Suprise, suprise, suprise - Chip Kelly wants to leave the Eagles

[Off The Grid]

Great, great Points!! Leadership starts at The Top!!

Kraft could use considerably more Testicular Fortitude: Had he challenged that vile ScumBag Goodell publicly, I doubt that the Coward would've dared do more than fine us for that petty Misdemeanor, and it still pisses me off that he meekly allowed that other ScumBag, Putin, to steal his Championship Ring. But all that notwithstanding, he is the Heart, the Soul, and the Genesis of this magnificent Dynasty.

It's no coincidence that the Red Sox, BaseBall's unchallenged Dynasty, having won 6 World Championships in 16 Years and 4 World Championships in 7 Years ~ 15 World Championships for Boston BaseBall Fans in BaseBall's first 43 Years!!! ~ went to Hell 2 short Years after Harry Freaking Frazee bought the Team...and returned to Championship Glory with the most dramatic ComeBack Victory in the History of any Sport 2 short Years ~ subsequent controversies not withstanding ~ after John Henry took the wheel!!

I want to go out and kill baby ducklings now...thanx for winding me up AGAIN, Grid....

Selling the contract of someone who was probably the most dominating player in the history of American professional team sports (I'm referring to the 'big 4', not underwater basket weaving) does tend to alter one's franchise.

And it had to be to the Yankees. Thanks for the reminder!

Happy to be of Service, Gentlemen!! It's what I do!!

 

[captain stone]

Even though the Eagles have not won it all since Norm Van Brocklin, Pete Retzlaff and Tommy McDonald beat the Packers to give Vince Lombardi his one and only playoff loss, Lurie is a very solid owner. In the 18 years Lurie has been the owner in Philly the Eagles have gone to the playoffs 11 times, compared to 14 times in the previous 62 years. The team is always a playoff contender; they've only had two losing seasons since 2000.

My only surprise is that it took this long to make this change. I would have figured that he would have already had a football guy in place as GM/VP of Player Personnel, or whatever title you want to give him.

There was such a guy in place: Tom Gamble, hand-picked by Kelly, and whom Roseman fired.
Kelly must've told Lurie that he would seek to get out of his contract unless Roseman's grocery-shopping
duties were given to him instead.
I wonder if Kelly now tries to re-hire Gamble.

 

[Deus Irae]

Happy to be of Service, Gentlemen!! It's what I do!!

Ya bastard....

Have a great weekend.

 

[Off The Grid]

Ya bastard....

Have a great weekend.

And you, Sir!!

 

[NormZauchin]

There has been STRONG criticism over Kelly's totally ignoring their DB backfield deficiency which burned them big time in losses to the Cowboys n Washington. Furthermore their #1 pick Marcus Smart was not good enough to get more than 20 snaps the whole season

Are you saying that Kelly's draft, while being Smart, wasn't smart?

 

[Ring 6]

To Philly talk show hosts a "football guy" was defined as someone who played the game. A host on one of the shows however countered by saying " the best coach in the NFL for the past 25 years never played football! He played Lacrosse..at Wesleyan no less" "He's Bill Belichick
BTW; BB gets MUCHO respect in Philadelphia

BB played football at Wesleyan. Lacrosse too but he played football.

 

[RobertWeathers]

My only surprise is that it took this long to make this change. I would have figured that he would have already had a football guy in place as GM/VP of Player Personnel, or whatever title you want to give him.

Well, I think as an executive/owner, without REALLY knowing them, you don't want to give the new guy too much power right away- just in case he doesn't work out. While the jury is still out on him being an elite coach, Kelly has the Iggles winning two years in a row. He deserves the opportunity to own personnel. Roseman still runs the ops, which is not far removed.

 

[DarrylS]

Until he consistently wins and is able to maintain a winning tradition with quality depth, I am skeptical.. he seems to be doing a good job, but all it takes are a few shytty, expensive personnel decisions to screw things up..

Stay tuned.. lets see how this unfolds..

 

[PATS16N0]

The Eagles were the 2014 Jets before Chip got there. He's an innovator in an imitator league. He took Philly back to the playoffs his first year there, as well as beat some good teams, and even with his starting QB injured and no defense, only barely missed them this year with Sanchez coming cold off the bench.

Eagles are lucky to have him IMO.

Ravens, Seahawks, Patriots... can't name too many teams with really solid Head Coaching situations in the NFL. Most everyone else is just basically collecting a paycheck and waiting to get fired.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Eagles were the 2014 Jets before Chip got there. He's an innovator in an imitator league. He took Philly back to the playoffs his first year there, as well as beat some good teams, and even with his starting QB injured and no defense, only barely missed them this year with Sanchez coming cold off the bench.

Eagles are lucky to have him IMO.

Ravens, Seahawks, Patriots... can't name too many teams with really solid Head Coaching situations in the NFL. Most everyone else is just basically collecting a paycheck and waiting to get fired.

GB, AZ, PITT, INDY, KC, CIN, HOU, DEN, SD, CAR, DET and NYG all have decent to good coaches that have won (at varying levels) in this league or are good HCs.

 

[PATS16N0]

GB, AZ, PITT, INDY, KC, CIN, HOU, DEN, SD, CAR, DET and NYG all have decent to good coaches that have won (at varying levels) in this league or are good HCs.

"Decent" is collecting a paycheck and waiting to get fired.

 

[RobertWeathers]

"Decent" is collecting a paycheck and waiting to get fired.

I don't agree but thats fine.

 

[PATS16N0]

I don't agree but thats fine.

Well, Arizona might be in a good situation, and you can say GB (I'm not blown away with McCarthy and think he's riding Rodgers), but everyone else I think is pretty average. I'd definitely take Chip in a heartbeat over Andy Reid or Marvin Lewis.

Wouldn't surprise me to see Indy in the market for someone new real soon.

I think Belichick is a Head Coach because he's a football guru and NFL genius.

I think most other Head Coaches are Head Coaches because for whatever reason (circumstance, family, etc) they've grown up in the business and have some idea how to do it, and not necessarily because of some unique talent or profound understanding of X's and O's.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well, Arizona might be in a good situation, and you can say GB (I'm not blown away with McCarthy and think he's riding Rodgers), but everyone else I think is pretty average. I'd definitely take Chip in a heartbeat over Andy Reid or Marvin Lewis.

Wouldn't surprise me to see Indy in the market for someone new real soon.

I think Belichick is a Head Coach because he's a football guru and NFL genius.

I think most other Head Coaches are Head Coaches because for whatever reason (circumstance, family, etc) they've grown up in the business and have some idea how to do it, and not necessarily because of some unique talent or profound understanding of X's and O's.

This is a good discussion because there is a lot that defines what a good HC is. Leadership, administration, motivation, strategy, etc. are all traits to look for.

Obviously winning is how coaches are judged but because if they don't win, the circumstances around why need to be understood. That's why it's freaking awesome Chip took control of things in Philly. He made sure he was controlling HIS destiny.

I guess with the teams I had mentioned, yes- there are a few that if they have a bad year or two are out the door, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are bad coaches. For example, in my opinion Mike McCoy of SD is a good coach. With that said, if he goes 7-9 then 6-10 does he get the axe? Maybe. Does he deserve to? Not sure. Depends on how the team is playing and if he is making sure the owner is aware that the FO is doing a crappy job. Each situation is case by case. Thats why I'm not too hard on Rex. With talent, Rex won and the players played hard for him to the end. However identifying and developing talent and running an organization as an executive is not a strength of his.

To your point,if you threw Mike McCarthy in TN for 2015, he'd go 6-10. I'm not sure what he'd do in 2016.

If you threw BB in TN, he'd go 6-10 in 2015.

However, I'd be my bottom dollar that in 2016, TN goes 10-6 b/c he is deft at personnel and knows how to win.

With BB as HC of NEP, we are spoiled rotten and because of his success we as fans of this team are going to hold the next coach that comes in here to an absurd standard that will be practically unattainable.

 

[Galeb]

Happy to be of Service, Gentlemen!! It's what I do!!

Is that your mission statement?

 

[jmt57]

Yep. Any Team that fails to give the Coach Command of choosing the Soldiers he goes into Battle with ~ selection of the Groceries, if you will ~ is pretty obviously doing it @$$-backwards.

And as of right now: That's still most'f'm.

There are not very many, that is for sure.

As pointed out above, in some cases the head coach either has not yet earned the right to all that responsibility, and/or it may be too much for him to handle.

Kelly now joins a select group of NFL coaches with full power/final say in personnel matters. Belichick is the most obvious example; off the top of my head the others would be Sean Payton, Bill O'Brien, Pete Carroll... not sure who else. I think Lovie Smith does in Tampa, though that hasn't worked out too well so far. Maybe Mike Tomlin? It's definitely a relatively small percentage of head coaches that have final say on roster personnel decisions.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Yep. Any Team that fails to give the Coach Command of choosing the Soldiers he goes into Battle with ~ selection of the Groceries, if you will ~ is pretty obviously doing it @$$-backwards.

And as of right now: That's still most'f'm.

Thank you for bringing this up; this is a complaint I've had for a long time.

In the other sports (particularly baseball and hockey), it makes perfect sense for the general manager to be in control of the organization. There is extensive long-term planning -- significant minor leage development systems -- and it takes a long time for players to transition from amateurs to highest level professionals. Managers/coaches focus on the short-term, while the GM focuses on the big picture and long-term of 2020.

In football, there are no complex minor league systems. Long term planning in the NFL is 2016. Players get hurt so often and decline so quickly that it's really futile to plan for 2017 and beyond. Draft picks have instant impacts on the roster. In addition, played "fits" and scheme have infinitely more impact on success in football than the other big 4 sports.

So why does the NFL have the same GM / head coach reporting relationship than the other sports? We've seen so many cases of disconnect and friction between the GM and head coach. Why should this ever happen? The coach knows his scheme and what he needs to succeed; why shouldn't he be the one to hire the guy whose responsibility is to get him that talent?

 

[Hammer of Thor]

There are not very many, that is for sure.

As pointed out above, in some cases the head coach either has not yet earned the right to all that responsibility, and/or it may be too much for him to handle.

Kelly now joins a select group of NFL coaches with full power/final say in personnel matters. Belichick is the most obvious example; off the top of my head the others would be Sean Payton, Bill O'Brien, Pete Carroll... not sure who else. I think Lovie Smith does in Tampa, though that hasn't worked out too well so far. Maybe Mike Tomlin? It's definitely a relatively small percentage of head coaches that have final say on roster personnel decisions.

Note how your list tends to include the most successful teams of the past few years, plus a couple of new guys. As to the bold point, I'll play devil's advocate and ask what have most GM's done to earn the right to all of their responsibility? With few exceptions, they've done no more to earn the keys of the organization than the head coach has. But they retain the power because, well, that's the way everyone has done it in the past and no one wants to be ridiculed for doing something non-traditional and failing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Note how your list tends to include the most successful teams of the past few years, plus a couple of new guys. As to the bold point, I'll play devil's advocate and ask what have most GM's done to earn the right to all of their responsibility? With few exceptions, they've done no more to earn the keys of the organization than the head coach has. But they retain the power because, well, that's the way everyone has done it in the past and no one wants to be ridiculed for doing something non-traditional and failing.

Giants - 2 Super Bowls since 2005
Steelers - 2 Super Bowls since 2005
Packers - 1 Super Bowl since 2005
Ravens - 1 Super Bowl since 2005
Colts - 1 Super Bowl since 2005

Even granting the notion that Payton calls the personnel shots, that still leaves 7 of the last 9 Super Bowl winning teams that have won with a split GM/HC system that does not have the coach making the final decisions.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Damn you Deus for injecting facts into what was a compelling narrative!