Chip's track record in the NFL suggests he will be an okay coach at best; Chip's record at 20 - 12 during regular season games is deceptive. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim the Chip is a winning coach in the NFL without Nick Foles as quarterback.

With Foles as the starting quarterback, Chip's record as coach makes him a .778 winner (14 - 4) over 18 games. This is a large enough sample by any standard to be reliable. On the other hand, Chip's record With Vick and Sanchez combined is a dismal (6 - 8), leaving this "revolutionary football genius" with a sub-par record at .429. Prior to Foles being the named the starter, Chip had at his disposal in Vick a quarterback who was once considered elite in Atlanta and in Philadelphia under Reid. There's no excuse for Kelly as to why he started at 1 - 3 in the NFL. Chip is lucky Vick pulled his hamstring in his own end zone against NY leaving Kelly no choice but to replace him with Foles. That game was being controlled by the Giants from the start, and it was written all over Chip's face. Things turned around after the QB change. Furthermore, after Nick Foles was injured, we witnessed Chip go from 9 - 3 with everything locked up to 10 - 6 with nail in the coffin losses to Dallas and Washington. Aaron Rogers expression against us, and Green Bay's coach's mid game coffee sipping sum up what I'm getting at. We all know that Mark Sanchez has been to an AFC Championship game and has roughly a .500 record. Back-up quarterback or not, Chip had plenty to work with in Sanchez. Mike Vick and Mark Sanchez each had the same players surrounding them as Nick Foles did and showed up with vastly different results. If you make the argument that the reason Nick has such an unbelievable record in the NFL as the starter is his teammates and coach, then in the same breath explain why Vick and Sanchez performed so poorly under the exact same set of circumstances.

As for Nick's losses. The defense let us down in the 2013 playoff game against the Saints, not the quarterback. Nick was clutch against Arizona, giving us the lead with no time on the clock only to have Palmer light up our secondary from the other side of the field. Palmer's bomb should never have been caught. If Arizona had put together a drive and beat us that's one thing. You tip your hat. But the secondary gives up a 90 yard play with a minute left.... Come on man! Against the 49'ers Nick drives us to the 1 yard line. During this drive "The mastermind coach" doesn't challenge a critical spot call and doesn't choose to run the ball or call a quarterback sneak with a 6'6", 245lbs QB. During the press conference Chip says, "the reason I didn't run the ball is the defensive line had been stuffing the run all day and I didn't think it would work". Good answer "genius"..... As coach at the 1 yard line with two plays to go and the game on the line, if you don't think you can pick up a yard with a run of one sort or another, you're not prepared.

Where did Nick let us down? His reduced QB rating? His turnovers? His personality? The only reasonable argument I've ever heard against Foles is he is prone to injury. QB rating will drop and turnovers will increase when the coach gives up a top 5 wide receiver in the league for nothing because that receiver is ?!?!?!. Still haven't heard a reasonable answer on that issue. And when you lose the receiver being doubled every other play, who puts fear into the safety's heart, the opposition doesn't have to worry much about the deep threat and focuses more on pressing. Jackson spread the field. Without him, windows were tightened and the defensive focused on stuffing the front line. I don't buy the argument that Nick was struggling because he was working with a make-shift offensive line. They did a decent enough job. Regardless of the QB rating and turnover increase, he was still producing prior to getting hurt and the losses he incurred against Arizona and San-Fran are heavily weighted towards the responsibility of pathetic final defensive stand against Arizona and extremely poor end of game coaching against the 49'ers.

As for the argument that Nick can't win a Super Bowl. How the **** do you know? The eye test? .778 in the NFL is a top tier record, especially for a young quarterback. Look it up. More importantly in tight spots with the game on the line (New Orleans, Arizona, SF), Nick has show he puts together a strong drives when it matters most. He defeated Luck's Indianapolis in a close contest. As for the lack of personality and leadership argument against Nick. So what? The guy doesn't say much and isn't everybody's pal on the sidelines. Besides local sports radio, who cares? On the field in the NFL, against the biggest, toughest, most skilled men on the planet, Nick has consistently shown that he can lead his team to W's.

Now, because of our "quarterback situation", (whatever the **** that means), it's time to trade Foles to move up the draft in the hopes of picking up a college kid who choked in his bowl game. All we hear is how this kid fits our offense so perfectly and his upside is unbelievable. Why didn't Vick or Sanchez fit the scheme? How is this kid so different from either of those two QB's, besides the fact that he's untested in the NFL. The guy isn't going to be a .778 winner in the NFL. One bowl game or not, when it's for all the marbles, your performance matters. He didn't show up. But hey, at least he has personality, is well spoken, and has swag. And most importantly, Chip "knows" him.

If Chip Kelly trades Foles to move up in the draft with the hopes of picking up a QB from the college team Chip had success at, that would be as dumb as cutting DeSean Jackson because ?!?!?, while simultaneously keeping and heaping praise on "Mr. Butterfingers" (a.k.a. Cooper), after Coop was videotaped saying some racist bull****, and whose performance on the field isn't anything to write home about. Yes chip, we know Riley Cooper is a good blocker.

As for the coach's decision to release Jackson an hour after a bogus article shows up in NJ.com making unfounded and speculative claims against Jackson. Chip can talk all day long, but he knows damn well that when you do that, the implication is that Jackson was involved of something that the Eagles couldn't afford to be a part of, and the media and fans had a field day tossing around all types of slanderish ****. It all turned out to be nonsensical hogwash and Chip's decision to release Jackson bit him in the ass against Washington, completely eliminating even the remote possibility for a playoff birth.

With that said, do you think Chip is a good coach? Do you think Foles should be traded?

CaptainCrazo (Eric)

foles sucks

That's a well thought out, well said, well structured argument, with plenty of supporting factual evidence. Now I see where your coming from; A 77.8% winning record over 18 starting appearances sucks.

CaptainCrazo (Eric)

Agreed.

what the H

the part where you said Chip cut Desean by accident because people said he was in a gang was my fav

Paterno is a rape-enabling scumbag, just FYI

Practice abstinence for life OP.

I understand reading comprehension may be an issue for you. Use quotes and indicate where I said Chip Kelly cut Desean by accident because people said he was in a gang .

The implication when you cut your top receiver, and a top 5 receiver in the NFL, an hour after NJ.com runs a story claiming that DeSean Jackson has gang ties, is that there is a problem with DeSean. If that wasn't the implication, DeSean Jackson wouldn't have been on ESPN with Stephen A. Smith defending himself from accusations that he had gang ties. You don't randomly go on ESPN defending yourself from implications that aren't there.

If you listened to the recordings of various sports analysts on 94 WYSP Sports Radio, there was plenty of speculation from both analysts and callers alike that the reason DeSean was cut went well beyond an attitude problem, not fitting into the culture, or not getting along with teammates.

Chip Kelly's reason for getting rid of DeSean was, "it's not about anything other than football." Gotcha. Get rid of your best receiver, clean up the culture and attitude problem, and free up that cap space.

The reason the Eagles oline was better with Sanchez was because they got healthy along with lane Johnsons suspension.

The Eagles two biggest needs are cornerback and cornerback. Bradley fletcher was a ****ing nightmare and Williams wasn't much better.

Cutting desean and that bull**** story was hilarious.

Not realizing that chip is a top 10 coach is so shortsighted though. I am worried that the rails will come off with him running the draft though.

Here is my dream scenario. Mariota falls past the nets and 6 and tumbles to 10-15. The eagles give up their first and a second-third and draft Mariota with the possibility of developing into a great qb and keeping foles. Then signing Byron maxwell/ cull over and Devon mc from ne.

You mean to say you thought you were writing a serious analysis when you suggested someone wasn't a good coach because they couldn't win much with Mark Sanchez or Vick?

Yeah, no.

You mean you don't have a counter argument other than Sanchez and Vick suck. Sit down.

Mike Vick's career record is 59-50-1

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...V/VickMi00.htm

Mark Sanchez's lifetime record 37-33-0

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...S/SancMa00.htm

Why is it other coaches can get above .500 with these two QB's and Kelly doesn't get close to .440? Factor in age and the fact that both Vick and Sanchez are washed up, and the track record is still inexcusable. Don't blame the players surrounding these QB's; Foles went 14 - 4 with the exact same teammates. Oh wait, Sanchez had a healthy offensive line to work with.

The whole argument that Kelly is this sports science guru/revolutionary coach who deserves the keys to the Eagles Organization is that he's a proven winner and we should just trust him. With Foles he's won. Without him, not so much. And no, I don't trust Kelly.

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

No ****. Foles didn't have a healthy line and had to deal with a suspension due to a PED infraction. Agree with you on the secondary; Oh wait, so does everyone else in Philly. My dog Chewy agrees with you on that point. What happened in the last minute of the Arizona game? Yeah it's really funny when you cut the guy who burns you deep in the last real game of the 2014 season, and your number 2 WR is Riley Cooper. And yeah, I really enjoy it when DeSean says hahhahahahaha on twitter after burning our last chance at the playoffs (assuming Dallas had lost). The only argument that Chip is a top 10 coach stems from his winning record that isn't so winning without Foles. If you mean to say he had a great college career, and thus far is winning in the NFL. Fine. By the way, the last win of the season didn't mean a damn thing and I don't care that he beat NY in a non-relevant game.

As far as your dream scenario, it isn't going to happen. You either mortgage the farm for Mariota or you don't.

I got an idea. Let's trade Foles and all our draft picks so that we can acquire Mariota. We'll sure up the rest of our glaring defensive holes with free agency. Then we'll just watch the guy who couldn't get it done in the most important game of his life work his magic in the NFL. Nah.

yeah i can't believe that Chip went 5-4 with Sanchize at the helm this year
those losses to Seattle, Green Bay & Dallas were pretty inexcusable

what a loser
#FolesGOAT

If you think Sanchez is a remotely good QB, then the lolz is on you, good sir. All on you.

Blame Chip Kelly for not having a Rex Ryan like defense that can carry Sanchez around, but don't use Sanchez as a gauge for whether Chip Kelly can run an offense. You're talking about a QB that needed ****ing color cards telling him whether to pass or not.

I think I would go with Chip's eval on Mariota. Though not sure any amount of wheeling and dealing will get him anyway.

Hi, Nick.

"We all know that Mark Sanchez has been to an AFC Championship game and has roughly a .500 record. Back-up quarterback or not, Chip had plenty to work with in Sanchez." Mike Vick and Mark Sanchez each had the same players surrounding them as Nick Foles did and showed up with vastly different results.

There's a big difference between saying, "Sanchez has been to an AFC Championship game and has roughly a .500 record," and "Chip had plenty to work with in Sanchez," versus saying Sanchez is a "good quarterback." A .500+ record over the course of your career is average at best. Going to an AFC Championship game under Rex Ryan because your defense is a juggarnaut is what it is. Nonetheless, Chip had plenty to work with in Vick and Sanchez, and couldn't do a damn thing with either of them.

As far as your comment about "blaming Chip" goes; he's the coach. The buck stops with him. He is responsible for both the defensive players on the field (think secondary choices), and how that defense performs. Don't give me the "he's stuck with this terrible defense that was no fault of his own," non-sense.

Average NFL coach who's done well because of Foles, sure. Genius, No.

In that same post you used a 6-8 win record with arguably two of the worst QB's in the NFL to argue that Chip Kelly wasn't a good coach.

You then, apparently ignored, that Sanchez under Kelly has almost 10% higher completion rate and significantly better A/YA (1-2 yards better!) while maintaining a mostly better TD/INT percentage.

The only win I can see meaning anything under any other QB was against Dallas. The last game of the season that doesn't relate to the playoffs didn't mean much. You forgot to mention the loss to Washington.

Aging is a thing bro

Wow. The first coherent response that actually uses reason.

If in your estimation Mike Vick is one of the worst QB's in the NFL, then why did coach Kelly pick him to start over Foles in the beginning of the 2013 season?

Both a reasonable and astute point. I wish you had called in to 94.1 WYSP and 97.5 The Fanatic after Sanchez won a few games (HOU and CAR), and explained to everyone (some analysts and a lot of fans) clamoring for Sanchez to replace Foles permanently that it wouldn't be a good idea.