What a difference a HC makes, Chip Kelly

[theSHOW]

Oregon CRUSHED Texas

 

[mcmvp]

Not sure what part you disagree with. Not much in that post is opinion.

Pretty much all of it was opinion...but it's ok if we agree to disagree...

 

[Coy]

Yea they were better by a whooping 2 points and 1 and 1 against us . Amazing , we should strive to be like the eagles and their array of trophies .

You got it all wrong Bro, next time read the post twice before you reply, I am not talking about how the eagles are better than the cowboys, I am talking about how a good HC can change the outlook of a team in just one year like Chip Kelly just did in Philly (4 win team to a 10 win team), basically comparing the Eagles in 2012 with the Eagles in 2013, something Garrett hasn't remotely done in his 3.5 years in Dallas.

 

[strasscat]

Chip Kelly might be a good coach, but i dont see how his offense is new or revolutionnary, it's just a standard 21th century pro-style offense, maybe he runs more than other teams, because his best player is a Running back, but that's it.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Any statement worded with loaded words is problematic. Make a quick assessment. Your agenda is showing.

The Eagles won the division and teams are going to be afraid of them. They don't game plan Foles except to pressure him and get what you saw last night. But he has one of the greatest QBR of all time in a season so he must be great. See; anyone can spin things. They game plan and fear McCoy who is probably the leagues second most valuable player behind Peyton Manning. If you want to throw in Brees, Rivers (this year), and Brady ahead of him I won't argue. Romo either. Point is with this guy and a QB who protects the ball as well as a good supporting cast and decent defense you are going to have problems playing them. If we had a better defense teams would be fearing us rather than them.

Kelly hasn't done anything magical this year. He did a really good job with a reasonably talented team and a great player and got a phenomenal year out of Foles which you likely won't see again. He did a good job this year. I respect what he did. Last year's team was not quite this talented and this one came on with Kendricks playing like an All Pro and the above. They will not likely win the SB and I doubt they even beat NO although they have a decent shot playing Brees outside esp if the weather is bad.

Thats the beauty of sports................the scoreboard has no agenda.............bottom line is Chip Kelly won a division title in his first year and Garrett cannot post a winning record in almost 4.............those are the facts, there is nothing to dispute.


Sure, if we did this, or if we did that, or if our defense was better, or if our offense could score more, or if our guys had super powers...........................all means jack................the scoreboard tells who get the job done and who doesnt......bottom line.

 

[Coy]

Thats the beauty of sports................the scoreboard has no agenda.............bottom line is Chip Kelly won a division title in his first year and Garrett cannot post a winning record in almost 4.............those are the facts, there is nothing to dispute.


Sure, if we did this, or if we did that, or if our defense was better, or if our offense could score more, or if our guys had super powers...........................all means jack................the scoreboard tells who get the job done and who doesnt......bottom line.

That's the whole point of this thread, I don't know where it all went to, "Chip Kelly is not a genious" "The eagles were an int from orton away from losing to us" "We will be better than Philly next year" etc. That has nothing to do with the original post.

 

[kevm3]

There's countless excuses we can make for Garrett. He didn't have enough talent here. He didn't have enough talent there. He didn't have this. he didn't have that. This is the third year in a row that a division rival kept us out of the play-offs and we went 8 and 8. We keep addressing all of these problem areas and yet we keep getting the same results. We got O-line help. 8 and 8. We got secondary help. 8-8. How many more smoke screens do we need to realize that Garrett is not ready for the NFL yet? It will be better for Garrett in the long-run if he lets go so he can actually be put in a position where he can LEARN TO COACH before being put in the most intense league out there. Garrett should NOT be a NFL head coach right now. He should still be an assistant/positional coach somewhere learning from some of the best head coaches and even assistant coaches in the league and getting his skills up. If not that, he should be in college coaching where mistakes aren't so visible and he has less pressure on him, which will allow him the leeway to take the failures that come with the lessons to win.

There is no winning culture in Dallas. Obviously it starts with Jerry Jones, but it also extends to his homeboy Garrett. Witten's attitude in regards to Garrett is symptomatic of the Wade/Garrett era in regards to Garrett staying. he was happy because he gets to pick up pay checks without having to win the games. he's one of the three amigos who feel that 'playing hard' is enough. It's the same with Romo and Ware. They can lose games and show no anger or even have a smile on their face. Of course these guys will want to keep Garrett around where they don't have to face any accountability and someone else can get the blame like the defensive coordinator or some rookie.

Garrett and the three amigoes don't bring a winning attitude and may actually drive away actual winners like Dez Bryant, Sean Lee and Demarco Murray... you know, guys who actually have a pained look on their face when they lose games...

 

[Beast_from_East]

That's the whole point of this thread, I don't know where it all went to, "Chip Kelly is not a genious" "The eagles were an int from orton away from losing to us" "We will be better than Philly next year" etc. That has nothing to do with the original post.

The truth my friend is that alot of posters who support Garrett really have no defense to why in almost 4 years Garrett cannot even post a winning record and all these other franchises hire new coaches and see immediate success.

They cant admit that it is the coach that turned the team around because then it makes Garrett look like the incompetent fool he really is, so they are left with down playing what the coach did saying it was either a fluke or the team was already loaded with so much talent that any coach could win (SF and KC examples cited).

 

[jobberone]

Thats the beauty of sports................the scoreboard has no agenda.............bottom line is Chip Kelly won a division title in his first year and Garrett cannot post a winning record in almost 4.............those are the facts, there is nothing to dispute.


Sure, if we did this, or if we did that, or if our defense was better, or if our offense could score more, or if our guys had super powers...........................all means jack................the scoreboard tells who get the job done and who doesnt......bottom line.

Your act is beyond old. Yes the facts are as you said. But that is just a superficial look at how it works. Or I should say simplistic look rather than an in depth look. If you want to be simple about it then continue with your superficially disguised rant against the Dallas Cowboys. I'd continue to look at it from a professional look at a professional sport. Now that doesn't mean I endorse Mr Garrett. Far from it. I see what appears to be some problems and I'm not at all certain he's the right guy to lead us out of the wilderness. But I don't just approach problems in your simple bottom line way. I look for the problems and see what is necessary to fix them.

You carry on with your railing against the darkness. I'll hope someone is looking for a way out while you curse the gods.

 

[jobberone]

Jobberone, I hear you but at the end of the day it's more of the same, excuses (not yours) and more excuses, either injuries, lack of talent, bad o line, bad d line etc..
Bottom line, we are not winning and you can argue that we won't have the same Romo, Ware, Witten , Free, Hatcher or even Murray next year so it may very well be downhill from here because injuries will happen, maybe not as many but they will happen, you can take that to the bank, we were fairly healthy on offense, that doesn't happen every year. I am certainly not as optimistic as you, I feel Garrett wasted the prime of the careers of our star players.

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.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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.

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.

 

[Sarge]

Weren't people in here before the season started saying Kelly was overrated and that PHI's new O was a gimmick destined to fail?

Probably the same people predicting the Cowboys to win the NFC East. We see how that went.

I hate the Eagles, but to win your division, no matter what division it may be, with your backup QB (now the starting QB) is impressive. Kelly may not be Lombardi, but to deny the fact that he did a really good job in his first year doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. .02

 

[kevm3]

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.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Your act is beyond old. Yes the facts are as you said. But that is just a superficial look at how it works. Or I should say simplistic look rather than an in depth look. If you want to be simple about it then continue with your superficially disguised rant against the Dallas Cowboys. I'd continue to look at it from a professional look at a professional sport. Now that doesn't mean I endorse Mr Garrett. Far from it. I see what appears to be some problems and I'm not at all certain he's the right guy to lead us out of the wilderness. But I don't just approach problems in your simple bottom line way. I look for the problems and see what is necessary to fix them.

You carry on with your railing against the darkness. I'll hope someone is looking for a way out while you curse the gods.

As Mack Brown said, "the bottom line is winning and I simply did not win enough games"....................didnt see Mack Brown crying about injuries or making a million excuses as to why he couldnt get the job done.

 

[jobberone]

As I said its old. You keep repeating excuses and others say there are reasons for the problems .

 

[OhSnap]

Improved? 3 straight 8-8 seasons and he has improved? That's news to me, improvement is based on wins and loses in the NFL not on if the players like their coach or play hard for him. Now that you mention Parcells ( he did got the team to the playoffs in his first year by the way, oh and Quincy freaking Carter was his QB) I'll quote him, "you are what your record says you are" JG is a .500 and mediocre HC like it or not.

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.

 

[cml750]

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.

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.

 

[dfense]

He came in and took a team from last to first, changed their identity, play calling and the most important thing, their wins. Yet here we are with the same HC for 3.5 years, at 8-8 but look at the positives, we play hard, we have been one win away from winning the division 3 straight years, remember, we are rebuilding, give Garrett a couple of more years and we will get to the playoffs.
Chip Kelly took over a really talented team, just like Reid in KC or Pagano in Indy or Harbaugh in SF or Rivera in Carolina or McCoy in SD or Carroll in Seattle, you know what I mean? they were just lucky.
Nobody rebuilds a team like Garrett does, nobody. SMH.

He rode a hot handed QB and a weak schedule into the playoffs barely getting by a historically bad defense and a backup QB who wan't started a game in two years.

Color me impressed. If Orton gets 20 more yards......this whole conversation is mute.

 

[NinePointOh]

I butchered my reply. I don't have the time to do it again. This new forum is very buggy on my computer. The article says enough. I'll just leave you with Andy Reid's win loss record since 2004. 66 & 61. That's the definition of mediocre.

You've selectively cherry-picked an arbitrary cut-off year to fit your preconceived notions, and even then you've failed. Andy Reid is 77-66 since 2004, which includes just two losing seasons versus five playoff appearances. If that's mediocre, give me a mediocre coach, please.

He had a top 10 offense 7 of his 14 years. Top 5 three times.

Top ten offenses more than 70% of the time over a decade and a half? That sounds like pretty consistent success, doesn't it?

In his 14 years he never had an offense put up the points Chip Kelly did in his rookie year. Both total points, and points per game

Total points AND points per game? You know there's always the same number of games in a season, right?

But either way, 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.

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)?

 

[Blue&Silver]

You've selectively cherry-picked an arbitrary cut-off year to fit your preconceived notions, and even then you've failed. Andy Reid is 77-66 since 2004, which includes just two losing seasons versus five playoff appearances. If that's mediocre, give me a mediocre coach, please.

2004 Andy peaked as a head coach. It was 3 years after his power struggle for control, and the team started to reflect his poor personnel decisions thereon after. In 2005 he started to take a bigger playcalling role from Brad Childress after early struggles. Something Andy Reid had no experience with, and eventually plugged in his boy Marty Mornhinweg when Childress left for the Vikings, 2006. It was an accumulative affect that mainly started after 2004. I didn't just cherry pick a random number to suit my conceived notions.

Top ten offenses more than 70% of the time over a decade and a half? That sounds like pretty consistent success, doesn't it?

Top 10 offense 50% of the time, and I am counting his time when Childress was there and the offense was more balanced.

But either way, as I said earlier, anyone can score lots of points by running a super fast-paced offense. The problem is, that usually also means yougive 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.

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 the point you're missing. In 2008 the Eagles were expect to win a Super Bowl. In 2013 the Eagles were expected to be a contender for the #1 overall pick in 2014.