Skip to main content

Mixed feelings on the Chip Kelly firing

I haven't had a strong feeling one way or the other with regard to Chip Kelly during his tenure with the Philadelphia Eagles. When he was first hired, I admit to being quite curious how his style of offense would transfer to the NFL, but at the same time, didn't firmly believe one way or the other on the matter. This curiosity was partly due to the talent and speed he would coach on the Eagles offense. Let's not forget, when Kelly first took over, the Philadelphia Eagles had: Michael Vick at quarterback, LeSean McCoy at tailback, as well as DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin at receiver.

The team was fun, fast, and exciting in Kelly's first season there. Even when Vick went down with an injury, Nick Foles filled in admirably, playing so well he remained the team's starter for the remainder of the season. The Eagles went on to win the NFC East with a 10-6 record, only to lose in the 1st round of the playoffs.

To the surprise of many, speedster DeSean Jackson was released in the offseason. Foles remained the team's starter, as Vick went to the New York Jets. The team continued to show explosiveness on offense, but not as much as in year 1. This could partly have been due to Foles being injured and Mark Sanchez taking the reins, but it likely also had to do with Jackson going to Washington. Philadelphia finished 10-6 for the second consecutive season, but failed to make the postseason.

At this point, Chip Kelly, in addition to being the team's coach, basically became the team's general manager, and this is what ultimately killed him. While many in the media praised Kelly's offseason moves, I said they were going to bite him in the backside eventually. The Eagles traded away Shady McCoy to Buffalo for Kiko Alonso. Jeremy Maclin wasn't re-signed and wound up going to Kansas City. The Eagles swapped quarterbacks with St. Louis, opting for the oft-injured Sam Bradford over Nick Foles. Kelly also decided to sign former Dallas Cowboys running back DeMarco Murray. What's resulted from all these moves? A 6-9 season and Kelly looking for a new job...

Like I was about Chip Kelly's initial hiring, I have mixed feelings about his firing as well. If the players have given up on Kelly, as well as the fans, and in order to bring some semblance of faith and chemistry to the team and fanbase is to make a coaching change, then the move makes sense. However, from another vantage point, it seems like quite the drastic step to take - to go from giving a coach full control of the team in year 3 of his tenure to firing him that same season. In his first two years, Kelly led the Eagles to a 20-12 record and one playoff appearance. Things definitely took a turn for the worse in year 3, but it was a completely different team than the one he took over three years prior. Having said that, couldn't an argument be made to give Kelly one more season with this completely different team? If anything, strip him of his GM privileges, and allow him to coach one more season? The guy can obviously coach in both college and the pros, but he's too stubborn in thinking his strategy will work regardless of how much speed and talent he sacrifices, and when he lacks this speed and talent, too stubborn to make the proper adjustments to better help his team succeed. Chip Kelly may not have liked Michael Vick, Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson, or Jeremy Maclin, yet Vick and Foles fit his system better than Sam Bradford; McCoy fit his offense better than DeMarco Murray; and Jackson and Maclin suited his style of play better than Riley Cooper. In Chip Kelly's offense, the main focus on the ground is the spread option and horizontal running. LeSean McCoy is an elusive and quick scatback who was a perfect fit for this offense. DeMarco Murray is a north-south runner. So why in the world get rid of McCoy for Murray if the proper adjustments aren't going to be made?  It's like I said, I can see arguments both ways, but if it were me, I would have stripped Kelly of his GM privileges and given him one more year as coach to prove to me he can win with this new make-up of players, which drastically differs from the team's composition in year one of his tenure. In any case, it'll be interesting to see where both the Eagles and Chip Kelly go from here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"