Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Chip Kelly, the Learning Curve, and the Quarterback
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Phits
Here's a great (rational) read from Eaglesrewind.

QUOTE
Kelly did a poor job rebuilding this team, investing in the wrong positions (RB) instead of the right ones (oline, edge rusher). He has abandoned the run too quickly, failed to utilize players properly, and struggles to make in-game adjustments in a timely fashion.

But, letís not pretend that this is a repeat offense from Kelly. Letís not pretend that his teams have been mired in mediocrity, or worse, during the first three years of his tenure. Kelly has hit a rough patch ó and indeed, the latest loss was about as rough as it gets.

******

While I was beating the drum on Kellyís coaching mistakes all season (and got crushed for doing so by some in the process), I am getting the sense that the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction. While Kelly is not without his flaws, especially on the personnel side, he is still a good coach. And it would be a mistake to run him out of town.

Kellyís future success will depend on finding that top 13-15 guy, through free agency, trade, or the draft. Here is hoping he can do so in the next year or two, otherwise we might be looking at Philadelphia being to Kelly as Cleveland was to Belichick and New England/New York were to Carroll.




Linc
Zero
I hate it when people ruin a great depression saying something that makes some sense.
nephillymike
Good stuff.

I always use the term top two tier QB, which normally includes the top 12 or so.
The Franchise
So he's done a poor job of basically everything, yet it's too early to judge him because Belichick lost his job once? Good god, talk about tripling down on a misguided belief.

Zero
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Nov 24 2015, 11:34 PM) *
So he's done a poor job of basically everything, yet it's too early to judge him because Belichick lost his job once? Good god, talk about tripling down on a misguided belief.

I guess you didn't make it to the article.
QUOTE
Kelly is a football junkie, one who spends an inordinate amount of time studying up on team building, and culture, and football strategy. Heís not Steve Spurrier, who spent as much time on the golf course as he did in the film room. So I donít doubt for a moment that Kelly can turn this around. It just largely depends on whether he can find that quarterback.
No doubt this guy doesn't have a crystal ball, but he's laid out a good argument and so far I haven't read a reasonable counter argument.
samaroo
My only beef comes from the first lines:

"Kelly did a poor job rebuilding this team, investing in the wrong positions (RB) instead of the right ones (oline, edge rusher). He has abandoned the run too quickly, failed to utilize players properly, and struggles to make in-game adjustments in a timely fashion."

-I don't think RB was a "wrong position" to invest in.
-Everyone is pissed about M. Smith, how is spending a first round pick on an OLB not investing? Also, we resigned Graham, and got Barwin. I've heard Cox was pretty good already.
-OL I agree with.
-The rest is pure conjecture. I've heard good arguments both ways, so, meh.

But I totally agree with the tone and overall message of the article. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people need to chill.
SAM I Am
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 25 2015, 06:03 AM) *
I guess you didn't make it to the article.
No doubt this guy doesn't have a crystal ball, but he's laid out a good argument and so far I haven't read a reasonable counter argument.

The reasonable counter argument would be to look at what the team has done so far since he came here, and it has gotten worse each year. And no, he isn't building anything, unless you consider what he did this off season as rebuilding. I certainly don't.

I'll put more stock in what my eyes tell me than some tweeting attorney who lives in Tampa of all places.
Phits
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 25 2015, 07:54 AM) *
I'll put more stock in what my eyes tell me than some tweeting attorney who lives in Tampa of all places.

Your eyes can be deceiving. This "tweeting attorney" is using valid arguments to pursue his point. His geographical location is irrelevant, since he has access to the same type of information (if not more) than somebody who lives in Philadelphia.
samaroo
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 25 2015, 09:54 PM) *
The reasonable counter argument would be to look at what the team has done so far since he came here, and it has gotten worse each year. And no, he isn't building anything, unless you consider what he did this off season as rebuilding. I certainly don't.

I'll put more stock in what my eyes tell me than some tweeting attorney who lives in Tampa of all places.

I keep reading this everywhere, but I don't get it.

Year 1: Took on Andy's (4-12) team and goes 10-6 (with 2 QBs.) It's good enough for the division title that year. Loses a playoff game no one thought we'd play in that year. Everyone dresses as Chip for Halloween, and his statue replaces Rocky's.

Year 2: Lets our #1 WR go, everyone loses their shit. Has horrid QB play. Still goes 10-6, albeit with a better start than a finish. 10-6 not good enough for the division title that year.

Year 3: Makes a lot of personnel changes, everyone loses their shit. Has horrid (insert most positions here) play. A bunch of new pieces finding how they fit together. For a few weeks, most people are content to see how it works out. Inconsistent, as it turns out. Everyone subsequently loses their shit.

Is he supposed to add one win a year to show improvement? Would everyone be happier if we kept all the same people all the time and never tried anything different and were also never quite good enough? I thought we all agreed we were ready to try something new. I thought we were all not content with contending. I thought a SB was the goal. Guess what; whatever we were doing wasn't working. Why don't we see what happens before we tell Galileo how the solar system works.
mcnabbulous
The disconnect is that everyone thinks 2013 was real. And that we were close. They forget just how bad we were in 2012. They don't accept that Foles isn't good. They fail to realize that 27-2 was because of Chip, not Nick.

The worst thing that happened to our franchise, and Chip's tenure, was 2013. Had our record matched our talent, we would have been in the 6-10/7-9 range. We would have drafted a QB in the first round. Maybe Derek Carr or Teddy. We would have reasonably tried to grow the team through a young core.

Instead, we've been piecing together a roster that we thought could take our 10-6 to 12-4. In hindsight, it's easy to see how much of a mistake that can be.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 25 2015, 08:42 AM) *
Why don't we see what happens before we tell Galileo how the solar system works.


Sam...that may be the best line ever typed on this bored......kudos.....my stomach hurt from laughing...

Zero
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 25 2015, 08:42 AM) *
Guess what; whatever we were doing wasn't working. Why don't we see what happens before we tell Galileo how the solar system works.
jumpclap.gif
rumply
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 25 2015, 10:35 AM) *
The disconnect is that everyone thinks 2013 was real. And that we were close. They forget just how bad we were in 2012. They don't accept that Foles isn't good. They fail to realize that 27-2 was because of Chip, not Nick.

The worst thing that happened to our franchise, and Chip's tenure, was 2013. Had our record matched our talent, we would have been in the 6-10/7-9 range. We would have drafted a QB in the first round. Maybe Derek Carr or Teddy. We would have reasonably tried to grow the team through a young core.

Instead, we've been piecing together a roster that we thought could take our 10-6 to 12-4. In hindsight, it's easy to see how much of a mistake that can be.



Yeah I think you are right, too much came too soon & along with that comes exception from everybody from Laurie to the average fan in the street. Trouble is the team is where it is & there's no quick fix in sight. Do we risk another wasted year with Chip or make the break & move on at seasons end? Tough decision methinks.

One thing I don't want to see this year is another win as this team needs the best draft support it can muster.
The Franchise
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 25 2015, 08:42 AM) *
Why don't we see what happens before we tell Galileo how the solar system works.


The only thing Chip and Galileo have in common is that they're both frauds. Everyone knows that Copernicus laid the groundwork for Galileo's 'discoveries,' the same way that Chip milked Andy's players for a couple 10-win seasons before giving us this crap. Give me a break.
nephillymike
good thread. A few points:

1. You know what happens when you don't win a fucking football championship in 55 years:

People lose their shit.

2. Your recap of Chip's Years 1-3 is nice and could be accurate. Scary thing is, it is very close to Richie the K and Ray Rhodes at this juncture of their HC experience here.


And, if Chip was responsible for Nicks 27-2, then he is responsible for last year's Nick and Mark and this year's Sam and Mark. If he was responsible for the two 10-6's then he's responsible for the 4-6 shit we're sitting in now.

That empty stadium in the 4th quarter spoke volumes. People didn't even have it in them to stay and boo. If I'm Jeff, that would be a concern.
samaroo
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Nov 26 2015, 03:33 AM) *
Sam...that may be the best line ever typed on this bored......kudos.....my stomach hurt from laughing...

cheers.gif

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 26 2015, 12:06 PM) *
good thread. A few points:

1. You know what happens when you don't win a fucking football championship in 55 years:

People lose their shit.

I get it. Trust me, I'm frustrated too. But throwing a tantrum every time things don't go your way isn't the solution.
QUOTE
2. Your recap of Chip's Years 1-3 is nice and could be accurate. Scary thing is, it is very close to Richie the K and Ray Rhodes at this juncture of their HC experience here.

The main thing I see in common with Kotite, Rhodes and Chip is the timeline. Rich got canned after 3 years, Ray after 4 (but after 3 everyone knew he was gone) and Chip is in his third.
QUOTE
And, if Chip was responsible for Nicks 27-2, then he is responsible for last year's Nick and Mark and this year's Sam and Mark. If he was responsible for the two 10-6's then he's responsible for the 4-6 shit we're sitting in now.

I'll agree with that for the most part. Just be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
QUOTE
That empty stadium in the 4th quarter spoke volumes. People didn't even have it in them to stay and boo. If I'm Jeff, that would be a concern.

Fans are fickle. Philly fans are ficklier. (Don't look that word up. It's real, trust me.) I'm gonna lay some stats down that are my main point.

Cleveland Browns: 9 coaches since 1991, with the longest tenured being Belichick at 5 years. Winning percentage during that span: .354

Oakland Raiders: 14 coaches since 1988, longest tenure was Art Shell at 6 years. Winning percentage: .430

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 8 coaches since 1997, longest tenure was Jim Schwartz at 5 years. Winning percentage: .349

Miami Dolphins: 9 coaches since 1996, longest tenure was Dave Wannstedt at 5 years. Winning percentage: .495

All these teams have been bad for a while, and seem to stay that way despite the NFL draft system being set up in such a way as to keep teams from remaining at the bottom of the barrel. Now the other side of this coin:

Green Bay Packers: 4 coaches since 1992, shortest tenure was Ray Rhodes at 1 year, but the other 3 were there for 7 years, 6 years and McCarthy has been there since 2006. Win %: .640

Pittsburgh Steelers: 3 coaches since 1969, shortest tenure is Tomlin, who is in his 9th year. Win %: .597

New England Patriots: obviously Belichick has been there since 2000, and has a winning percentage of .742

All these teams have been pretty good for a while, and seem to stay that way despite the yadda yadda you get it.

And here's a single data point with the least number of variables:

San Francisco 49ers part 1: Between 1979 and 2002, SF had 3 coaches, with Steve Mariucci being the shortest tenured at 6 years. Win %: .657

San Francisco 49ers part 2: From 2003 to now, SF has had 6 coaches, with Harbaugh and Erickson leading at 4 years each. Win percentage: .469

Now, I'm not the greatest at thinkin' on things what has numbers in 'em, but that seems like some sorta trend.
samaroo
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Nov 26 2015, 11:38 AM) *
The only thing Chip and Galileo have in common is that they're both frauds. Everyone knows that Copernicus laid the groundwork for Galileo's 'discoveries,' the same way that Chip milked Andy's players for a couple 10-win seasons before giving us this crap. Give me a break.

And in swoops Technically Right Man, saving the world from yet another minor discrepancy while derailing another coherent discussion! Thank you, Technically Right Man!

I'll bet you're real fun at parties.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 25 2015, 09:06 PM) *
And, if Chip was responsible for Nicks 27-2, then he is responsible for last year's Nick and Mark and this year's Sam and Mark.

Both Nick and Mark were still better last year than when paired with other coaches. I would agree that Chip is responsible for that.

It seems as though in year 3, the shine has worn off the offense. It's not to say that it can't be very successful moving forward, but more of that success is going to need to come from the guys on the field. It can't be manufactured quite the same way.
QUOTE
If he was responsible for the two 10-6's then he's responsible for the 4-6 shit we're sitting in now.

Certainly Chip owns a large part of this. The reality is that we are probably middle of the road talent team. I would expect that Chip could manufacture a win or two. So we should end the season as a 9-7 or so team. My original expectation is that Sam would elevate us to the different level. It's pretty obvious that won't be the case.
nephillymike
Was thinking about all of the uncovered WR's we're not seeing on offense.

Maybe rushing to get to the play off is causing some of those uncovered guys on a defense that is hurrying around, which is good, but at that point, maybe take an extra second once we get lined up to either audible or at least look around and see the uncovered guy?

Seems to me, an extra second or two is not as valuable as the 7 points we'd put up if/when we find the uncovered guys.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 26 2015, 10:20 AM) *
Was thinking about all of the uncovered WR's we're not seeing on offense.

Maybe rushing to get to the play off is causing some of those uncovered guys on a defense that is hurrying around, which is good, but at that point, maybe take an extra second once we get lined up to either audible or at least look around and see the uncovered guy?

Seems to me, an extra second or two is not as valuable as the 7 points we'd put up if/when we find the uncovered guys.

Offense has moved much slower under Sam. He's definitely been taking his time at the line.
The Franchise
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 26 2015, 03:19 AM) *
And in swoops Technically Right Man, saving the world from yet another minor discrepancy while derailing another coherent discussion! Thank you, Technically Right Man!

I'll bet you're real fun at parties.


Aww, are you uwwpset that not everybody thought your line was brilliant? Don't blame me for correcting you, Demonstrably Wrong Man!
nephillymike
REAL MEN OF GENIUS.............................................
nephillymike
REAL MEN OF GENIUS.............................................

Mr. Technically Correct Man, Mr. Demonstrably Wrong man..........................
Wheeljack
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 25 2015, 09:35 AM) *
The disconnect is that everyone thinks 2013 was real. And that we were close. They forget just how bad we were in 2012. They don't accept that Foles isn't good. They fail to realize that 27-2 was because of Chip, not Nick.

The worst thing that happened to our franchise, and Chip's tenure, was 2013. Had our record matched our talent, we would have been in the 6-10/7-9 range. We would have drafted a QB in the first round. Maybe Derek Carr or Teddy. We would have reasonably tried to grow the team through a young core.

Instead, we've been piecing together a roster that we thought could take our 10-6 to 12-4. In hindsight, it's easy to see how much of a mistake that can be.


I agree 100% with this post. the worst thing about the post-Andy Eagles was that season, and the mirage that was Foles putting up Peyton Manning numbers.
Everyone back then was talking all kinds of wild crap because of the numbers, and here, in particular, because the QB was not Vick.


That was all on Chip Kelly. And even Chip bought too far into the hype. The Eagles could have still had Bridgewater or Carr, the way QBs were avoided in the first round.
D Rock
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Nov 26 2015, 08:53 PM) *
Aww, are you uwwpset that not everybody thought your line was brilliant? Don't blame me for correcting you, Demonstrably Wrong Man!

Whatever you say, Clearly a Giant Asshole Man.
The Franchise
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 27 2015, 03:57 PM) *
Whatever you say, Clearly a Giant Asshole Man.


Pleased to meet you, Mr. My Birth Certificate is an Apology from the Condom Factory Man!
samaroo
This new trend in awesome nicknames needs to stick. It's great. And thanks to Mike, I now hear the "Real Men of Genius" guy saying it when I read 'em!

Buuuut...

I spent a bunch of time on my big post up yonder. No one thinks anything about that? I find it pretty striking...
Eyrie
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 28 2015, 08:12 AM) *
This new trend in awesome nicknames needs to stick. It's great. And thanks to Mike, I now hear the "Real Men of Genius" guy saying it when I read 'em!

Buuuut...

I spent a bunch of time on my big post up yonder. No one thinks anything about that? I find it pretty striking...

Thinking gives me a headache, but here goes ....

I draw four conclusions from your post
1 - Unsuccessful coaches get fired
2 - Teams that undergo regular changes struggle
3 - Successful coaches get leeway for a bad year, so have time to recover
4 - Teams with stability tend to succeed

But that then raises the "chicken and egg" scenario. An unsuccessful coach has to be replaced, but the act of replacing a coach whose methods didn't work results in a new coach introducing different methods which cause instability which means that the franchise has to start over again. But because the new coach has no track record to buffer him against a bad season, he is very vulnerable to being replaced himself if things go wrong, at which point the cycle of instability starts again.

Conversely a successful coach can survive a bad year because it is a one off, and the stability resulting from not making the change makes it easier for him to do better the next year, which is why stable organisations tend to do better over the long run.

What does that mean for us?

Reid went 6-10 in 2005, but that was his seventh season and he'd made the playoffs in each of the previous five, so it was an easy decision to retain him (proving point 3). We then made the playoffs in four of the next five years (proving point 4) and it was only after a downhill trend for two years (2011 8-8, 2012 4-12) that he was fired.

Kelly on the other hand inherited Reid's players and immediately won the division at 10-6. However year two saw a poor finish from a strong position and year three has not shown signs of recovery but instead of things getting worse. Unlike Reid, Kelly cannot point to a record of success with his own players which raises questions about his ability and, unless he can finish this year strongly, it's time to accept that he needs replaced (point 1).

At this stage point 2 kicks in, because our struggles this season are a result of the changes that Kelly has made and replacing him will see the new guy make more changes. But we can't persist with Kelly simply because change is usually unhelpful any more than we should have persisted with Rhodes for 1999. If we can get the right replacement (and the number of examples you cite to prove points 1 and 2 show that isn't easy) then we can get back to the Reid years of stability under a successful coach which will result in better times for our team.

So, who will be our GM and who will be our head coach that achieve this for us, starting next season?
samaroo
Good post. I'm not trying to insinuate, by the way, that any one factor is the determining agent. There are far too many variables to boil down to one single equation. But, I generally think an NFL coach needs AT LEAST 3 years to even get his system installed and personnel rotation started. Firing and hiring every 3rd year (which seems to be about the average for the shitty teams above) isn't helping anybody, players and fans included.

QUOTE (Eyrie @ Nov 28 2015, 08:19 PM) *
Thinking gives me a headache, but here goes ....

I draw four conclusions from your post
1 - Unsuccessful coaches get fired
2 - Teams that undergo regular changes struggle
3 - Successful coaches get leeway for a bad year, so have time to recover
4 - Teams with stability tend to succeed


I think that's a pretty succinct conclusion. Let's roll with it.

QUOTE
But that then raises the "chicken and egg" scenario. An unsuccessful coach has to be replaced, but the act of replacing a coach whose methods didn't work results in a new coach introducing different methods which cause instability which means that the franchise has to start over again. But because the new coach has no track record to buffer him against a bad season, he is very vulnerable to being replaced himself if things go wrong, at which point the cycle of instability starts again.

Conversely a successful coach can survive a bad year because it is a one off, and the stability resulting from not making the change makes it easier for him to do better the next year, which is why stable organisations tend to do better over the long run.


I don't think (this is my opinion, and there are always outliers/exceptions) that a coach or GM can be deemed a success or failure in 3 years. There are many examples of this, on both sides. SF went through 2 coaches recently who looked great early on, but didn't pan out.

QUOTE
What does that mean for us?

Reid went 6-10 in 2005, but that was his seventh season and he'd made the playoffs in each of the previous five, so it was an easy decision to retain him (proving point 3). We then made the playoffs in four of the next five years (proving point 4) and it was only after a downhill trend for two years (2011 8-8, 2012 4-12) that he was fired.

Kelly on the other hand inherited Reid's players and immediately won the division at 10-6. However year two saw a poor finish from a strong position and year three has not shown signs of recovery but instead of things getting worse. Unlike Reid, Kelly cannot point to a record of success with his own players which raises questions about his ability and, unless he can finish this year strongly, it's time to accept that he needs replaced (point 1).


It could be argued that he has already shown success, as his inherited team finished 4-12 the previous year. Try not to be too short-sighted with this. We were all pretty excited about Chip that season. Even up in the northeast!

QUOTE
At this stage point 2 kicks in, because our struggles this season are a result of the changes that Kelly has made and replacing him will see the new guy make more changes. But we can't persist with Kelly simply because change is usually unhelpful any more than we should have persisted with Rhodes for 1999. If we can get the right replacement (and the number of examples you cite to prove points 1 and 2 show that isn't easy) then we can get back to the Reid years of stability under a successful coach which will result in better times for our team.


Yep. But I don't see how, in any context, a GM, in any sport, can be judged 2/3 of the way into his first year. It's very Philadelphia, but not very realistic. 3 weeks ago we were all singing Davis' praises, too. A recent string of bad shouldn't erase prior good.

QUOTE
So, who will be our GM and who will be our head coach that achieve this for us, starting next season?


History says it should be Chip. At least in one capacity. But remember, we were all sick of the same old thing every year before. I remember seeing a bunch of posts similar to this: "I'd rather see Chip get control and do it all the way his way to see if it works." I agreed with that then, and still do. No matter how much kool aid we were drinking, this year was foretold prior to this season. If your friend was telling you his favorite team was gonna go 12-4 with a new GM, a new QB, RB, WRs, OL, CBs, S and some LBs, a lot of them rookies, you'd laugh in his face!

Perspective is important.
Eyrie
QUOTE (samaroo @ Nov 28 2015, 12:47 PM) *
Good post. I'm not trying to insinuate, by the way, that any one factor is the determining agent. There are far too many variables to boil down to one single equation. But, I generally think an NFL coach needs AT LEAST 3 years to even get his system installed and personnel rotation started. Firing and hiring every 3rd year (which seems to be about the average for the shitty teams above) isn't helping anybody, players and fans included.

I think that's a pretty succinct conclusion. Let's roll with it.

I don't think (this is my opinion, and there are always outliers/exceptions) that a coach or GM can be deemed a success or failure in 3 years. There are many examples of this, on both sides. SF went through 2 coaches recently who looked great early on, but didn't pan out.

The decision has to be made at some point and I'd say that three years is long enough to make that decision. Persisting beyond that point is simply compounding failure.

QUOTE
It could be argued that he has already shown success, as his inherited team finished 4-12 the previous year. Try not to be too short-sighted with this. We were all pretty excited about Chip that season. Even up in the northeast!

That would only be success as a coach, which I was pleased by at the time. However I now have the ending of last season and all of this year to consider as well and the new evidence counts against Kelly.

QUOTE
Yep. But I don't see how, in any context, a GM, in any sport, can be judged 2/3 of the way into his first year. It's very Philadelphia, but not very realistic. 3 weeks ago we were all singing Davis' praises, too. A recent string of bad shouldn't erase prior good.

History says it should be Chip. At least in one capacity. But remember, we were all sick of the same old thing every year before. I remember seeing a bunch of posts similar to this: "I'd rather see Chip get control and do it all the way his way to see if it works." I agreed with that then, and still do. No matter how much kool aid we were drinking, this year was foretold prior to this season. If your friend was telling you his favorite team was gonna go 12-4 with a new GM, a new QB, RB, WRs, OL, CBs, S and some LBs, a lot of them rookies, you'd laugh in his face!

Perspective is important.


Normally I'd agree about giving a GM time, but the problem we have is that Kelly has two roles here and I'd be surprised if he yields either of them so soon, which means we have to cut ties with him in both roles, or keep him in both.

The early evidence though is that Kelly the GM has a lot more misses than hits - Bradford, Murray, Cooper/Austin/Huff, ignoring G, Maxwell, Alonso. I give him credit for Mathews and Hicks, although Thurmond was luck (he came as a CB, not a S). He's also been hampered by injuries to Peters and Agholor and a loss of form by Matthews and Kelce.
samaroo
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Nov 28 2015, 10:44 PM) *
The decision has to be made at some point and I'd say that three years is long enough to make that decision. Persisting beyond that point is simply compounding failure.


That would only be success as a coach, which I was pleased by at the time. However I now have the ending of last season and all of this year to consider as well and the new evidence counts against Kelly.



Normally I'd agree about giving a GM time, but the problem we have is that Kelly has two roles here and I'd be surprised if he yields either of them so soon, which means we have to cut ties with him in both roles, or keep him in both.

The early evidence though is that Kelly the GM has a lot more misses than hits - Bradford, Murray, Cooper/Austin/Huff, ignoring G, Maxwell, Alonso. I give him credit for Mathews and Hicks, although Thurmond was luck (he came as a CB, not a S). He's also been hampered by injuries to Peters and Agholor and a loss of form by Matthews and Kelce.


I get you. We're just on opposite sides of the fence. I also don't think some of your judgements of his misses are particularly fair, particularly Alonso. I want to see how he does given some time back from his injury. Also, he gets credit for Thurmond. One of his criteria for players is versatility, so why shouldn't he get credit.

Like I said, I'm willing to give Chip more time. But if I had to pick, I'd rather him be our coach than our GM.
Eyrie
I'd give Kelly credit for Thurmond if he had brought him here to be a S, but all the reports at the time referred to him as a CB. He was only moved to S because the intended partners for Jenkins weren't up to the job.

I'd agree with you on giving Kelly one more year if we have a strong finish to 2015, but only if he is willing to give up the GM role which I don't see happening.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.