The longer the Helfrich era goes the more people will give Chip credit for what he did. He was a HUGE upgrade over Bellotti who had Oregon humming along but nobody seriously though he was winning a national championship.
Just because all Oregon coaches beat us like a drum doesn't mean they are all the same.
Chip fanboy logic says 10-3>10-3. "HUGE"
Your a moran
I've been saying this ever since this fucktard showed up.
Hey, it's Teddy the suck-up, right on cue! Sucking up to Race, yet again. Perfect! Can you piss alone, Teddy? Or does Race or J have to hold it for you?
I've been a Race minion since back when you were paying Kim for "insider info", and I've never denied it.
Carroll was better than Kelly in college and is better than him in the pros.
Fuck the 12s, but the Hawks will be fine
You sound worried. Chip beat Pete the only time they faced in college.
Meanwhile: "Dec. 7, 2014 -- PHILADELPHIA -- A dominant defensive performance against Chip Kelly's high-powered offense even had Earl Thomas showing off his dance moves.
Russell Wilson threw two touchdown passes, ran for another score and the Seattle Seahawks stifled Philadelphia in a 24-14 victory over the Eagles on Sunday."
But, of course, Kelly had nothing to do with that loss.
I never disputed the part about Pete beating Chip in the pros. My post was disputing the part about college. Learn to read.
So, your comment is even less relevant. Whatever you say, J.
Well, if we want to get technical here, Pete wasn't a smash hit in the pros his first two runs at it. Some of you dumb fucks are too young to know that Pete wasn't born at USC. He actually coached at NE and NY (Jets), and was average, though he won the piss poor AFC East one year.
As to his time at USC, whatever. He was pulling in some of the best talent assembled down there in a long time. I'm the first to admit that's part of the gig and it's part of how you assess a college coach.
But then again, recruiting to SC has been something that even krisvashon can do, so Chip beating SC AT SC with Pete when Pete had it going on, and doing it with Oregon players, isn't exactly irrelevant.
Would I take Chip over Pete? No, and here is why: Pete LOVES people. Chip HATES people.
That's kind of a problem when you're in the people business.
The word in Philly has been pretty consistent. Chip knows what he's doing, but he clashed with too many players, and sent them off one by one. Eventually, you need players who aren't your best friends if you're going to win, particularly in the NFL.
Is Pete a better technical coach than Kelly? I think not.
Is he a better motivator and, at the college level, a better recruiter? I'm sure he is.
But just because the USC juggernauts were better than the Oregon juggernauts doesn't mean much in my book.
Carroll was better than Kelly in college and is better than him in the pros.
Fuck the 12s, but the Hawks will be fine
You sound worried. Chip beat Pete the only time they faced in college.
Meanwhile: "Dec. 7, 2014 -- PHILADELPHIA -- A dominant defensive performance against Chip Kelly's high-powered offense even had Earl Thomas showing off his dance moves.
Russell Wilson threw two touchdown passes, ran for another score and the Seattle Seahawks stifled Philadelphia in a 24-14 victory over the Eagles on Sunday."
But, of course, Kelly had nothing to do with that loss.
I never disputed the part about Pete beating Chip in the pros. My post was disputing the part about college. Learn to read.
So, your comment is even less relevant. Whatever you say, J.
Well, if we want to get technical here, Pete sucked donkey balls in the pros his first run at it. Some of you dumb fucks are too young to know that Pete wasn't born at USC. He actually coached at NE and NY (Jets), and was average at best.
As to his time at USC, whatever. He was pulling in some of the best talent assembled down there in a long time. I'm the first to admit that's part of the gig and it's part of how you assess a college coach.
But then again, recruiting to SC has been something that even krisvashon can do, so Chip beating SC AT SC with Pete when Pete had it going on, and doing it with Oregon players, isn't exactly irrelevant.
Would I take Chip over Pete? No, and here is why: Pete LOVES people. Chip HATES people.
That's kind of a problem when you're in the people business.
The word in Philly has been pretty consistent. Chip knows what he's doing, but he clashed with too many players, and sent them off one by one. Eventually, you need players who aren't your best friends if you're going to win, particularly in the NFL.
Is Pete a better technical coach than Kelly? I think not.
Is he a better motivator and, at the college level, a better recruiter? I'm sure he is.
But just because the USC juggernauts were better than the Oregon juggernauts doesn't mean much in my book.
All true, @creepycoug, and that's why CK fanboys should hang onto their money and not bet it on CK right now. He's 27-21 in a weak division, moving to the strongest division in the NFL. All excuses aside, that's a tall fucking order for any coach.
The longer the Helfrich era goes the more people will give Chip credit for what he did. He was a HUGE upgrade over Bellotti who had Oregon humming along but nobody seriously though he was winning a national championship.
Just because all Oregon coaches beat us like a drum doesn't mean they are all the same.
Chip fanboy logic says 10-3>10-3. "HUGE"
And still, with all the help that's been offered to you, you still don't get it.
The longer the Helfrich era goes the more people will give Chip credit for what he did. He was a HUGE upgrade over Bellotti who had Oregon humming along but nobody seriously though he was winning a national championship.
Just because all Oregon coaches beat us like a drum doesn't mean they are all the same.
Chip fanboy logic says 10-3>10-3. "HUGE"
Your a moran
I've been saying this ever since this fucktard showed up.
Hey, it's Teddy the suck-up, right on cue! Sucking up to Race, yet again. Perfect! Can you piss alone, Teddy? Or does Race or J have to hold it for you?
Carroll was better than Kelly in college and is better than him in the pros.
Fuck the 12s, but the Hawks will be fine
You sound worried. Chip beat Pete the only time they faced in college.
Meanwhile: "Dec. 7, 2014 -- PHILADELPHIA -- A dominant defensive performance against Chip Kelly's high-powered offense even had Earl Thomas showing off his dance moves.
Russell Wilson threw two touchdown passes, ran for another score and the Seattle Seahawks stifled Philadelphia in a 24-14 victory over the Eagles on Sunday."
But, of course, Kelly had nothing to do with that loss.
I never disputed the part about Pete beating Chip in the pros. My post was disputing the part about college. Learn to read.
So, your comment is even less relevant. Whatever you say, J.
Well, if we want to get technical here, Pete sucked donkey balls in the pros his first run at it. Some of you dumb fucks are too young to know that Pete wasn't born at USC. He actually coached at NE and NY (Jets), and was average at best.
As to his time at USC, whatever. He was pulling in some of the best talent assembled down there in a long time. I'm the first to admit that's part of the gig and it's part of how you assess a college coach.
But then again, recruiting to SC has been something that even krisvashon can do, so Chip beating SC AT SC with Pete when Pete had it going on, and doing it with Oregon players, isn't exactly irrelevant.
Would I take Chip over Pete? No, and here is why: Pete LOVES people. Chip HATES people.
That's kind of a problem when you're in the people business.
The word in Philly has been pretty consistent. Chip knows what he's doing, but he clashed with too many players, and sent them off one by one. Eventually, you need players who aren't your best friends if you're going to win, particularly in the NFL.
Is Pete a better technical coach than Kelly? I think not.
Is he a better motivator and, at the college level, a better recruiter? I'm sure he is.
But just because the USC juggernauts were better than the Oregon juggernauts doesn't mean much in my book.
Sark beat Pete once too...
One note, I revised my characterization of Pete's first run in the NFL. Donkey balls was too strong. He did win the AFC East once, although it was a shitty division then, but he was mostly an also-ran kind of guy ... nothing like the success he's having now.
All true, @creepycoug, and that's why CK fanboys should hang onto their money and not bet it on CK right now. He's 27-21 in a weak division, moving to the strongest division in the NFL. All excuses aside, that's a tall fucking order for any coach.
I have no idea how he'll do. None of us do. The guy can coach, that's for sure. His issues are with personnel, and in the NFL there are varying arrangements in terms of who makes those calls. I suspect Chip won't be in charge of personnel going forward, which with a guy like that is probably the best move. Make him coach and not manage the roster.
The other thing is, he might have learned from the first gig. You never know. Kelly is a smart dude ... I'm sure he's also a stubborn dude. It all depends on which one of those wins out in his head.
But one thing you are DEAD WRONG about, and that is that Oregon is just as well off with the current staff as they were with Kelly. No fucking way.
I am by no means a Chip Kelly leg humper (Hi Koop), but it is funny to see doogs try to prop up Peterman (who hasn't done a damn thing in a major conference) at the expense of a guy who owned said major conference while he was here.
I am by no means a Chip Kelly leg humper (Hi Koop), but it is funny to see doogs try to prop up Peterman (who hasn't done a damn thing in a major conference) at the expense of a guy who owned said major conference while he was here.
All on the basis of Kelly's first game as a HC on the road. Peterman and those BSU teams could NEVER have done in the Pac 12 what Kelly did on his run with Oregon.
Remember, too, that Kelly was winning at Oregon when Harbaugh was coaching at Furd with Luck under center and Pete was at SC.
I am by no means a Chip Kelly leg humper (Hi Koop), but it is funny to see doogs try to prop up Peterman (who hasn't done a damn thing in a major conference) at the expense of a guy who owned said major conference while he was here.
All on the basis of Kelly's first game as a HC on the road. Peterman and those BSU teams could NEVER have done in the Pac 12 what Kelly did on his run with Oregon.
Remember, too, that Kelly was winning at Oregon when Harbaugh was coaching at Furd with Luck under center and Pete was at SC.
All true, @creepycoug, and that's why CK fanboys should hang onto their money and not bet it on CK right now. He's 27-21 in a weak division, moving to the strongest division in the NFL. All excuses aside, that's a tall fucking order for any coach.
I have no idea how he'll do. None of us do. (Hence, DON'T BET ON IT.) The guy can coach, that's for sure. His issues are with personnel, and in the NFL there are varying arrangements in terms of who makes those calls. I suspect Chip won't be in charge of personnel going forward, which with a guy like that is probably the best move. Make him coach and not manage the roster.
The other thing is, he might have learned from the first gig. You never know. Kelly is a smart dude ... I'm sure he's also a stubborn dude. It all depends on which one of those wins out in his head.
But one thing you are DEAD WRONG about, and that is that Oregon is just as well off with the current staff as they were with Kelly. No fucking way.
Show me where I wrote that, Cuog. It's hard to be DEAD WRONG about something I neither thought, nor wrote.
I know it makes people warm and fuzzy to imagine shit that never occurred to nicely fill in the holes in their arguments, but you're playing the "when did you stop beating your wife" game. Straw man arguments aren't clever. They're bush league.
Besides that, does anyone understand what "Don't bet on it" means? Jesus H. Christ! Does that need interpretation?
Carroll was better than Kelly in college and is better than him in the pros.
Fuck the 12s, but the Hawks will be fine
You sound worried. Chip beat Pete the only time they faced in college.
Meanwhile: "Dec. 7, 2014 -- PHILADELPHIA -- A dominant defensive performance against Chip Kelly's high-powered offense even had Earl Thomas showing off his dance moves.
Russell Wilson threw two touchdown passes, ran for another score and the Seattle Seahawks stifled Philadelphia in a 24-14 victory over the Eagles on Sunday."
But, of course, Kelly had nothing to do with that loss.
I never disputed the part about Pete beating Chip in the pros. My post was disputing the part about college. Learn to read.
Quit beating around the bush. If you want to make the asinine claim that Chip is a better coach than Pete, then say it, so we can all gang up on you. Otherwise, you're just cherry picking games for the hell of it.
Carroll was better than Kelly in college and is better than him in the pros.
Fuck the 12s, but the Hawks will be fine
You sound worried. Chip beat Pete the only time they faced in college.
Meanwhile: "Dec. 7, 2014 -- PHILADELPHIA -- A dominant defensive performance against Chip Kelly's high-powered offense even had Earl Thomas showing off his dance moves.
Russell Wilson threw two touchdown passes, ran for another score and the Seattle Seahawks stifled Philadelphia in a 24-14 victory over the Eagles on Sunday."
But, of course, Kelly had nothing to do with that loss.
I never disputed the part about Pete beating Chip in the pros. My post was disputing the part about college. Learn to read.
Quit beating around the bush. If you want to make the asinine claim that Chip is a better coach than Pete, then say it, so we can all gang up on you. Otherwise, you're just cherry picking games for the hell of it.
Pete is obviously better until Chip wins a natty/super bowl, but Chip's resume compared to when Pete was that age is very similar. Only time will tell if Chip can achieve what Pete did.
Let's not overlook another important fact about CK's time at Oregon: Besides USC and Stanford, the Pac10 and Pac12 sucked shit during those years. Not on par with the Mountain West, but more like the MW conference during those years than any year since.
Let's not overlook another important fact about CK's time at Oregon: Besides USC and Stanford, the Pac10 and Pac12 sucked shit during those years. Not on par with the Mountain West, but more like the MW conference during those years than any year since.
The Pac has always sucked shit except for a couple teams.
All true, @creepycoug, and that's why CK fanboys should hang onto their money and not bet it on CK right now. He's 27-21 in a weak division, moving to the strongest division in the NFL. All excuses aside, that's a tall fucking order for any coach.
I have no idea how he'll do. None of us do. (Hence, DON'T BET ON IT.) The guy can coach, that's for sure. His issues are with personnel, and in the NFL there are varying arrangements in terms of who makes those calls. I suspect Chip won't be in charge of personnel going forward, which with a guy like that is probably the best move. Make him coach and not manage the roster.
The other thing is, he might have learned from the first gig. You never know. Kelly is a smart dude ... I'm sure he's also a stubborn dude. It all depends on which one of those wins out in his head.
But one thing you are DEAD WRONG about, and that is that Oregon is just as well off with the current staff as they were with Kelly. No fucking way.
Show me where I wrote that, Cuog. It's hard to be DEAD WRONG about something I neither thought, nor wrote.
I know it makes people warm and fuzzy to imagine shit that never occurred to nicely fill in the holes in their arguments, but you're playing the "when did you stop beating your wife" game. Straw man arguments aren't clever. They're bush league.
Besides that, does anyone understand what "Don't bet on it" means? Jesus H. Christ! Does that need interpretation?
Uh, nothing I've said here can be appropriately described as a straw man. I'm saying what I'm saying rather directly. Moreover, I beg to differ; strawman arguments can be quite clever.
Tell ya what. Why then don't you just tell everyone precisely what your point is as it relates to Chip? Then we can all stop being warm and fuzzy, whatever that means, and directly assess what you're yapping about whenever his name is mentioned. You clearly have an agenda on the topic of Chip, because you're arguing with half the board about it, and in doing so you seem to be saying more or less what I said you said.
If there is a misunderstanding, you're in the best position to fix it.
By the way, "don't bet on it" is a colloquial way to convey doubt. I express no doubt. I have no idea. No outcome would surprise me. You on the other hand are suggesting a bit more. Own it.
Let's not overlook another important fact about CK's time at Oregon: Besides USC and Stanford, the Pac10 and Pac12 sucked shit during those years. Not on par with the Mountain West, but more like the MW conference during those years than any year since.
I'm not going to rehash it here, Cuog. Go read the Fire Pete, Hire Chip thread for that. I'll own it all along with what I've written here. Simply put: Many people here overrate him.
I won't own words you put in my mouth that I never wrote. I think I know what you're referring to, from another thread, but you have it very wrong. I did not write what you said I wrote and called me "DEAD WRONG" about. Go read it again if you want clarity.
All that said, I'm fine with the Santa Clara hire of CK, because I think the Seahawks will continue to pound on SF, even with CK there. He might make them more competitive, but Santa Clara isn't Eugene, and the NFL is not the NCAA. A lot can happen in the NFL, but there's nothing in CK's record to date that suggests he'll be more successful in Clara than Philly. If he were a stock, I'd rate him neutral. If you already like him, hold him. But don't buy him, because he's anything but "proven" in the NFL. And you may want to short him, because fanboys from his UofO days could be over-inflating his value, and you might as well profit at their expense.
Comments
#Intern
#OGHHB
You piss sitting down like the bitch you are.
As to his time at USC, whatever. He was pulling in some of the best talent assembled down there in a long time. I'm the first to admit that's part of the gig and it's part of how you assess a college coach.
But then again, recruiting to SC has been something that even krisvashon can do, so Chip beating SC AT SC with Pete when Pete had it going on, and doing it with Oregon players, isn't exactly irrelevant.
Would I take Chip over Pete? No, and here is why: Pete LOVES people. Chip HATES people.
That's kind of a problem when you're in the people business.
The word in Philly has been pretty consistent. Chip knows what he's doing, but he clashed with too many players, and sent them off one by one. Eventually, you need players who aren't your best friends if you're going to win, particularly in the NFL.
Is Pete a better technical coach than Kelly? I think not.
Is he a better motivator and, at the college level, a better recruiter? I'm sure he is.
But just because the USC juggernauts were better than the Oregon juggernauts doesn't mean much in my book.
The other thing is, he might have learned from the first gig. You never know. Kelly is a smart dude ... I'm sure he's also a stubborn dude. It all depends on which one of those wins out in his head.
But one thing you are DEAD WRONG about, and that is that Oregon is just as well off with the current staff as they were with Kelly. No fucking way.
Remember, too, that Kelly was winning at Oregon when Harbaugh was coaching at Furd with Luck under center and Pete was at SC.
I know it makes people warm and fuzzy to imagine shit that never occurred to nicely fill in the holes in their arguments, but you're playing the "when did you stop beating your wife" game. Straw man arguments aren't clever. They're bush league.
Besides that, does anyone understand what "Don't bet on it" means? Jesus H. Christ! Does that need interpretation?
Tell ya what. Why then don't you just tell everyone precisely what your point is as it relates to Chip? Then we can all stop being warm and fuzzy, whatever that means, and directly assess what you're yapping about whenever his name is mentioned. You clearly have an agenda on the topic of Chip, because you're arguing with half the board about it, and in doing so you seem to be saying more or less what I said you said.
If there is a misunderstanding, you're in the best position to fix it.
By the way, "don't bet on it" is a colloquial way to convey doubt. I express no doubt. I have no idea. No outcome would surprise me. You on the other hand are suggesting a bit more. Own it.
I won't own words you put in my mouth that I never wrote. I think I know what you're referring to, from another thread, but you have it very wrong. I did not write what you said I wrote and called me "DEAD WRONG" about. Go read it again if you want clarity.
All that said, I'm fine with the Santa Clara hire of CK, because I think the Seahawks will continue to pound on SF, even with CK there. He might make them more competitive, but Santa Clara isn't Eugene, and the NFL is not the NCAA. A lot can happen in the NFL, but there's nothing in CK's record to date that suggests he'll be more successful in Clara than Philly. If he were a stock, I'd rate him neutral. If you already like him, hold him. But don't buy him, because he's anything but "proven" in the NFL. And you may want to short him, because fanboys from his UofO days could be over-inflating his value, and you might as well profit at their expense.