106 replies to this topic

[Rodney_Zero]

CT Eagle, on 20 February 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Bill Walsh ring a bell ?

NFL OC for the Bengals, then stanford, then SF

[Highboy]

Rodney_Zero, on 20 February 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Bills and Jim Kelly ran that in the early 90's, why would BB look at a college coach when he could watch tape on those Bills?
You tell me, why would he? Because you know, he did look at Chip Kelly and personally asked him how he ran it.
Spurrier ring a bell?
You must be confused, we didn't hire Spurrier, we hired Chip Kelly. That must be where you're fallacious logic is coming into play. And the idea that because "x, y, z" failed in the same situation that it makes it likely Chip will fail as well is also fallacious logic. See, there are a lot more coaches that had professional experience that failed and I could list them all followed by "ring a bell" but there isn't enough room in one post to list all the coaches with prior pro experience that failed miserably at a HC position.

He ran a pro style offense @ Stanford, and people need to stop acting as if the Harbaugh brothers "built" their respective teams
His pro style offense wasn't WCO offense as was originally posted, and his "pro style offense" in college was s vanilla it makes the phrase totally ridiculous. Regardless, the point stands regardless of the fact you want to ignore the comparison. It doesn't matter of Jim didn't "build" his 49er team, the point was that he quite obviously adjusted his coaching schemes to the strengths of the players he had at Stanford and adjusted them differently for the players he has in San Francisco. See how that works? In college, he ran the program one way, in the pros, he runs it differently. Wow.

[mav81]

Highboy, on 20 February 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

So you've made the determination already that Chip just flat won't make an offense to work for Nick Foles based on no evidence whatsoever. Thanks for contributing.



Um, no. That's kind of the point. The point was that just because a college coach ran a certain offense in college (where the F do you get he ran a WCO in Stanford?) doesn't mean that's the offense he'll run in the pros. I get that you keep deliberately missing that obvious fact on purpose but at least try to at least fake some objectivity here.



That's very well said. He didn't hire Shurmer to run a zone read option based offense. That's just stupid thinking.

1) if I were a new coach that made his name on a particlar scheme, I wouldn't change my style to fit a 1-6 rookie who objectively looks like a square peg.

2) why don't you do a google search on Jim Harbaugh and the West Coast Offense. I think its funny that you use Jim Harbaugh as an example of a coach that changed, when in fact he changed to Chip Kelly's scheme. I guess you don't find that at all relevant.

3) Are you telling me that Shurmer is going to run the offense?

Look...I may be wrong about Chip (and I doubt that I am), but I'm not going to complain at all with Coach's decisions (I have no doubt that you will complain if you are wrong). I'm just happy we have Reid and his maddening predictability gone.

[mjkvol]

mav81, on 20 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'm just happy we have Reid and his maddening predictability gone.

Among many other things.

[Runtherock]

mav81, on 20 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

1) if I were a new coach that made his name on a particlar scheme, I wouldn't change my style to fit a 1-6 rookie who objectively looks like a square peg.

2) why don't you do a google search on Jim Harbaugh and the West Coast Offense. I think its funny that you use Jim Harbaugh as an example of a coach that changed, when in fact he changed to Chip Kelly's scheme. I guess you don't find that at all relevant.

3) Are you telling me that Shurmer is going to run the offense?

Look...I may be wrong about Chip (and I doubt that I am), but I'm not going to complain at all with Coach's decisions (I have no doubt that you will complain if you are wrong). I'm just happy we have Reid and his maddening predictability gone.

You have written 1-6 over and over again. Surely you realize that record means nothing when you're quarterbacking a dog team that quit.

[Highboy]

mav81, on 20 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

1) if I were a new coach that made his name on a particlar scheme, I wouldn't change my style to fit a 1-6 rookie who objectively looks like a square peg.

2) why don't you do a google search on Jim Harbaugh and the West Coast Offense. I think its funny that you use Jim Harbaugh as an example of a coach that changed, when in fact he changed to Chip Kelly's scheme. I guess you don't find that at all relevant.

3) Are you telling me that Shurmer is going to run the offense?

Look...I may be wrong about Chip (and I doubt that I am), but I'm not going to complain at all with Coach's decisions (I have no doubt that you will complain if you are wrong). I'm just happy we have Reid and his maddening predictability gone.

Its not about being right or wrong as far as Chip goes. I haven't made a determination yet because I haven't seen the product on the field yet and neither have you. That's where we differ. So to answer your points

1. The win/loss record isn't Foles' record, its the Eagles record. That's a really weak argument against Foles.
2. No, I don't think its relevant that Harbaugh changed his scheme into Chip's scheme, even if that was true, which it isn't. (Chip didn't run what San Francisco run this year, sorry) The part you think is irrelevant is that a college coach coached one way in college and coached another in the pros. Not sure why you are having such a hard time simply acknowledging that Chip running an offense one way in college doesn't mean at all that's what he'll run in the pros. Harbaugh is a clear cut example of that.
3. Shurmer will be calling the plays during gametime, yes. Chip said himself his coordinators will do the in game coordinating, but that he'll obviously oversee the overrall. scheme. Maybe you're just too use to Reid where everything was controlled by him. But its actually quite common for good coaches to get in put from their assistants while they put a scheme or gameplan in place together.

[mjkvol]

mav81, on 20 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

1) if I were a new coach that made his name on a particlar scheme, I wouldn't change my style to fit a 1-6 rookie who objectively looks like a square peg.

You can seriously put the 1-6 on Foles?      With a crippled OL, no McCoy much of the time, a team that had quit well before he took over, and most of all the dysfunctional joke of a coach that was responsible for the whole f****ng mess in the first place?

C'mon, Mav, I know you're smarter than that.

[E v 2.0]

Every action Chip has taken so far has shown that he plans to run that gimmicky high school crap. Obviously I hope I'm wrong

[mjkvol]

E v 2.0, on 21 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Every action Chip has taken so far has shown that he plans to run that gimmicky high school crap. Obviously I hope I'm wrong

Exactly what 'actions' have possibly led you to that conclusion??

Restructuring Vick made perfect sense business wise, and bringing in Dixon was a no-risk way to add depth to a position that won't be settled until 2014 at the earliest. If anything, my guess is that those moves indicate that Chip sees no solution at QB this year, and wants multiple low cost options to get through 2013 while he establishes schemes and rebuilds the roster.

When is everyone going to stop acting like they have already figured out precisely what it is Chip's plans are when we haven't had his initial draft or even seen the team together for OTA's for the first time yet?

[Highboy]

mjkvol, on 21 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Exactly what 'actions' have possibly led you to that conclusion??

Restructuring Vick made perfect sense business wise, and bringing in Dixon was a no-risk way to add depth to a position that won't be settled until 2014 at the earliest. If anything, my guess is that those move indicate that Chip sees no solution at QB this year, and wants multiple low cost options to get through 2013 while he establishes schemes and rebuilds the roster.

When is everyone going to stop acting like they have already figured out precisely what it is Chip's plans are when we haven't had his initial draft or even seen the team together for OTA's for the first time yet?

The armchair GM crowd has been out in full swing. Fact is, most of them probably wouldn't even have considered "scheme" until someone on ESPN pointed it out to them.

[mav81]

Highboy, on 21 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Its not about being right or wrong as far as Chip goes. I haven't made a determination yet because I haven't seen the product on the field yet and neither have you. That's where we differ. So to answer your points

1. The win/loss record isn't Foles' record, its the Eagles record. That's a really weak argument against Foles.
2. No, I don't think its relevant that Harbaugh changed his scheme into Chip's scheme, even if that was true, which it isn't. (Chip didn't run what San Francisco run this year, sorry) The part you think is irrelevant is that a college coach coached one way in college and coached another in the pros. Not sure why you are having such a hard time simply acknowledging that Chip running an offense one way in college doesn't mean at all that's what he'll run in the pros. Harbaugh is a clear cut example of that.
3. Shurmer will be calling the plays during gametime, yes. Chip said himself his coordinators will do the in game coordinating, but that he'll obviously oversee the overrall. scheme. Maybe you're just too use to Reid where everything was controlled by him. But its actually quite common for good coaches to get in put from their assistants while they put a scheme or gameplan in place together.

You think Shurmer is calling the plays??? I give that a 0.0% chance of occurring.

[mav81]

mjkvol, on 21 February 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

You can seriously put the 1-6 on Foles?      With a crippled OL, no McCoy much of the time, a team that had quit well before he took over, and most of all the dysfunctional joke of a coach that was responsible for the whole f****ng mess in the first place?

C'mon, Mav, I know you're smarter than that.

I'm not blaming Foles for this disaster of a team. Taking away the last half of the fourth quarter of the Tampa game, I thought Nick was below average. I'd be the first person to admit I could be wrong. I just don't see Chip Kelly changing the position style that he has recruited for over a decade, to accommodate a guy who really didn't do much.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion.

[HarborTheClay]

mav81, on 21 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm not blaming Foles for this disaster of a team. Taking away the last half of the fourth quarter of the Tampa game, I thought Nick was below average. I'd be the first person to admit I could be wrong. I just don't see Chip Kelly changing the position style that he has recruited for over a decade, to accommodate a guy who really didn't do much.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion.

Opinions are cool.

[Highboy]

mav81, on 21 February 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

You think Shurmer is calling the plays??? I give that a 0.0% chance of occurring.

Based on what? Your 0.0% knowledge of how Chip plans on running this team day to day?

[Highboy]

mav81, on 21 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm not blaming Foles for this disaster of a team. Taking away the last half of the fourth quarter of the Tampa game, I thought Nick was below average. I'd be the first person to admit I could be wrong. I just don't see Chip Kelly changing the position style that he has recruited for over a decade, to accommodate a guy who really didn't do much.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion.

"Unreasonable"? Maybe not. But its hardly like you have an ounce of evidence to go on. Your opinion of Foles obviously isn't Chip's, who has done nothing but rave about the guy dating all the way back to college. You can conclude he's blowing smoke and I'm sure you will since you've done nothing but draw one conclusion after another about the guy before you've even seen how he's going to operate.

[mav81]

Highboy, on 21 February 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Based on what? Your 0.0% knowledge of how Chip plans on running this team day to day?

Look...Chip has called his own plays for over a decade. He's not going to hand over play calling to a guy he never met until the interview process. I'm not sure why I'm even debating you on this. Believe what you want.

[mav81]

Highboy, on 21 February 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

"Unreasonable"? Maybe not. But its hardly like you have an ounce of evidence to go on. Your opinion of Foles obviously isn't Chip's, who has done nothing but rave about the guy dating all the way back to college. You can conclude he's blowing smoke and I'm sure you will since you've done nothing but draw one conclusion after another about the guy before you've even seen how he's going to operate.

Chip's doing what any good manager of people would do in a similar situation. He's not alienating players, and he's not alienating fans. Of course all of your opinions are just that...opinions. So don't act like your opinion is better than mine or anyone else.

I do have you mentally checked as a Foles lover. I don't wish I'll will on the guy, but I am looking forward to reminding you about Foles and Kelly's play calling when the season starts.