Chip Kelly Fired

As an Eagles fan, I am A-OK with this. I think Yahoo New headline is most appropriate. "The experiment ends".

You can make a case that Chip Kelly never had the QB that he needed to run his offense and this offense was not going to work without that special QB. Kelly's hands were tied in that aspect his first two years, but this year, Sam Bradford, was Kelly's own doing. I don't believe Kelly ever intended for Bradford to be staring QB. I think he thought he could trade for Bradford and then re-trade Bradford in a package for top 1 pick Mariotta. But whatever the case Bradford was Kelly's own doing.

In recent weeks, My biggest concern was that Bradford and Kelly would both return. I want no part of Bradford returning. He is a very average at best, injury prone QB, that is not going to lead a team anywhere, unless he happens to find himself surrounded by a team of superstars.

I honestly didn't think the Eagles would pull the plus on Kelly, still owing him 2 years and so much money. But I do think it is time. The experiment has indeed failed. Kelly's concept of "speed of light football" will not work in the NFL. The offense runs far more plays than other teams, which means more injuries, especially along the offensive line. You better have 15 top, first string quality offensive linemen to be able to withstand the extra injuries and no team has that luxury.

Similarly, losing the time of possession battle badly every game as this system will, the defense will be on the field far too much and also sustain more injuries than other teams. It is no surprise the players even revolted against this system and gave up on Kelly.

Was he the reason Demarco Murray was criminally underutilized?

Quote: sabre

Was he the reason Demarco Murray was criminally underutilized?

Demarco appears to have been a horrible fit for Kelly's offense. I am not an expert in these things, but apparently Demarco's strength is being lined up 3 years behind the QB, get a running start towards the line, be handed the ball, on the move, pick a hole and run north-south, between the tackles.

In Kelly's offense, Demarco stood next to the QB, who was always in the shotgun, was handed the ball before he ever got moving and was often tackled before he ever got going. They also required him to run east-west, towards the sidelines more, which is not his strength.

I am not sure of the details of Demarco's contract, but being a free agent last year, would imagine, it is a long-term deal. I hope they keep him as I think he is a major piece that can be built around. You just have to use him properly.

The tragic flaw of great college coaches who go to the pros is often that they attempt to force their players to fit their system rather than the opposite.

In college they can recruit whoever they want. And being a good recruiter isn't just convincing the highest ranked players to come, it's picking the ones who will pan out on your team. Which makes it easier to convince your choices from the next crop.

But in pro football you usually need to work with what you have. It's too hard to build an entire team of guys tailored to your system because the minimum talent level is so high, I think. There might be some counter examples, like Bill Walsh. So, you know, just be Bill Walsh and you'll be fine!

It seems like Kelly went a bit nuts trying to force his model. I don't know WTF the Murray signing was about, though. Maybe he wasn't satisfied with what he was getting and decided to throw away his pair of sevens and draw for a flush. But, given the above, he should have seen how the pieces would fit together. It's like he knowingly drew a heart to complete his club flush.

On the other hand, I think he's ahead of the curve in a lot of ways. He had 2 10 win seasons and did it with a QB who was average at best. That's a very nice piece of success. If he can have a GM with whom he has mutual trust and who gets his philosophy, maybe he can comeback and do really well. Don't the Titans have an opening? That might be perfect. Taking over a rebuild with Mariota.

Most sports I watch using the DVR. I build up some blow-through [I like to call it] and skip ads and interminable zebra conferences and such. Anyway, most times for football I hit the go-forward-a-bit button which sends me ahead 30 seconds, and the playclock also being 30 seconds it works pretty well if you click just as the tackle is being made. You can really watch a game pretty fast skipping the huddles.

The go-back button takes me back 10 seconds and if I see the play got underway fast, I punch it. I noticed in the Redskins/Eagles game that's all I ever needed to do for the Eagles. So they got their plays off in 20 seconds instead of 30. Whoop-de-do.

I always said Chip was going to be a rich man either way. He wanted to do it his way in the NFL and if it worked and he changed the game, he would have been the toast of the league. And if it didn't, he could go back to college (Like Saban, Spurier and others) and make a fortune.

Only issue is the timing as he missed many good openings this season. He may have to sit out and collect until the end of next college season and do some TV work, though that doesn't seem his style.

Quote: Boz

Only issue is the timing as he missed many good openings this season. He may have to sit out and collect until the end of next college season and do some TV work, though that doesn't seem his style.

I don't see TV work in his future. Based on his press conferences, he speaks very quickly and just seems very uncomfortable speaking.
I don't know if he did some sort of weekly radio show during the week, like Andy Reid did back when I lived in Philly. If so, maybe Kelly was a little better than the small sample of Monday morning news conferences, where he just seemed very uncomfortable.

Quote: odiousgambit

So they got their plays off in 20 seconds instead of 30. Whoop-de-do.

I think this is a bigger issue than you realize. But I don't think it is the positive issue that Chip Kelly thinks it is.

In the NFL, players get injured. Every team deals with that. In this day and age, both offensive and defensive lineman get injured at a ridiculous rate. Most of these injuries are leg or back related. I believe it is because they are much too big as human beings. They are just carrying too much weight and the legs were not designed for that, so when they get out of position and some other 330 lbs person rolls up on them, those ligaments and tendons snap like a twig.

Most teams have 2 or 3 good linemen on offense and a half dozen serviceable ones. If you are going to run plays 50% faster than everyone else, you are going to have more offensive plays and with that you are going to have more injuries, especially along the offensive line. You better have a dozen serviceable offensive linemen and no NFL team has that.

Similarly, that quicker tempo means you lose the time of possession battle. The eagles lost time of possession every single game, even games they do well and score often. Actually, more so in games they do well and score often. Losing time of possession badly, as the eagles do, means the defense is on the field longer for more plays and you get into the same deal of more injuries.

There are times a team must go fast, two minute drills and even just a change of pace. But that lightning fast pace is just not going to work as a regular scheme in the NFL, IMO, because of personnel limitations.

It is true that you don't know who is going to need more time and who isn't at the start. Interestingly, once known, a team may have 3 time-outs and take one before the 2 minute warning. The theory is, if you need the time, it doesn't matter when you take the time-out. The effect, counter-intuitively, is the same, you just stop the clock. In the NFL, you trust your offensive co-ordinator to know what play to call, and you don't need time-outs to call a play.

So you are right, getting a play off quick, and losing time of possession, might help the other team. I guess they thought of that.

How much credit does he deserve for their back-to-back 10 win seasons? To me, his first two years do a lot to show he can be a very good NFL coach. His major problem is highlighted when he tried to trade three first round picks and a starting quarter back for Mariota. They got lucky and somehow Tennessee declined, but that shows just how bad of a GM he is. Learn to be less of a prick and combine him with Ozzie Newsome level GM and it could be a real dynasty. Ravens, Broncos, and Packers won't be looking for head coaches, so that leaves University of Texas as the best place for him. Would make complete sense for them to offer him the sane as the Eagles were paying

Quote: TomG

How much credit does he deserve for their back-to-back 10 win seasons?

I think this is an interesting question, TomG.

To some extend, how much credit or blame should any first year coach get? For the most part, none of the players are "his" players. he has basically come in and coached players that were already there.....someone else's players. That is one of the criticisms following Jon Gruden. He took over as coach of a good Tamp Bay team that Tony Dungee had built and won a superbowl in his first year.

But, on the other hand, you coach what players you have. In Chip Kelly's case, there are some further oddities.

Eagles won their first game under Kelly in 2013. Then lost next 3 for a 1-3 start. At the halfway point they were 3-5. They then got hot and won 7 of the final 8. Now here's the thing. Micheal Vick was the starting QB, chosen by Kelly to start. It wasn't until Vick got hurt and Foles started playing that the eagles really started winning. Foles was on fire. 27 TD passes and 2 interception in part of a year as starter.

Does Kelly get credit for that? He obviously did not draft Foles, he inherited him. He didn't think Foles was good enough to be the starter. Foles only got that chance when Kelly's chosen starter got hurt. Fast forward to the next year. Foles is given the starters job and Eagles start out 7-1. Foles gets hurt, eagles finish 3-5 for a 10-6 record, missing the playoffs. Next year Foles is traded.

So looking back, Eagles went 7-1 in the second half of 2013 with Foles as the starter and they went 7-1 in the first half of 2014 with Foles as the starter. And 12-19 in the remaining parts of 3 seasons. It kind of looks to me like maybe Foles gets the credit. A guy Kelly didn't draft and once he inherited him, didn't pick him to start. Just happened to luck into him.

Quote: kewlj

He obviously did not draft Foles, he inherited him. He didn't think Foles was good enough to be the starter. Foles only got that chance when Kelly's chosen starter got hurt. Fast forward to the next year. Foles is given the starters job and Eagles start out 7-1. Foles gets hurt, eagles finish 3-5 for a 10-6 record, missing the playoffs. Next year Foles is traded.

Which points very strongly to "good coach, bad GM." Foles is 5-12 when starting for any other head coach.

Quote: TomG

Which points very strongly to "good coach, bad GM." Foles is 5-12 when starting for any other head coach.

And the team he took over from Andy Reid went 4-12.