Why Chip Kelly was always a bad idea

[TitanRein27]

THE BEST, WELL SAID RESPONSE, FREAKINGEEK! WELL DONE!

[OhNoMularkey]

1 hour ago, freakingeek said:

Teams that are consistently successful in the NFL all have a common trait. They execute. Simple as that. There's no smoke or mirrors. They don't rely on secret plays, or an innovative extensive playbook. The simplest offense can work in the  NFL if everyone executes. That's not to say talent doesn't factor in at some point, because it does but guys with talent, STILL have to execute. And everyone has to execute on both sides of the ball. All the guys that try and reinvent the wheel are successful for a couple of season tops and then everyone else figures out how to counter. Look at the wildcat. Lasted 2 years. Kelly's system is taylor made for college. That's where he needs to coach.

I agree that good teams execute.  I also don't like gimmicks and trick plays, which is one of the red flags I get when I read about Mularkey.

I disagree, though, on the effectiveness of simplistic offences in today's NFL.  Mike Tice was ridiculed by media/former NFL, when he tried to implement a physical, simplistic offence for Chicago, as defences could easily diagnose what was coming, protections, etc.

Also, simplistic offences, like the ones run by the Broncos (under Kubiak) and Vikings, rely heavily on a great defence and strong running game, to make up for the predictability on offence.  Kubiak could never get the Texans over the hump with his offence.  The Broncos had a dominant defence to make up for a simplistic offence (talking about this year with Osweiller, and when Peyton chose to run the run heavy, play action offence).

On the effectivity of Chip Kelly and college style offences ... the Patriots have maybe the best offence in the NFL, and this was heavily influenced by Chip Kelly.  Spread offence, short passing, spread to run, very fast no-huddle ... all these came about after Belichick consulted with Kelly while Kelly was in Oregon.

This is one reason I wanted McDaniels, and maybe the reason he wanted Mariota and the Titans.  A QB who is poised, makes quick decisions, gets rid of the ball really fast, is very accurate, and thrives on the short passing game, usually to tight ends.  That describes both Brady and Mariota to a T.

I have no doubt that the Patriots offence would be perfect for Mariota.  This offence was heavily influenced by Kelly, and I've heard announcers describe the Patriots offence as a college offence, which it is.

Actually, most NFL innovations come from college first.  I believe the reason the spread offence and college offences work in the NFL is because of the modern rules protecting the QB and receivers from taking bad hits, as well as the pass interference rules.  It's also the reason why old defences like the Tampa 2 are no longer very effective.

Offences and defences evolve with the rules, as well as with the greater abilities of the modern athletes.

[TF_Titan]

2 hours ago, freakingeek said:

Teams that are consistently successful in the NFL all have a common trait. They execute. Simple as that. There's no smoke or mirrors. They don't rely on secret plays, or an innovative extensive playbook. The simplest offense can work in the  NFL if everyone executes. That's not to say talent doesn't factor in at some point, because it does but guys with talent, STILL have to execute. And everyone has to execute on both sides of the ball. All the guys that try and reinvent the wheel are successful for a couple of season tops and then everyone else figures out how to counter. Look at the wildcat. Lasted 2 years. Kelly's system is taylor made for college. That's where he needs to coach.

It's for this exact reason that I believe Robinson has made it clear that character and football IQ are every bit as important as raw talent, and that he'll pass over someone if he doesn't think he's a cultural fit...regardless of how talented he may be.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Kelly has one of the most punchable faces I've ever seen. 

[apocalypse33]

4 hours ago, oldschool said:

Link? otherwise it's a just a random poster playing at being an insider. 

well, the other commenters after agreed with him and here's a Philly piece about Lurie being kind of awful:

 

http://www.phillyvoice.com/problem-eagles-not-chip-kelly-its-jeffrey-lurie/

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/200610/jeff-lurie-on-chip-kelly-era-it-was-a-time-expense

 

"

Lurie talked a little bit about that Tuesday at the NFL owners meetings in Boca Raton, Florida. A year ago, at the owners meetings in Phoenix, Lurie explained why he had given Kelly full control of personnel decisions. This year, he was asked if that move was a mistake.

"I’ll put it this way," Lurie said. "I think it was a necessary way to go to find out if Chip was the right guy. Let him be responsible for all the decisions he wanted to inject and make. It was the right way to dissect whether Chip was going to be the right guy going forward or not.

"

[Btowner]

2 hours ago, Adams said:

I'll go against the grain.  If I was the HC, I would want my players too.  Bill Parcell said it best... "If I'm going to be asked to cook the meal, I'd like to be able to pick the groceries."

 

 

Coaches like to refer to this Parcell's quote. However, how many coaches with GM duties have succeeded? This is the chef card pulled by many power hungry coaches and it usually it ends with them getting fired.

[apocalypse33]

6 minutes ago, Btowner said:

Coaches like to refer to this Parcell's quote. However, how many coaches with GM duties have succeeded? This is the chef card pulled by many power hungry coaches and it usually it ends with them getting fired.

how many coaches have had GM duties? 

[Btowner]

17 minutes ago, apocalypse33 said:

how many coaches have had GM duties? 

I don't have time to do that. When I say GM duties, they might not have the official title, but they have significant say with personnel decisions and roster.

Off the top of my head. Jimmy Johnson in Miami, Jeff Fisher with the Rams/Titans,  Mike Holmgren in Seattle, Kubiak with the Texans, Lovie Smith with the Bucs, Mike Shanahan with the Redskins, Sean Payton with the Saints, Greg Schiano with the Bucs.

Notice all of them but the Teflon Fish and Payton have been fired. Also, Payton defensive personnel has been terrible. Brees makes up for the lack of talent on that roster.

[IsntLifeFunny]

21 minutes ago, Btowner said:

Coaches like to refer to this Parcell's quote. However, how many coaches with GM duties have succeeded? This is the chef card pulled by many power hungry coaches and it usually it ends with them getting fired.

Gase is going to fail miserably in Miami. No way a first year guy can handle GM, coaching duties, and be the OC. 

[apocalypse33]

9 minutes ago, Btowner said:

I don't have time to do that. When I say GM duties, they might not have the official title, but they have significant say with personnel decisions and roster.

Off the top of my head. Jimmy Johnson in Miami, Jeff Fisher with the Rams/Titans,  Mike Holmgren in Seattle, Kubiak with the Texans, Lovie Smith with the Bucs, Mike Shanahan with the Redskins, Sean Payton with the Saints, Greg Schiano with the Bucs.

Notice all of them but the Teflon Fish and Payton have been fired. Also, Payton defensive personnel has been terrible. Brees makes up for the lack of talent on that roster.

I feel like most coaches (good or bad) have been fired at one point or the other, so I wouldn't necessarily use that as my reference point. Also, we're talking about a pretty small sample of coaches overall, so I wouldn't make any definitive conclusions from that, although I'm open to the theory that it's just too much work for one person. 

[freakingeek]

2 hours ago, OhNoMularkey said:

I agree that good teams execute.  I also don't like gimmicks and trick plays, which is one of the red flags I get when I read about Mularkey.

I disagree, though, on the effectiveness of simplistic offences in today's NFL.  Mike Tice was ridiculed by media/former NFL, when he tried to implement a physical, simplistic offence for Chicago, as defences could easily diagnose what was coming, protections, etc.

Also, simplistic offences, like the ones run by the Broncos (under Kubiak) and Vikings, rely heavily on a great defence and strong running game, to make up for the predictability on offence.  Kubiak could never get the Texans over the hump with his offence.  The Broncos had a dominant defence to make up for a simplistic offence (talking about this year with Osweiller, and when Peyton chose to run the run heavy, play action offence).

On the effectivity of Chip Kelly and college style offences ... the Patriots have maybe the best offence in the NFL, and this was heavily influenced by Chip Kelly.  Spread offence, short passing, spread to run, very fast no-huddle ... all these came about after Belichick consulted with Kelly while Kelly was in Oregon.

This is one reason I wanted McDaniels, and maybe the reason he wanted Mariota and the Titans.  A QB who is poised, makes quick decisions, gets rid of the ball really fast, is very accurate, and thrives on the short passing game, usually to tight ends.  That describes both Brady and Mariota to a T.

I have no doubt that the Patriots offence would be perfect for Mariota.  This offence was heavily influenced by Kelly, and I've heard announcers describe the Patriots offence as a college offence, which it is.

Actually, most NFL innovations come from college first.  I believe the reason the spread offence and college offences work in the NFL is because of the modern rules protecting the QB and receivers from taking bad hits, as well as the pass interference rules.  It's also the reason why old defences like the Tampa 2 are no longer very effective.

Offences and defences evolve with the rules, as well as with the greater abilities of the modern athletes.

You bring up some good points about the Pats offense. What I mean about offenses is the more moving parts it has and the more complex it is, the more that has to go perfectly right for the play to be successful. I think Bill B. Took Kelly's offensive philosophy and simplified it. It's executed well. And as TF Titan said, a lot of that is getting the right players to fit their schemes and good coaching.

[IsntLifeFunny]

3 minutes ago, freakingeek said:

You bring up some good points about the Pats offense. What I mean about offenses is the more moving parts it has and the more complex it is, the more that has to go perfectly right for the play to be successful. I think Bill B. Took Kelly's offensive philosophy and simplified it. It's executed well. And as TF Titan said, a lot of that is getting the right players to fit their schemes and good coaching.

Good coaching, aka Bellichick telling a backup UDFA the exact route to watch for to win a SB. Genius comes in taking something complicated and being able to explain it in a way everyone with synapses firing can understand. 

[titansfb]

Chip, you da man.

[oldschool]

8 hours ago, apocalypse33 said:

well, the other commenters after agreed with him and here's a Philly piece about Lurie being kind of awful:

 

http://www.phillyvoice.com/problem-eagles-not-chip-kelly-its-jeffrey-lurie/

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/200610/jeff-lurie-on-chip-kelly-era-it-was-a-time-expense

 

"

Lurie talked a little bit about that Tuesday at the NFL owners meetings in Boca Raton, Florida. A year ago, at the owners meetings in Phoenix, Lurie explained why he had given Kelly full control of personnel decisions. This year, he was asked if that move was a mistake.

"I’ll put it this way," Lurie said. "I think it was a necessary way to go to find out if Chip was the right guy. Let him be responsible for all the decisions he wanted to inject and make. It was the right way to dissect whether Chip was going to be the right guy going forward or not.

"

Neither of those stories say anything about Kelly not being the one that asked for personnel control. In fact, the phillyvoice.com article references Kelly forcing the demotion of Roseman. 

[OhNoMularkey]

10 hours ago, freakingeek said:

You bring up some good points about the Pats offense. What I mean about offenses is the more moving parts it has and the more complex it is, the more that has to go perfectly right for the play to be successful. I think Bill B. Took Kelly's offensive philosophy and simplified it. It's executed well. And as TF Titan said, a lot of that is getting the right players to fit their schemes and good coaching.

Thanks.  I agree with that point ... it's difficult for an overly complex offence to run without hiccups.  You'd need a special QB, and very smart and disciplined skilled receivers.  Most of all, you'd need really good coaches.

That's probably why Mularkey wants to install the exotic smashmouth offence ... aaauuuggghhh.