Chip Kelly Canned???

[DaEagles]

LOL at people who don't get it.

They both aren't very good. That's the point some of us make.

Some think one is worth $20 million and the other isn't.

Both of these QB's should start the journeyman route of the NFL. 6/7 per year from here on out is what both are worth.

 

[DutchBird]

LOL at people who don't get it.

They both aren't very good. That's the point some of us make.

Some think one is worth $20 million and the other isn't.

Both of these QB's should start the journeyman route of the NFL. 6/7 per year from here on out is what both are worth.

The one who does not get it is you.

Journeymen starting QB's tend - in this NFL - to make 15-20 million a year, not $ 6/7 million (which is capable back-up, Mark Sanchez money). And that says as much about the NFL, and the general awfullness of QB-play as the QB's involved.

None of those saying the Eagles should keep Bradford has suggested that Bradford is objectively worth $ 20 milloin a year. But they have also realize that that is what it is going to take to keep him (based on the QB-market in the NFL), and that not keeping him is (long term) the worse for the Eagles than keeping him on a 4 year deal or so.

 

[L.Freamon]

Neither has Nick Foles.

You'll get no argument from me about the greatness of Nick foles. But if i have to choose between 2 mediocre QBs, it makes sense to choose the one you've actually seen do it instead of the one you hope can do it.

 

[jvett77]

Did you watch any games last season? Foles was the epitome of being indecisive, slow to release the ball, missing wide open players, and creating his own pressure by running out of the pocket instead of stepping up. All season he told us he was going to fix his mistakes. He did not at any point (things got worse).

And you want to argue that Bradford did not absorb crushing tackles this season, early on and later? And in contrast to Foles he actually got better during the season. Bradford is only 2 years older than Foles, BTW. Foles stinks in St. Louis - it is not the fault of St. Louis. Bradford is in an even worse position in St. Louis and doesn't put up good numbers: he stinks.

You ignored Foles' 2013 stats again. 2014 was a bad year for Foles and he only played in 8 games, banged up so much. What's wrong with you? Bradford's QB rating in 5 years of NFL football is 80. lol. 13 interceptions in 13 games with 6 fumbles this season. Plus past double ACL means injury potential is high for Bradford. Bradford is talented and bright and has had some nice games but he hasn't shown he's a winner.

 

[DutchBird]

You ignored Foles' 2013 stats again. 2014 was a bad year for Foles and he only played in 8 games, banged up so much. What's wrong with you? Bradford's QB rating in 5 years of NFL football is 80. lol. 13 interceptions in 13 games with 6 fumbles this season. Plus past double ACL means injury potential is high for Bradford. Bradford is talented and bright and has had some nice games but he hasn't shown he's a winner.

No, I do not ignore Foles' 2013 stats at all.

I do think that (a) Foles had a far above average season - exceeded his potential, so to speak, with one truly lucky game (7 TD against the Raiders) that inflated his stats, (b) benefitted from extreme health of the O-line (the best in the NFL that season), the best RB in the league (that season) in McCoy, Cooper playing far beyond his average capability, DeSean being there, and the rest of the league not yet having caught up with the Chip Kelly gimmick. For one, the deep ball Cooper caught against the Raiders that season was the exact same ball he dropped pretty much throughout the season.

In many ways what happened to Foles is not that dissimilar to what happened to RG III, Michael Vick or that Minnesota QB (during the McNabb era). Once opponents had enough film to figure out weaknesses, they were made far less effective (if not completely ineffective) - in this case it was waiting for opponents to figure out the offense, and some of the players regressing to the mean (O-line most notably).

One could arguably already see traces of that regression late in the 2013 season, when Foles' numbers dropped of significantly (culminating in the loss to NO) - to the point where they were no more than average at best, and definitely no better than Bradford's.

Once that happened, Foles fell apart - from the very start of the season, before he was beaten up. He missed WR's left and right, as bad or worse than Bradford. And throughout the season he actually regressed; also despite Foles having the benefit of one full season and two full seasons in the new offensive system. Yet Foles played worse than Bradford, who basically came in fresh, had little to no experience in the off-season, and had a worse supporting cast surrounding him. Bradford's worst game were no worse than Foles showed that season, and Bradford actually improved during the season.

I find it funny how the excuse is that Foles played behind a banged up O-line, yet that is deemed completely irrelevant where Bradford is concerned.

 

[anotheridiot]

just another coach that was doing it right, then took on too much responsibility wanting player personnel responsibility

 

[jvett77]

No, I do not ignore Foles' 2013 stats at all.

I do think that (a) Foles had a far above average season - exceeded his potential, so to speak, with one truly lucky game (7 TD against the Raiders) that inflated his stats, (b) benefitted from extreme health of the O-line (the best in the NFL that season), the best RB in the league (that season) in McCoy, Cooper playing far beyond his average capability, DeSean being there, and the rest of the league not yet having caught up with the Chip Kelly gimmick. For one, the deep ball Cooper caught against the Raiders that season was the exact same ball he dropped pretty much throughout the season.

In many ways what happened to Foles is not that dissimilar to what happened to RG III, Michael Vick or that Minnesota QB (during the McNabb era). Once opponents had enough film to figure out weaknesses, they were made far less effective (if not completely ineffective) - in this case it was waiting for opponents to figure out the offense, and some of the players regressing to the mean (O-line most notably).

One could arguably already see traces of that regression late in the 2013 season, when Foles' numbers dropped of significantly (culminating in the loss to NO) - to the point where they were no more than average at best, and definitely no better than Bradford's.

Once that happened, Foles fell apart - from the very start of the season, before he was beaten up. He missed WR's left and right, as bad or worse than Bradford. And throughout the season he actually regressed; also despite Foles having the benefit of one full season and two full seasons in the new offensive system. Yet Foles played worse than Bradford, who basically came in fresh, had little to no experience in the off-season, and had a worse supporting cast surrounding him. Bradford's worst game were no worse than Foles showed that season, and Bradford actually improved during the season.

I find it funny how the excuse is that Foles played behind a banged up O-line, yet that is deemed completely irrelevant where Bradford is concerned.

Holy shit, you really know how to BS and draw no intelligent conclusions. Now, you're comparing the plight of running QBs RG III and Michael Vick to that of Foles. Studying film is part of the game. Anybody can be figured out. That's why Bradford is a 28 year old QB with a lifetime 80 rating. That dumbass had 13 interceptions this year. Not his fault? If a QB at 25 performed like Foles did in 2013 and then has a "down year" playing in only half the games, you don't trades him, you plug the holes and add a better supporting cast. We'll regret ever having traded Foles. Bradford will never excel and will have a shortened NFL career. You celebrated with fat ass Chip today?

 

[deerpathdave]

I don't necessarily disagree with Chip being fired I just think that people are reading the reasons for the bad season and the firing all wrong.

Here are the real things Chip did poorly IMO....

1. The Cody Parkey injury things was really handled poorly and arguably cost them two games.
2. The play of the OL was pathetic, but I think the blame rests as much with Peters and Kelce as it does with the Guard play. It also didn't help that Gardner got injured as well. While the guard play was poor, I don't believe it would have been better by retaining Mathis and Herremans, and unfortunately the players available in FA and the draft don't look like great fixes either. The only obvious mistake, IMO is they could have used a 7th rounder on La'ell Collins. Its not like 7th rounders usually make the team anyways, so its a no risk proposition and I am sure he would have been useful.
3. The DeMarco Murray pickup was a disaster in many ways. Overspent for a player they didn't need and then felt obligated to play him over better players.
4. General poor cap management. Prioritized football decisions over fiscal responsibility. Overspent for Miles Austin and Brad Jones.
5. I suspect the biggest issues though were more interpersonal. The team went through some tough times and didn't seem to battle through that well as a team. If Chip were more personally engaged with the players we may have seen a better result.
6. I do think Billy Davis was average or below as a DC. He seemed to be reticent to start young players only giving Rowe and Hicks opportunities when injuries forced his hand. It makes you wonder who else (Marcus Smith?, Vinny Curry?) may have emerged if given half a chance.

Here is what I believe are the false narratives.

1. That Kelly the GM was horrible. In reality he made many really good moves. This last draft is somewhere between good and fantastic depending on the development of Agholor, Rowe and Hicks. He was spot on on the cuts with Foles, Mathis, Fletcher, Cole, Herremans and Williams. He made good pickups in Bradford, Thurman, Jenkins, Mathews and Sprole.s
2. That the offensive scheme was figured out. It was poorly executed this year, primarily by the line, but it still looked good at times. I think it was hampered more by talent, injuries and the development of Bradford and Agholor than being a bad scheme.
3. That the 3-4 is a bad scheme. the 3-4 fundamentally is a more flexible design when dealing with passing offenses and teams with good tight ends. Its been very effective for other teams.
4. That tempo kills the defense. While the Eagles were the top tempo team in the league, this translated into an average of executing a play 6-7 seconds quicker than the average. So for a 3 and out, the defense was losing a maximum of about 30 seconds rest. The reality with TV timeouts and punts, that is really close to irrelevant. The real issue is they simply had too many 3 and outs and also allowed to many sustained drives. That is the real reason they were on the field too much. Tempo works great when executing well. It makes the OL work easier, tires out the DL and limits the creativity of the defense.

I do believe that whether necessary or not (and really only Lurie knows and he isn't going to explain it further than he has), this really sets the team back horribly to not retain Chip. They had an opportunity to retain Chip and Bradford and find out if Bradford could finally realize his potential. While its arguable whether he would have or not, I like the chances of that working in year two, much better than a rookie or another retread with a brand new system.

 

[I miss Dawkins]

I have a sinking suspicion that Lurie said - fine, this is all yours, so you have no excuses, since you think you know it all. I think Lurie gave him enough rope to hang himself. And we went downhill this year. Players were quitting on him. Lurie pulled the plug. Pure business.

-Lurie finally admitted Chip DID demand full control and Lurie said "fine, you get 100% control but you better win". Chip didn't win..

Yep.

 

[northeastphillyguy]

I don't necessarily disagree with Chip being fired I just think that people are reading the reasons for the bad season and the firing all wrong.

Here are the real things Chip did poorly IMO....

1. The Cody Parkey injury things was really handled poorly and arguably cost them two games.
2. The play of the OL was pathetic, but I think the blame rests as much with Peters and Kelce as it does with the Guard play. It also didn't help that Gardner got injured as well. While the guard play was poor, I don't believe it would have been better by retaining Mathis and Herremans, and unfortunately the players available in FA and the draft don't look like great fixes either. The only obvious mistake, IMO is they could have used a 7th rounder on La'ell Collins. Its not like 7th rounders usually make the team anyways, so its a no risk proposition and I am sure he would have been useful.
3. The DeMarco Murray pickup was a disaster in many ways. Overspent for a player they didn't need and then felt obligated to play him over better players.
4. General poor cap management. Prioritized football decisions over fiscal responsibility. Overspent for Miles Austin and Brad Jones.
5. I suspect the biggest issues though were more interpersonal. The team went through some tough times and didn't seem to battle through that well as a team. If Chip were more personally engaged with the players we may have seen a better result.
6. I do think Billy Davis was average or below as a DC. He seemed to be reticent to start young players only giving Rowe and Hicks opportunities when injuries forced his hand. It makes you wonder who else (Marcus Smith?, Vinny Curry?) may have emerged if given half a chance.

Here is what I believe are the false narratives.

1. That Kelly the GM was horrible. In reality he made many really good moves. This last draft is somewhere between good and fantastic depending on the development of Agholor, Rowe and Hicks. He was spot on on the cuts with Foles, Mathis, Fletcher, Cole, Herremans and Williams. He made good pickups in Bradford, Thurman, Jenkins, Mathews and Sprole.s
2. That the offensive scheme was figured out. It was poorly executed this year, primarily by the line, but it still looked good at times. I think it was hampered more by talent, injuries and the development of Bradford and Agholor than being a bad scheme.
3. That the 3-4 is a bad scheme. the 3-4 fundamentally is a more flexible design when dealing with passing offenses and teams with good tight ends. Its been very effective for other teams.
4. That tempo kills the defense. While the Eagles were the top tempo team in the league, this translated into an average of executing a play 6-7 seconds quicker than the average. So for a 3 and out, the defense was losing a maximum of about 30 seconds rest. The reality with TV timeouts and punts, that is really close to irrelevant. The real issue is they simply had too many 3 and outs and also allowed to many sustained drives. That is the real reason they were on the field too much. Tempo works great when executing well. It makes the OL work easier, tires out the DL and limits the creativity of the defense.

I do believe that whether necessary or not (and really only Lurie knows and he isn't going to explain it further than he has), this really sets the team back horribly to not retain Chip. They had an opportunity to retain Chip and Bradford and find out if Bradford could finally realize his potential. While its arguable whether he would have or not, I like the chances of that working in year two, much better than a rookie or another retread with a brand new system.

Once again you continue to contradict yourself. The only thing I can agree with you about is the 3-4 defense scheme. Punts-kicks and TV timeouts do not change the amount of time played on defense or offense. You said that tempo did not kill the defense nor did the offensive scheme. But instead it was the execution of the offense.
Did it occur to you that it was poorly executed because of other teams figuring out to defend it? You also said not retaining Kelly sets the team back. LOL! This is a team game, but you continue to wear blinders. I would suggest that you stop minimizing the negative effects that Kelly caused on this team.

 

[L.Freamon]

Once again you continue to contradict yourself. The only thing I can agree with you about is the 3-4 defense scheme. Punts-kicks and TV timeouts do not change the amount of time played on defense or offense. You said that tempo did not kill the defense nor did the offensive scheme. But instead it was the execution of the offense.
Did it occur to you that it was poorly executed because of other teams figuring out to defend it? You also said not retaining Kelly sets the team back. LOL! This is a team game, but you continue to wear blinders. I would suggest that you stop minimizing the negative effects that Kelly caused on this team.

3-4 in an of itself isn't bad. We just dont have the personnel, imo.

 

[northeastphillyguy]

3-4 in an of itself isn't bad. We just dont have the personnel, imo.

It seemed to work better when Hicks was healthy. But I think you are right.

 

[jvett77]

I don't necessarily disagree with Chip being fired I just think that people are reading the reasons for the bad season and the firing all wrong.

Here are the real things Chip did poorly IMO....

1. The Cody Parkey injury things was really handled poorly and arguably cost them two games.
2. The play of the OL was pathetic, but I think the blame rests as much with Peters and Kelce as it does with the Guard play. It also didn't help that Gardner got injured as well. While the guard play was poor, I don't believe it would have been better by retaining Mathis and Herremans, and unfortunately the players available in FA and the draft don't look like great fixes either. The only obvious mistake, IMO is they could have used a 7th rounder on La'ell Collins. Its not like 7th rounders usually make the team anyways, so its a no risk proposition and I am sure he would have been useful.
3. The DeMarco Murray pickup was a disaster in many ways. Overspent for a player they didn't need and then felt obligated to play him over better players.
4. General poor cap management. Prioritized football decisions over fiscal responsibility. Overspent for Miles Austin and Brad Jones.
5. I suspect the biggest issues though were more interpersonal. The team went through some tough times and didn't seem to battle through that well as a team. If Chip were more personally engaged with the players we may have seen a better result.
6. I do think Billy Davis was average or below as a DC. He seemed to be reticent to start young players only giving Rowe and Hicks opportunities when injuries forced his hand. It makes you wonder who else (Marcus Smith?, Vinny Curry?) may have emerged if given half a chance.

Here is what I believe are the false narratives.

1. That Kelly the GM was horrible. In reality he made many really good moves. This last draft is somewhere between good and fantastic depending on the development of Agholor, Rowe and Hicks. He was spot on on the cuts with Foles, Mathis, Fletcher, Cole, Herremans and Williams. He made good pickups in Bradford, Thurman, Jenkins, Mathews and Sprole.s
2. That the offensive scheme was figured out. It was poorly executed this year, primarily by the line, but it still looked good at times. I think it was hampered more by talent, injuries and the development of Bradford and Agholor than being a bad scheme.
3. That the 3-4 is a bad scheme. the 3-4 fundamentally is a more flexible design when dealing with passing offenses and teams with good tight ends. Its been very effective for other teams.
4. That tempo kills the defense. While the Eagles were the top tempo team in the league, this translated into an average of executing a play 6-7 seconds quicker than the average. So for a 3 and out, the defense was losing a maximum of about 30 seconds rest. The reality with TV timeouts and punts, that is really close to irrelevant. The real issue is they simply had too many 3 and outs and also allowed to many sustained drives. That is the real reason they were on the field too much. Tempo works great when executing well. It makes the OL work easier, tires out the DL and limits the creativity of the defense.

I do believe that whether necessary or not (and really only Lurie knows and he isn't going to explain it further than he has), this really sets the team back horribly to not retain Chip. They had an opportunity to retain Chip and Bradford and find out if Bradford could finally realize his potential. While its arguable whether he would have or not, I like the chances of that working in year two, much better than a rookie or another retread with a brand new system.

Kelly wasn't a bad GM? Have you been sleeping for the past year and is anybody in this forum awake? Owner Laurie gives a college coach complete personnel control and this clownish NFL rookie coach dumps or fails to retrain some of the greatest players the current Eagles ever had, or at least those with clear potential to form the elements of a near-term super bowl team - such as WR Jackson, QB Foles, RB McCoy, and TE Macklin.
We've witnessed the worst buffoons in sports history run our Eagles into the ground.

 

[DutchBird]

Once again you continue to contradict yourself. The only thing I can agree with you about is the 3-4 defense scheme. Punts-kicks and TV timeouts do not change the amount of time played on defense or offense. You said that tempo did not kill the defense nor did the offensive scheme. But instead it was the execution of the offense.
Did it occur to you that it was poorly executed because of other teams figuring out to defend it? You also said not retaining Kelly sets the team back. LOL! This is a team game, but you continue to wear blinders. I would suggest that you stop minimizing the negative effects that Kelly caused on this team.

Based on the comments by Shurmur and Bradford in the post-game press-conference:

- The high tempo did cause a lot of trouble for the offense, especially with false starts and lining up incorrectly and such nonsense. This game showed the difference.

- With the high-tempo offense making audibles is all but impossible. Bradford and Shurmur both said they did audible quite a bit today, and the difference was clearly noticable.

 

[DutchBird]

Kelly wasn't a bad GM? Have you been sleeping for the past year and is anybody in this forum awake? Owner Laurie gives a college coach complete personnel control and this clownish NFL rookie coach dumps or fails to retrain some of the greatest players the current Eagles ever had, or at least those with clear potential to form the elements of a near-term super bowl team - such as WR Jackson, QB Foles, RB McCoy, and TE Macklin.
We've witnessed the worst buffoons in sports history run our Eagles into the ground.

Foles would have gotten us nowhere. Maclin was not a TE.

Chip's draft might have outdone pretty much any draft Howie was involved in. He has improved the QB position.

Yes, Chip has made some massive mistakes, but he has not been the complete GM disaster that some of you make him out to be.

 

[L.Freamon]

Overall the team got worse. Thats a GM disaster.

 

[northeastphillyguy]

Foles would have gotten us nowhere. Maclin was not a TE.

Chip's draft might have outdone pretty much any draft Howie was involved in. He has improved the QB position.

Yes, Chip has made some massive mistakes, but he has not been the complete GM disaster that some of you make him out to be.

Chip was not a complete disaster. He had some good points. But in the end he was hurting this team and other
parts of this organization. Plus I think chip needs help. He looks as though he has gained 40-50 pounds since the season started. Could be depressed or have a food addiction.

 

[DutchBird]

Chip was not a complete disaster. He had some good points. But in the end he was hurting this team and other
parts of this organization. Plus I think chip needs help. He looks as though he has gained 40-50 pounds since the season started. Could be depressed or have a food addiction.

I think that - based on what has come out - firing Chip was the best thing for the team, no doubt about it.

Yeah, I think Chip got problems. And my guess is it had a lot to do with stress, not succeeding, and probably already in january knowing he would most likely fail, without being able to do anything about it (since Roseman seems to have Lurie in his pocket).

In general it is - I think - the first time Chip Kelly has to deal with completely failing a job he set out to do. And yeah, usually that has some impact upon a person's psyche.

 

[L.Freamon]

I think that - based on what has come out - firing Chip was the best thing for the team, no doubt about it.

Yeah, I think Chip got problems. And my guess is it had a lot to do with stress, not succeeding, and probably already in january knowing he would most likely fail, without being able to do anything about it (since Roseman seems to have Lurie in his pocket).

In general it is - I think - the first time Chip Kelly has to deal with completely failing a job he set out to do. And yeah, usually that has some impact upon a person's psyche.

The fact that practically everyone in the organization hated him has nothing to do with Roseman, man. He did that all on his own.

 

[jvett77]

Did you watch any games last season? Foles was the epitome of being indecisive, slow to release the ball, missing wide open players, and creating his own pressure by running out of the pocket instead of stepping up. All season he told us he was going to fix his mistakes. He did not at any point (things got worse).

And you want to argue that Bradford did not absorb crushing tackles this season, early on and later? And in contrast to Foles he actually got better during the season. Bradford is only 2 years older than Foles, BTW. Foles stinks in St. Louis - it is not the fault of St. Louis. Bradford is in an even worse position in St. Louis and doesn't put up good numbers: he stinks.

You need to review Foles' 2014 season. In week 9 against the Houston Texans, Foles left the game during the first half with a broken collarbone, which ending his 2014 season. He was on pace to have over 4,000 yards passing and he led the team to a 6-2 record as the starter, first place in the NFC East, and second place in the NFC. Foles did get off to a slow start in 2014 but still led the team to several come back wins.

Foles is a better QB than Bradford who specializes in indecisiveness and interceptions and has never proven anything any where other than in college. Bradford will never succeed in the NFL where durability, athleticism, and brains are required.