Chip was so brutally arrogant at Oregon. It was great if you were a duck.
Wasn't anything special then. Isn't anything special now.
I'm laughing at all the shit I took when I first joined HH and pointed that out to all the Chippy Ball-Garglers on these boreds.
Amazing what a coach can achieve with top recruits and several billion dollars raining all over the campus from a third-world cheap labor exploiter.
The myth of chip as a good recruiter continues. Chips classes were: 30 12 12 14
The class from before the year he took over was 34. 14 the year before that.
He never had the best class in the conference (and only had 2nd best once). But sure, he only won because he had superior talent.
Chips lost his edge, but it has more to do with the fact that most teams run his stuff now (plagiarizing his shit fucko) and see it in practice daily. His first few years at Oregon, the blur was such a novel concept that on 30% of our offensive plays the defense wasn’t even set
Chip is the same as he was at Oregon. The difference is, defenses have evolved to his scheme. At Oregon, Chip's scheme was such a problem, he could have put just about anybody on the field that was fast and he killed you. Now defenses have adjusted to this speed, so now he actually needs gifted athletes to succeed. Unfortunately for UCLA, Chip refuses to accept this, and continues to think his scheme overcomes talent which never works out over time.
Chip was so brutally arrogant at Oregon. It was great if you were a duck.
Wasn't anything special then. Isn't anything special now.
I'm laughing at all the shit I took when I first joined HH and pointed that out to all the Chippy Ball-Garglers on these boreds.
Amazing what a coach can achieve with top recruits and several billion dollars raining all over the campus from a third-world cheap labor exploiter.
The myth of chip as a good recruiter continues. Chips classes were: 30 12 12 14
The class from before the year he took over was 34. 14 the year before that.
He never had the best class in the conference (and only had 2nd best once). But sure, he only won because he had superior talent.
Chips lost his edge, but it has more to do with the fact that most teams run his stuff now (plagiarizing his shit fucko) and see it in practice daily. His first few years at Oregon, the blur was such a novel concept that on 30% of our offensive plays the defense wasn’t even set
Chip is the same as he was at Oregon. The difference is, defenses have evolved to his scheme. At Oregon, Chip's scheme was such a problem, he could have put just about anybody on the field that was fast and he killed you. Now defenses have adjusted to this speed, so now he actually needs gifted athletes to succeed. Unfortunately for UCLA, Chip refuses to accept this, and continues to think his scheme overcomes talent which never works out over time.
As we've discussed before, often a coach's shtick doesn't translate to another football program. LA, and in particular UCLA, is not the PNW. He'd have had a better shot being Chip at SC, where at least they care about FB more than anything else. But even there it would have been a stretch. One of the things Kelly was noted for at Oregon was discipline about how to use practice tim. Everybody at Oregon was on the same page when it came to football. I imagine that it's hard to achieve that at UCLA for a variety of reasons. Nobody has been able to win there in an eternity.
I agree. He should not have ever left O. His system had less chance to work in the NFL than Spurrier's fun n' gun had, which was next to zero.
I don't doubt it. I've always thought he seemed like an awkward person. For whatever reason, he worked at Oregon, and he'll probably never find that level of success again.
Chip was so brutally arrogant at Oregon. It was great if you were a duck.
Wasn't anything special then. Isn't anything special now.
I'm laughing at all the shit I took when I first joined HH and pointed that out to all the Chippy Ball-Garglers on these boreds.
Amazing what a coach can achieve with top recruits and several billion dollars raining all over the campus from a third-world cheap labor exploiter.
The myth of chip as a good recruiter continues. Chips classes were: 30 12 12 14
The class from before the year he took over was 34. 14 the year before that.
He never had the best class in the conference (and only had 2nd best once). But sure, he only won because he had superior talent.
Chips lost his edge, but it has more to do with the fact that most teams run his stuff now (plagiarizing his shit fucko) and see it in practice daily. His first few years at Oregon, the blur was such a novel concept that on 30% of our offensive plays the defense wasn’t even set
Chip is the same as he was at Oregon. The difference is, defenses have evolved to his scheme. At Oregon, Chip's scheme was such a problem, he could have put just about anybody on the field that was fast and he killed you. Now defenses have adjusted to this speed, so now he actually needs gifted athletes to succeed. Unfortunately for UCLA, Chip refuses to accept this, and continues to think his scheme overcomes talent which never works out over time.
Last time I watched a UCLA game, the offense didn't resemble Oregon's even a little. There was no breakneck tempo, no big time running game attack.
His shit? Novel concept? Fuck Off. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Google Sam Wyche.
He was the only one running it in the pac12, so teams didn’t know what to do against it. Never said he invented it.
If chip only won because of superior talent and was nothing special, what does that say about Pete who has better recruiting classes and better talent and hasn’t come close in 6 years to dominating the conference like chip did in 4?
That’s why I’m not sucking Peterson off like you are Kelly.
Chip was so brutally arrogant at Oregon. It was great if you were a duck.
Wasn't anything special then. Isn't anything special now.
I'm laughing at all the shit I took when I first joined HH and pointed that out to all the Chippy Ball-Garglers on these boreds.
Amazing what a coach can achieve with top recruits and several billion dollars raining all over the campus from a third-world cheap labor exploiter.
The myth of chip as a good recruiter continues. Chips classes were: 30 12 12 14
The class from before the year he took over was 34. 14 the year before that.
He never had the best class in the conference (and only had 2nd best once). But sure, he only won because he had superior talent.
Chips lost his edge, but it has more to do with the fact that most teams run his stuff now (plagiarizing his shit fucko) and see it in practice daily. His first few years at Oregon, the blur was such a novel concept that on 30% of our offensive plays the defense wasn’t even set
Chip is the same as he was at Oregon. The difference is, defenses have evolved to his scheme. At Oregon, Chip's scheme was such a problem, he could have put just about anybody on the field that was fast and he killed you. Now defenses have adjusted to this speed, so now he actually needs gifted athletes to succeed. Unfortunately for UCLA, Chip refuses to accept this, and continues to think his scheme overcomes talent which never works out over time.
Last time I watched a UCLA game, the offense didn't resemble Oregon's even a little. There was no breakneck tempo, no big time running game attack.
It's difficult to go breakneck tempo with a freshman QB, plus the running attack isn't the same, because teams have adjusted to the read option.
From Brian B (via email): With the struggles Chip Kelly is having, would it be a fair assessment to say that he, like many other coaches are overrated? It's always bugged me that coaches are viewed as people who are able to perform feats of alchemy when in fact it's the talent on the field that brings the success ... Kelly had a run of success at Oregon which seems like a long time ago now and since then he's been average at Philadelphia, bad at San Francisco and to this point doing a pretty poor job at UCLA. I've always held the notion that it's players that win championships, not coaches and yet it's the coach, especially in college football, that almost always receives the accolades.
This is a good point, Brian. In college football, the coach is often the one who receives the most praise, the most credit, especially when a program has success over an extended period of time. Good players move on, and are replaced by more good players, and the coach remains. It’s easy then for the media and fans to focus on the common factor there: the coach. The coach obviously calls the plays, sets the culture, and recruits the players. But what’s it all for if the players on the field are not executing?
Here’s a quick shameless plug: this season, I think, the Sports Illustrated college football team has already done a lot of great stories highlighting talented players. You should read Joan Niesen on Jonathan Taylor, Laken Litman on Sam Ehlinger, and Ross Dellenger on Trevor Lawrence and the rise of freshmen quarterbacks across the country.
But now, let’s explore the coach in question here: Chip Kelly. I think his status as an offensive genius is pretty secure, considering how he brought the spread offense to the forefront at Oregon and the success he had there. But as you said, Brian, you can’t win without talent.
Take a look at UCLA’s last five recruiting classes, which include Jim Mora’s last three classes and Chip Kelly’s first two. According to Rivals.com, here’s how they ranked:
That last class was particularly awful, and also consider, UCLA has lost a lot of that talent over the last year or so, as the program has transitioned from Mora to Kelly. After going 3–9 last year, in Kelly’s first year in charge, UCLA reportedly had 18 players enter the transfer portal, including several former top recruits who didn’t really pan out anyway.
As a result, the Bruins have a real dearth of talent right now, and it’s showing up on the field. UCLA is 0–2 and hasn’t broken the 300 yard mark in either game, and all the blame should fall on Kelly, because that’s the cruelty of coaching college football. You may receive all of the credit when you win, but you also take all the blame when you lose. In both instances, it may be unwarranted. But that’s the way the system works, as of now.
Mora recruited better than Chip has but both managed to suck
Chip was so brutally arrogant at Oregon. It was great if you were a duck.
Wasn't anything special then. Isn't anything special now.
I'm laughing at all the shit I took when I first joined HH and pointed that out to all the Chippy Ball-Garglers on these boreds.
Amazing what a coach can achieve with top recruits and several billion dollars raining all over the campus from a third-world cheap labor exploiter.
The myth of chip as a good recruiter continues. Chips classes were: 30 12 12 14
The class from before the year he took over was 34. 14 the year before that.
He never had the best class in the conference (and only had 2nd best once). But sure, he only won because he had superior talent.
Chips lost his edge, but it has more to do with the fact that most teams run his stuff now (plagiarizing his shit fucko) and see it in practice daily. His first few years at Oregon, the blur was such a novel concept that on 30% of our offensive plays the defense wasn’t even set
Chip is the same as he was at Oregon. The difference is, defenses have evolved to his scheme. At Oregon, Chip's scheme was such a problem, he could have put just about anybody on the field that was fast and he killed you. Now defenses have adjusted to this speed, so now he actually needs gifted athletes to succeed. Unfortunately for UCLA, Chip refuses to accept this, and continues to think his scheme overcomes talent which never works out over time.
There are very few coaches that I recall have success at A going to A. Mike Leach is one of the few. There are lots of others that went A to B or B to A and made it work. Apparently the horizontal transition within similar circumstances is difficult.
I thought it was stupid to think Chip might makes UCLA good. They were such a mess last year that I was pretty clear they weren’t getting good. This year makes it obvious.
Comments
He was great there. For whatever reason
Never should have left
Petersen is number 1 all time winning percentage and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl in 1897
I agree. He should not have ever left O. His system had less chance to work in the NFL than Spurrier's fun n' gun had, which was next to zero.
From Brian B (via email): With the struggles Chip Kelly is having, would it be a fair assessment to say that he, like many other coaches are overrated? It's always bugged me that coaches are viewed as people who are able to perform feats of alchemy when in fact it's the talent on the field that brings the success ... Kelly had a run of success at Oregon which seems like a long time ago now and since then he's been average at Philadelphia, bad at San Francisco and to this point doing a pretty poor job at UCLA. I've always held the notion that it's players that win championships, not coaches and yet it's the coach, especially in college football, that almost always receives the accolades.
This is a good point, Brian. In college football, the coach is often the one who receives the most praise, the most credit, especially when a program has success over an extended period of time. Good players move on, and are replaced by more good players, and the coach remains. It’s easy then for the media and fans to focus on the common factor there: the coach. The coach obviously calls the plays, sets the culture, and recruits the players. But what’s it all for if the players on the field are not executing?
Here’s a quick shameless plug: this season, I think, the Sports Illustrated college football team has already done a lot of great stories highlighting talented players. You should read Joan Niesen on Jonathan Taylor, Laken Litman on Sam Ehlinger, and Ross Dellenger on Trevor Lawrence and the rise of freshmen quarterbacks across the country.
But now, let’s explore the coach in question here: Chip Kelly. I think his status as an offensive genius is pretty secure, considering how he brought the spread offense to the forefront at Oregon and the success he had there. But as you said, Brian, you can’t win without talent.
Take a look at UCLA’s last five recruiting classes, which include Jim Mora’s last three classes and Chip Kelly’s first two. According to Rivals.com, here’s how they ranked:
• 2015: ranked 13th
• 2016: ranked 12th
• 2017: ranked 21st
• 2018: ranked 19th
• 2019: ranked 44th
That last class was particularly awful, and also consider, UCLA has lost a lot of that talent over the last year or so, as the program has transitioned from Mora to Kelly. After going 3–9 last year, in Kelly’s first year in charge, UCLA reportedly had 18 players enter the transfer portal, including several former top recruits who didn’t really pan out anyway.
As a result, the Bruins have a real dearth of talent right now, and it’s showing up on the field. UCLA is 0–2 and hasn’t broken the 300 yard mark in either game, and all the blame should fall on Kelly, because that’s the cruelty of coaching college football. You may receive all of the credit when you win, but you also take all the blame when you lose. In both instances, it may be unwarranted. But that’s the way the system works, as of now.
Mora recruited better than Chip has but both managed to suck
There are lots of others that went A to B or B to A and made it work.
Apparently the horizontal transition within similar circumstances is difficult.
Chippy is God!!
Fuck off.
Houston gashed them with the run. Kept getting called for holding but still