20 replies to this topic

[EaglezINPhila]

Let's say in a worst case scenario Chip Kelly coaches us to a terrible 2-14 record next year, then follows that up with a 4-12, then a 6-10, another 6-10, and a 7-9 to follow that.  Obvious improvement in terms of number of wins year to year (somewhat like the Houston Texans experienced for a long time before Kubiak figured it out), but still probably not enough to make a playoff push.  Are you going to be patient and allow him more time, or would that 4 year scenario with limited success and no playoffs be enough for you to want Kelly fired?

[time2rock]

[EaglezINPhila]

^^^epic

[SinCityEaglesFan]

[pgcd3]

In general he needs to make the playoffs by year 3. With all the roster turnover you're practically starting fresh again after that. There are obvious exceptions like he never has a QB but somehow towards the end of year 3 a guy emerges. Other exceptions too I'm sure but it would be a very bad sign if the team hasn't made the playoffs or just missed maybe in year 3

[TV Guy]

No way Jeff lets it go more than 3 crappy years in a row.

[time2rock]

TV Guy, on 31 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

No way Jeff lets it go more than 3 crappy years in a row.

Good one !!  

[DEagle7]

Depends on and extenuating circumstances, but short of something big I'd want him gone.  The fact that he's transitioning to the NFL, switching the the 3-4, and has serious holes in the roster to fill will buy him some time. However 5 years without a winning season is pretty extreme.

[RedZoneD25]

If he doesn't do it in his first five years, he's probably not going to do it in Philadelphia.

If he doesn't even hit 8-8 before year 3, I think he could be gone.

[jReese]

depends on the personal, i think clearly no matter who the coach is...If Nick Foles or Mike Vick remain QB m we struggle.

[NOTW]

Lurie has said he doesn't really believe in giving a deadline of number of years.

If it looks like it's going to take a couple years but there are positive improvements happening and we see better effort on the field, I think fans can be a little patient.  Sometimes it's not the wins or losses, but how they play.  We've complained about their performance even in wins, when we saw turnovers, mental mistakes, lazy "tackling" and other weak efforts.  But if they give great effort and play tough and lose a close game you can be forgiving.  It depends on how they play.  It's why many people don't like Maclin.  His numbers are good, but he carries himself like a weak soft diva who thinks he's better than he is so people don't like him.

If Chip makes this work and the offense scores points and is exciting to watch, as long as the defense plays well and isn't soft I think people will enjoy watching the team again even if they only win 4 or 5 games the first year.

It will take a good 2-3 years for him to really turnover the roster the way he wants.

[WetFerret]

I would consider a 6 win season next year a major victory (how the standards have fallen), but I would definitely want to see improvements each year in the neighborhood of 1 or 2 games added to the win collumn.  After 3 years, I think we'll have a decent idea if we're heading in the right direction.

[vic92353]

I actually think we will see improvements the first year.  I won't be concerned until the 3rd year.  As for the forth and beyond they should be back and ready to roll.  If not then it's time to move on.  It definetly get any worst than the last 14 years.  

[FanSinceWayBack]

Im saying we go 7-9 next year ... 8-8 at best ... 5-11 at the worst

[blindside]

FanSinceWayBack, on 31 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Im saying we go 7-9 next year ... 8-8 at best ... 5-11 at the worst

I'd say that's pretty realistic..

[KzEaglefan86]

In today's NFL, there's no way Kelly would make it to year three if in years one and two he had only 6 combined wins.

[phillygrump]

EaglezINPhila, on 31 January 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Let's say in a worst case scenario Chip Kelly coaches us to a terrible 2-14 record next year, then follows that up with a 4-12, then a 6-10, another 6-10, and a 7-9 to follow that.  Obvious improvement in terms of number of wins year to year (somewhat like the Houston Texans experienced for a long time before Kubiak figured it out), but still probably not enough to make a playoff push.  Are you going to be patient and allow him more time, or would that 4 year scenario with limited success and no playoffs be enough for you to want Kelly fired?

It depends. If he runs a spread option with a running QB and the Eagles are non existent for 2 years I'll say its time to go.

I already think it wasn't a great hire, but we shall see.

At this point I am pretty much emotionally checked out as far as the Eagles go. I don't see a whole lot of promise when it comes to them. Time will tell. But if Kelly doesn't pan out my reaction will be something like "I told you so"

I hope I eat tons of crow though. I would happily be wrong about Chip Kelly.

[jme42257]

i dont want us to do bad, but if that we're to happen and we can get jonny manziel... that completely works for me

[The_Talon]

pgcd3, on 31 January 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

In general he needs to make the playoffs by year 3. With all the roster turnover you're practically starting fresh again after that. There are obvious exceptions like he never has a QB but somehow towards the end of year 3 a guy emerges. Other exceptions too I'm sure but it would be a very bad sign if the team hasn't made the playoffs or just missed maybe in year 3

agree with this. You give a guy 2 years to figure it out and by year 3 we should at the very least be competitive. Personally, I think the NFC East is the worst it's been in awhile so there's no reason for us to not make the playoffs by the 3rd year. If he can't do it in 4 though, it's definitely time to move on.

NOTW, on 31 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Lurie has said he doesn't really believe in giving a deadline of number of years.

If it looks like it's going to take a couple years but there are positive improvements happening and we see better effort on the field, I think fans can be a little patient.  Sometimes it's not the wins or losses, but how they play.  We've complained about their performance even in wins, when we saw turnovers, mental mistakes, lazy "tackling" and other weak efforts.  But if they give great effort and play tough and lose a close game you can be forgiving.  It depends on how they play.  It's why many people don't like Maclin.  His numbers are good, but he carries himself like a weak soft diva who thinks he's better than he is so people don't like him.

If Chip makes this work and the offense scores points and is exciting to watch, as long as the defense plays well and isn't soft I think people will enjoy watching the team again even if they only win 4 or 5 games the first year.

It will take a good 2-3 years for him to really turnover the roster the way he wants.

very good points, all of which I agree with. It's about the performance level. But I still think we should be back in the hunt in three years, or four at the most.

[zenclaybourne]

EaglezINPhila, on 31 January 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Let's say in a worst case scenario Chip Kelly coaches us to a terrible 2-14 record next year, then follows that up with a 4-12, then a 6-10, another 6-10, and a 7-9 to follow that.  Obvious improvement in terms of number of wins year to year (somewhat like the Houston Texans experienced for a long time before Kubiak figured it out), but still probably not enough to make a playoff push.  Are you going to be patient and allow him more time, or would that 4 year scenario with limited success and no playoffs be enough for you to want Kelly fired?

Well your scenario is five years with a win total of 25 games... I would say there is no way in hell he'd be brought back.
1. 2-14
2. 4-12 (where almost everyone would him fired)
3. 6-10 (where he likely would be fired)
4. 6-10 (where Lurie would be mocked for not firing him by the media)
5. 7-9 (where the team has officially become a joke on the level of the bungles and ain'ts requiring a Super Bowl to shake the stigma)

[FanSinceWayBack]

jme42257, on 31 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

i dont want us to do bad, but if that we're to happen and we can get jonny manziel... that completely works for me

LMAO! Efff Johnny Manziel .. He took the NCAA by surprise. I watched every snap of the bowl game against OU and I came away more impressed at how terrible the OU Coaching staff is rather than how good Manziel is. When will people learn that small QB's who love to run dont last long in the NFL? I cant stand the kid honestly and I refuse put 'football' behind Johnny.

Johnny Manziel | Heisman winner | 6'1 200lbs
Eric Crouch | Heisman winner | 6'0 210lbs  - How did he fair in the pros?
RGKnee | Heisman winner | 6'2 217lbs - hurt 3x's in his debut season
Michael Vick | 6'0 215lbs - I think people know his injury list

Feel free to add to the list... either in favor of or against. I just cant stand scrambling QB's. Run only when you have to, not because you think you can.

I dont see Manziel being anything special in pros if he even makes it. So far from what ive seen hes childish in the outside world, BUT yes I know "He's only a freshman". He plays in the SEC and yes he did help beat the eventual National Champions, but I dont see them beating 'Bama again. A freak accident can happen at anytime and the more you run, as a QB, the higher the risk, obviously. The way he plays the game isnt gonna transfer over very well. He is super cocky and super arrogant, but I guess he has every right to be. I dont see him being anything greater than a NCAA phenom.