I didn't say something that general. If I were being so flippant and general, then sure...but I provided good evidence (and then more) that history shows gimmick offenses don't work in the NFL. My exact quote was "and for every 1 that does work, there are 3 that don't." Not coaches but offenses. Point being, it's WAY too much of a gamble when the overwhelming evidence shows that type of offense can't sustain itself. That's not an irresponsble use of numbers. I gave a good comparable example. You go ahead and do the research to debunk it if you want.
Why is it news that Foles is the starter next year? There's no QB worth pursuing in FA, unless the Eagles make cuts they won't have any salary cap room to speak of anyway. There's no stud in this upcoming draft. Foles is the guy for another year or two. So lets get a coach that can work with the talent he has. Kelly's offense is not for Foles.
Last edited by IBleedRed(duh); 11-16-2012 at 08:49 AM.
I have a question. Why doesn't anyone think that Chip Kelly can adjust his offense for the NFL? Why is it that everyone just thinks he's going to attempt to keep doing the exact same thing that he's doing now? Is it that we're all so used to Andy Reid's arrogance and stubbornness that no one thinks Kelly will adapt his offense to a more suitable NFL offense?
Chip Kelly doesn't have to coach less aggressively. For you statheads, it's statistically proven that his aggressiveness wins more games then it loses. Going for it on 4th and 2 from the opponents 20 instead of taking the field goal wins more games then it loses. "Surprise" onside kickoffs also win more games. Obviously there's more to it than just always going for it, but it's the idea of playing that aggressively. Bill Belichick and Sean Payton currently coach under this philosophy and I'd say they're doing ok, so why is it that Kelly won't be able to do it?
Kelly can still run an up-tempo, no-huddle offense without calling QB runs. It would just take more of an intelligent quarterback than an overly mobile quarterback. Denver and New England are both doing it right now, and while both of the quarterbacks are all-time greats, they are both like statues when it comes to mobility. Jim Kelly ran a no-huddle for years and he wasn't exactly a champion sprinter. Chip Kelly can follow these models, and he's going to do it somewhere. If he bombs, then so be it, but in my opinion, those are the most exciting offenses in the NFL right now. I won't be upset if he doesn't come here, and it may take a year or two, but I'm interested to see if he can adapt.
Second, Kelly has style, ability and other intangibles already. He wouldn't be learning any of that on the job, he already knows how to be a head coach. He knows how to get the best of the players he has. He would just need to tweak his system, it's not like he needs a complete overhaul, it just needs an adjustment.
This all leads me back to my original question, why don't people think Kelly can adjust his offense for the NFL?
Coaches have made adjustments before. We can start with last week's Eagles game. When Foles went into the game we started seeing wide receiver screens for the first time this season. It looked like Reid was trying to make it easier for Foles to succeed with some of the play calling. Look what Denver did last year, mid-season mind you, when Tebow was promoted to the starting quarterback. They were a pass happy team with Orton and then completely changed the entire offensive philosophy to a run heavy game when the change was made. John Fox came out and said "we can't run a conventional offense with Tebow under center" and look what they did. Belichick has changed the way people think about the use of 2 and 3 tight end sets over the past few years. And then when Hernandez got hurt this year, he switched to a 3 receiver, single back set. Good coaches make adjustments all the time.
So is it just that people don't think Chip Kelly is a good coach?
To avoid any confusion, I'm not trying to fight for or against Kelly coming here. In the end, we have nothing to do with it anyway. I actually prefer that the Eagles go after a defensive minded coach, and bring in a top flight OC candidate. I'm just saying I'd be ok with them hiring Kelly because I think his "numbers approach" to coaching is the future of football.
I'm not the biggest Chip Kelly fan, but I think he translates well to the NFL in terms of scheme. He's got things to obviously tweak, but the more I read about his offense, the more it seems people think it'll work. I wouldn't be against Kelly as this head coach as long as he's able to create a competent staff around him.
Stoops....there it is!Fix it. Fix it good.
Guess whose system never worked, until it did? Everyone.
I think Chip could be successful, i also think he could fail. Nothing is certain.
"Expect the best. Be prepared for the worst. **** what others think. Do your own thing."
The "do some reasearch" comment wasn't even directed at you.
As for Foles, please for thelove of God, they better not hire a coach based on the needs of Nick Foles. I don't get why everyone thinks that Foles is going to be a winning QB in the next two years? If at all, it's going to take time for him to develop. Why should Lurie cater he needs of a QB who may have no impact on the team's long term future?
Those numbers need to change, there's no question about that, but it's certainly no indication that his system needs an OVERHAUL. Like I said, it would need to be tweaked.
Also, to say that the spread offense doesn't work in the NFL, completely disregards New England, Buffalo, New Orleans and Green Bay. Maybe they don't run your traditional college spread offense, but they are running a spread offense.