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.
Pete won the NCAA National Championship and the Super Bowl.
Let's not overlook another important fact about DJ's time at UW: Besides UCLA, the Pac10 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.
Well, let's see if there's any validity to my point. # of Pac10/12 teams in final AP top 25 during & since Chippy's reign. 2009: 2 2010: 2 2011: 3 2012: 3 2013: 6* 2014: 6* *No Chippy.
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.
Well, let's see if there's any validity to my point. # of Pac10/12 teams in final AP top 25 during & since Chippy's reign. 2009: 2 2010: 2 2011: 3 2012: 3 2013: 6* 2014: 6* *No Chippy.
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.
Well, let's see if there's any validity to my point. # of Pac10/12 teams in final AP top 25 during & since Chippy's reign. 2009: 2 2010: 2 2011: 3 2012: 3 2013: 6* 2014: 6* *No Chippy.
Fun with selective endpoonts.
2007: 3 2008: 3 2015: 3
The Chip years aren't the outlier, 2013 and 2014 are.
@dnc: Fair points. Makes 2016 matter a lot. Are 10 wins against a 3-in-top-25 conference better than 9 wins against a 6-in-top-25 conference? If we're ranking coaches? Most would say "winners win" and 10 is always better than 9, no matter what. Except those same folks will say Peterson's record at BSU means shit because it was against a weak conference. Can't have it both ways. Gotta be consistent.
@dnc: Fair points. Makes 2016 matter a lot. Are 10 wins against a 3-in-top-25 conference better than 9 wins against a 6-in-top-25 conference? If we're ranking coaches? Most would say "winners win" and 10 is always better than 9, no matter what. Except those same folks will say Peterson's record at BSU means shit because it was against a weak conference. Can't have it both ways. Gotta be consistent.
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.
Pete won the NCAA National Championship and the Super Bowl.
@dnc: Fair points. Makes 2016 matter a lot. Are 10 wins against a 3-in-top-25 conference better than 9 wins against a 6-in-top-25 conference? If we're ranking coaches? Most would say "winners win" and 10 is always better than 9, no matter what. Except those same folks will say Peterson's record at BSU means shit because it was against a weak conference. Can't have it both ways. Gotta be consistent.
10 wins is not always better than 9 wins, strength of schedule definitely matters. If wins were always equal Peterman's success at Boise would mean a lot more. But we all understand those wins aren't the same as winning in the Pac. Ty won the Pac in an exceptionally shitty year for the conference. Typologists screamed "Rose Bowel". The rest of us poonted out it had a major asterisk.
Here's the difference I think though. One side is going to try and justify poor seasons by poonting out how TUFF the conference is. The other side assumes a TUFF schedule and only brings the schedule up when it is particularly easy. I think the second view is the right view. This is major college football. The schedule should be tuff. Winners win. Show us the wins, Pete.
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 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.
Pete won the NCAA National Championship and the Super Bowl.
And we're debating whether Chip is his equal?
lol
No wonder the half-brains nickname stuck.
We should all fuck off for this thread existing.
This is the thread within the thread flea - Peterman vs. Flea. You know how we roll around here.
I don't think anyone would prop up Chip over Pete other than satirically.
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
And we're debating whether Chip is his equal?
lol
No wonder the half-brains nickname stuck.
We should all fuck off for this thread existing.
# of Pac10/12 teams in final AP top 25 during & since Chippy's reign.
2009: 2
2010: 2
2011: 3
2012: 3
2013: 6*
2014: 6*
*No Chippy.
2007: 3
2008: 3
2015: 3
The Chip years aren't the outlier, 2013 and 2014 are.
hth
Here's the difference I think though. One side is going to try and justify poor seasons by poonting out how TUFF the conference is. The other side assumes a TUFF schedule and only brings the schedule up when it is particularly easy. I think the second view is the right view. This is major college football. The schedule should be tuff. Winners win. Show us the wins, Pete.
I don't think anyone would prop up Chip over Pete other than satirically.