injuries and he hasn't done that.

I think you had enough injuries in 2012 to consider them some. But then add in the OL which didn't jell until the last quarter of the year. OL was on most people's minds. And we had problems with the WRs, too. People don't like it but they all complained about the lack of talent on this team. And one of the things I'm certain about is that the talent on the team is developing. Probably not as fast as most would like but at a pretty decent pace. I'd have to think about the personnel and problems for 2011.

Kiffin needs a DL, a Mike (Lee), a decent LBing core otherwise, CBs who can tackle and a playmaking Safety. It's not a coincidence that all teams are looking for that. You can forget all the Tampa 2 talk. The league uses variants of it along with lots of packages. The Cover 2 lives but in many forms. Coverages change with the down and distance, opponent, clock yada. Some of those ingredients are already on the team. If they can stay on the field.

The offense needs to tweak the OL, replace Austin if he won't renegotiate his contract, get Dunbar back and add a power running back/fullback/decent receiver.

I'd love to see Dunbar return punts or find someone who is a big threat although I'm ok with Harris.

This team, if healthy, should contend next year.

 

[Blue&Silver]

And all of those things suddenly became crippling deficiencies in 2012 after making them go 121-70 and making the playoffs 9 times over the previous 12 seasons? And the way the way Reid coaches his teams to practice, eat, and exercise was magically no longer a problem when he went to Kansas City and turned a perennially awful team into a playoff team in his first year?



Even if that's true, the owner could have continued to take a larger role in evaluating personnel with or without Chip Kelly. I don't see any compelling argument for why Andy Reid couldn't have coached the same roster to the same record (or better) with the same schedule.

Andy Reid didn't pick the talent on Kansas City's roster before he was there. They had 7 Pro bowl players already there. Dorsey was brought in to make personnel decisions in Kansas City going forward.
Lurie was not involved in player personnel. In 2012 he hired Roseman to take over Reids personnel hat. Obviously the owner didn't think Andy could take a team to the playoffs that he went 4 & 12 with the year before. His disastrous assistant coach hirings that caused dissension amongst players ended up firing them midseason cost him his job. The accumulative affect of Andy Reid's poor decisions came to a head last year.
Now onto his coaching which is better than Andy Reid the general manager. Let's not forget Andy Reid did not run a balanced offense in Philadelphia. It was throw throw throw. He was predictable. When Chip Kelly took over that same offense had career years. They have a balanced offense, were way more unpredictable, and all the sudden could score in the red zone were Andy Reid couldn't after Brad Childress left.
WHEW!

 

[mahoneybill]

Bull. The Eagles were a 4-12 team last year and probably not even that good. This division sucks, to be sure, but Kelly won it in a one year turnaround, while others here are arguing for Garrett's fourth.

Congrats on their win and turnaround, but like the Skins they too could turn from beauty pagent winner to beastly in one
year, especially if they get hit with the injury bug.

 

[mahoneybill]

OK they jumped a horrible DC and NYC team and a .500 team. He gets major props for that?

So true. Even as inconsistent as we were we had a chance to close the deal by winning one more of our close games,
including last night.

 

[mahoneybill]

Kelly was a drive away from staying at home. He inherited an All Pro RB and LT. Foles 2nd half season play was a bonus. Wait and judge him next year when people have better tape and he has a first place schedule.

Westbrook was great and dangerous as a RB, the Eagles came up with McCoy, who is very shifty, and causes D's to hesitate that 1 extra second that can mean the difference between a stop or longer yardage.

He has to be one of the few backs who can change direction as quickly as Barry Sanders.....

 

[wileedog]

Congrats on their win and turnaround, but like the Skins they too could turn from beauty pagent winner to beastly in one
year, especially if they get hit with the injury bug.

No question. I think he is going to get figured out next year like a lot of the read-option offenses did this year and that will slow them down some. Not to mention the Cowboys may have just published a blue print on shutting down Foles.

But still Garrett inherited a much better team than Kelly did, and Kelly has done a lot more with them in less time.

 

[jobberone]

Westbrook was great and dangerous as a RB, the Eagles came up with McCoy, who is very shifty, and causes D's to hesitate that 1 extra second that can mean the difference between a stop or longer yardage.

He has to be one of the few backs who can change direction as quickly as Barry Sanders.....

He's as difficult as Barry. He just runs differently. He breaks more ankles than any back I've seen in awhile. He is a playmaker for sure.

 

[jobberone]

No question. I think he is going to get figured out next year like a lot of the read-option offenses did this year and that will slow them down some. Not to mention the Cowboys may have just published a blue print on shutting down Foles.

But still Garrett inherited a much better team than Kelly did, and Kelly has done a lot more with them in less time.

I think on paper the Boys had more talent to start the year. I think injuries did us in amongst other problems and I think Philly got better esp with the addition of Kendricks who I found absolutely amazing.

 

[OhSnap]

At some point he has to win, look around the NFL today and the last 4 years, every other coach in the NFL needs to win to keep his job, not here, not Garrett because his players like him, they play hard for him and we've had a ton of injuries. it seems that we are the only team with injuries, every other team is healthy, smh.
Excuses, excuses and more excuses, he is just an awful HC, I can tell you this, every other team in the NFC east and the NFC for that matter should be jumping for joy that we are sticking with this guy for another year and probably many more.
Take a look at this list and show me a HC that with at least 3.5 years as HC and with equally terrible results, the only one I could find is Munchack (then again he doesn't have Romo, Dez, Witten, Ware, Lee etc.) and he'll probably get fired, or take a look at what new HC have done with their respective teams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_head_coaches

In the NFL, you win or you are out of a job, plain and simple, except of course with the Dallas Cowboys, this truly is a dream job, you can be mediocre and win millions of dollars, beautiful just beautiful.

To cut it down to "win or your out of a job" is a fine idea if you ignore what the coach is expected to win with. Using that model Parcells shoulda been fired too after his 6-10 and two straight 9-7 seasons but I doubt many wanted him fired. Belichick had one good season in Cleveland and they fired him, not a good move in my opinion. I see a coach with upside and a team thats improved. If all you look for is reasons to get rid of JG thats probably all you will see.

 

[NinePointOh]

When you're dead last in time of possession yet have the top rusher in the NFL and a top 5 offense overall, that has Chip Kelly's fingerprints all over it. He's given his team an offensive identity and it's been pretty darn impressive thus far. If it was us, we'd all be giddy and this board would be on cloud 9 in perfect harmony with nature and we'd be looking forward to a bright future. I don't know why that's so hard to admit......

The question isn't whether Chip Kelly has put some sort of fingerprint on the offense -- obviously he has. The question is whether they'd have gone 10-6 or better with Reid's system still in place. With the exception of the 2012 aberration, the Eagles already had top 5 or 10 offenses virtually every year under Reid. Did Kelly really turn around a floundering offense, or did he inherit an perennially strong offense that was coming off of a single unusually subpar year?

I have no problem admitting that the Eagles have a good offense and a playoff-caliber team under Kelly. I don't know why it's so hard to admit they almost always had that under Andy Reid as well. The evidence is pretty clear.

 

[NinePointOh]

Andy Reid didn't pick the talent on Kansas City's roster before he was there. They had 7 Pro bowl players already there. Dorsey was brought in to make personnel decisions in Kansas City going forward. Lurie was not involved in player personnel. In 2012 he hired Roseman to take over Reids personnel hat.

So what? We're not talking about Andy Reid the talent evaluator. We're talking about Andy Reid the head coach. Who the GM wants in charge of personnel is their own business.

Obviously the owner didn't think Andy could take a team to the playoffs that he went 4 & 12 with the year before.

The question isn't what the owner thought. The question is whether the owner was right.

His disastrous assistant coach hirings that caused dissension amongst players ended up firing them midseason cost him his job. The accumulative affect of Andy Reid's poor decisions came to a head last year.

They magically came to a head in year 14 after more than a decade of success? Wow, that's a slowly gestating problem, don't you think? And surely if that was the problem, the owner/GM could take more control over assistant coach hirings even if Reid was still around.

Now onto his coaching which is better than Andy Reid the general manager. Let's not forget Andy Reid did not run a balanced offense in Philadelphia. It was throw throw throw. He was predictable.

Predictable or not, it was still top 5 or top 10 virtually every year, and good enough to reach the playoffs 9 times.

When Chip Kelly took over that same offense had career years. They have a balanced offense, were way more unpredictable, and all the sudden could score in the red zone were Andy Reid couldn't after Brad Childress left.
WHEW!

The evidence doesn't support your theory. Balanced or not, predictable or not, Andy Reid already had a top 5 or 10 scoring offense almost every single year, even after Childress left. Again, 2012 looks like an aberration for an otherwise perennially successful offense. So did Kelly's "balance" and "unpredictability" really make the difference?

 

[Dodger12]

The question isn't whether Chip Kelly has put some sort of fingerprint on the offense -- obviously he has. The question is whether they'd have gone 10-6 or better with Reid's system still in place. With the exception of the 2012 aberration, the Eagles already had top 5 or 10 offenses virtually every year under Reid. Did Kelly really turn around a floundering offense, or did he inherit an perennially strong offense that was coming off of a single unusually subpar year?

I have no problem admitting that the Eagles have a good offense and a playoff-caliber team under Kelly. I don't know why it's so hard to admit they almost always had that under Andy Reid as well. The evidence is pretty clear.

Point taken and it's a valid question. But the Eagles were on a downward trend from 11 and 5, 10 and 6, 8 and 8 to 4 and 12. Reid's a good coach but his time had run it's course in Philly; the fans had turned on him and he had family issues. No one can say for sure if Reid could have lasted another year in Philly and turned it around in that environment. I'm from the Philly area and this season was as shocking to them as it was to many of us. They wanted change and were willing to give it time to implement the new offense. No one saw this coming. But as some point, coaches have enough success at multiple stops that it's not just a mere coincidence.

They very well may have done the same thing with Reid. But the fact that they did it with Kelly putting up Madden like points with a second string back-up QB is very telling, at least for me.

 

[NinePointOh]

They very well may have done the same thing with Reid. But the fact that they did it with Kelly putting up Madden like points with a second string back-up QB is very telling, at least for me.

First, any team can put up Madden-like points by running plays as quickly as possible. The question is whether your defense can keep the other team from putting up points just as quickly. Sometimes this season the Eagles defense could do that, and sometimes they couldn't, even though they played the Packers without Rodgers, the Cowboys without Romo, the Vikings without Peterson, etc.

Second, I don't know that Foles is a "second string back-up QB" any more than Tom Brady or Tony Romo were when they took over the reins. Sometimes, you find out your backup is just better than the guy you originally had starting.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

This will be a fun thread to revisit when the Eagles are 4-12 next year. Just like the Deadskins were making Jerry quake in his boots at the prospect of facing Rookie of the Year RGKnee, one of the best young rushers in the game (Morris), and a team that had the sky as the limit after ending the season with 7 straight wins.

 

[Dodger12]

First, any team can put up Madden-like points by running plays as quickly as possible.

Come on now. Is that even remotely true? So are teams not interested in running a system that can put up 40 points a game?

Sometimes this season the Eagles defense could do that, and sometimes they couldn't, even though they played the Packers without Rodgers, the Cowboys without Romo, the Vikings without Peterson, etc.

We played the Packers without Rodgers....and lost. We played the Bears without Cutler.....and lost. And we did it controlling our own destiny. Those two games turned the course of the season. On the other hand, Philly finished what, 7 and 1? Yes, they lost the Vikings but beat the Lions who we lost to. I wouldn't apologize for that if the roles were reversed.

Second, I don't know that Foles is a "second string back-up QB" any more than Tom Brady or Tony Romo were when they took over the reins. Sometimes, you find out your backup is just better than the guy you originally had starting.

Foles started the season as the back-up. He was a second year player who was beat out by Vick. There's no way around what he was, a second string back-up. If anyone would have mentioned Foles in the same breath as Brady or Romo before the season started, we would have laughed them off the board. Foles shocked the hell out of me. I'm not calling him the second coming of Brady but he just fits in that system (which I still can't believe as I type this) and my biggest fear is that we'll have to deal with him and that offense for the next 10 years, just like we did with McNabb.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Come on now. Is that even remotely true? So are teams not interested in running a system that can put up 40 points a game?



We played the Packers without Rodgers....and lost. We played the Bears without Cutler.....and lost. And we did it controlling our own destiny. Those two games turned the course of the season. On the other hand, Philly finished what, 7 and 1? Yes, they lost the Vikings but beat the Lions who we lost to. I wouldn't apologize for that if the roles were reversed.



Foles started the season as the back-up. He was a second year player who was beat out by Vick. There's no way around what he was, a second string back-up. If anyone would have mentioned Foles in the same breath as Brady or Romo before the season started, we would have laughed them off the board. Foles shocked the hell out of me. I'm not calling him the second coming of Brady but he just fits in that system (which I still can't believe as I type this) and my biggest fear is that we'll have to deal with him and that offense for the next 10 years, just like we did with McNabb.

I just hope he chokes in big games like McNabb did.

 

[Dodger12]

This will be a fun thread to revisit when the Eagles are 4-12 next year. Just like the Deadskins were making Jerry quake in his boots at the prospect of facing Rookie of the Year RGKnee, one of the best young rushers in the game (Morris), and a team that had the sky as the limit after ending the season with 7 straight wins.

Listen, I don't agree with you on much but I do hope you're right. I think the one question we all had with RGIII was how long he could play in the NFL with that type of read/option running game. He was always one hit away from being lost for the season. I'm not so sure this is the same thing.

 

[Dodger12]

I just hope he chokes in big games like McNabb did.

I hope so too but McNabb choked in the playoffs but owned the East during the regular season. That would make me absolutely sick to have to deal with that for another 10 years.

 

[gimmesix]

Bull. The Eagles were a 4-12 team last year and probably not even that good. This division sucks, to be sure, but Kelly won it in a one year turnaround, while others here are arguing for Garrett's fourth.

Although I'm certainly not supporting Garrett, Kelly's turnaround came with a team that slipped badly under Reid last year due to injuries.

I'm not sure how good a healthy Eagles team would have been last year, but they were healthy this year and went 10-6.

Reid has proven his coaching skills once again with Kansas City, so the primary factor seems to be health, and health has definitely been an issue for Dallas the past few years.