So much for the revolution

[AZOrange]

They want a QB - they need draft picks - especially in the first round. They want Teddy B.

They say what they have to say to avoid the fans complaining that they have given up the season.

Richardson can play in any system - he caught 53 passes last year for gosh sakes.

It's about talent not scheme.

? If it's about talent and not scheme why are they now trying to get a qb to replace weeden? Their last 2 no. 1 picks...one traded for a worse pick...sounds like a coach/gm that don't like these guys in their offense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[OrangePA]

? If it's about talent and not scheme why are they now trying to get a qb to replace weeden? Their last 2 no. 1 picks...one traded for a worse pick...sounds like a coach/gm that don't like these guys in their offense


-

Because he is older and of average ability. He's mediocre at best.

In today's game teams want superstars at the QB position - it is a QB sport more than at any time in history.

Weeden is clearly not the answer - he is a career back-up and those guys generally do not win Super Bowls.

He was a bad draft pick.

 

[OrangePA]

It's funny down here in Texas, as soon as the trade went through, ESPN radio personalities down here were saying "The Johnny Football sweepstakes has officially begun!"

I just sat quietly in my car shaking my head. If Teddy Bridgewater isn't the top QB in the next draft I will be stunned. And Johnny Football will be a borderline first round pick this year, I'm betting.

I agree.

I frankly hope the Eagles tank this year.

I love Teddy B - smart, great arm, accurate, tough, quality guy.

 

[TampaLaker]

Y

It's funny down here in Texas, as soon as the trade went through, ESPN radio personalities down here were saying "The Johnny Football sweepstakes has officially begun!"

I just sat quietly in my car shaking my head. If Teddy Bridgewater isn't the top QB in the next draft I will be stunned. And Johnny Football will be a borderline first round pick this year, I'm betting.

Yep, teddy then Murray then Boyd.

 

[OrangePA]

You will never be convinced otherwise. That's fine.

I'd rather have a coach that believes in scheme and is innovative with scheme than one that believes the story ends with talent.

Right.

And when I pick sides for a rec game of basketball, I try to pick the most talented players.

It's no different in college or the pros - you try to get the best talent because that's what succeeds.

A great scheme with mediocre players doesn't work - See Buddy Ryan and the AZ Cardinals way back - he used the 46 Defense but he didn't have the players.

 

[AZOrange]

Because he is older and of average ability. He's mediocre at best.

In today's game teams want superstars at the QB position - it is a QB sport more than at any time in history.

Weeden is clearly not the answer - he is a career back-up and those guys generally do not win Super Bowls.

He was a bad draft pick.

A superstar? No one has any idea of Ted b. will be that. But what they do know is that teds profile fits their new system better than weeden. Same with Richardson who's really a plodding type rb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[AZOrange]

Right.

And when I pick sides for a rec game of basketball, I try to pick the most talented players.

It's no different in college or the pros - you try to get the best talent because that's what succeeds.

A great scheme with mediocre players doesn't work - See Buddy Ryan and the AZ Cardinals way back - he used the 46 Defense but he didn't have the players.

Tell that to bill belicheck et al. You can't win with no talent, but teams that are about even separate themselves with systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1

 

[djcon57]

And you're not suggesting the Chiefs are significantly more talented than the Eagles, are you?

On defense, it's not even close.
The Eagles have probably 3-4 decent players on D max. Their secondary is legit CFL quality.

I say this as a Eagle fan...and I still believe in Chip. We'll be fine. I never expected anything special this year. No team will even win with someone as inaccurate and fumble prone as Vick.

 

[RF2044]

It's funny down here in Texas, as soon as the trade went through, ESPN radio personalities down here were saying "The Johnny Football sweepstakes has officially begun!"

I just sat quietly in my car shaking my head. If Teddy Bridgewater isn't the top QB in the next draft I will be stunned. And Johnny Football will be a borderline first round pick this year, I'm betting.

Agree 100%.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I think people also drastically undervalue Alex Smith, as well. Peter King tweeted something last night I found pretty eye opening:

Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing12h
Alex Smith's last 17 starts: 3 losses, 24 touchdowns, 5 interceptions.


Expand

That's pretty freaking good, yet he's still a complete afterthought, and considered by many to still be a bust and a joke. He simply does not turn the ball over, makes smart decisions, and is SUPER efficient. Not a lot of flash, but he gets the job done. Put him with a good defense and a smart coach, and add in a dynamic RB and you've got a recipe for at least an 8 or 9 win team, and a playoff contender.

And yet he refuses to throw the ball more than 10 yards down the field. People still claim Smith is a better Qb than Kaepernick-- that is absolutely hilarious. Smith might not hurt you, but there will be a point this year when they need to have big plays to get back into the game and he refuses to take chances down the field. He is captain check down. He has more happy feet than Nassib did two years ago. And yes, I have Bowe on my fantasy team and am pissed that Smith refuses to acknowledge his over 6'4" wide out.

To the actually topic here-- the Chiefs are a horrible matchup for the Eagles. There style is completely opposite of the style Chip and the Eagles want to play. The are all about ball control, 5 yard gains, and keep moving the chains. It helps they have an incredibly solid and underrated defense.

I said over the summer my sleeper team for the playoffs this year was going to be KC. How many two win teams in history have had as many pro-bowlers as they did last year? The talent was never the issue.

 

[Scooch]

Oh please.

You really believe that scheme is more important than talent? Why is that Chip is having about the same success that Andy Reid had last year with the Eagles? Because he has pretty much the same team. The scheme is interesting, but the players make the difference.

Are you suggesting that first round picks in the NFL draft don't mean anything - they aren't important??

So the Cleveland Browns traded a great RB because they were more interested in changing the scheme rather than getting a first round pick in the 2014 draft?

Obviously not - talent is pretty much everything - in every sport. The teams with the talent generally win and the teams without talent generally lose - regardless of scheme.

And, yes, the Chiefs have way more talent than the Eagles.

They have five Pro Bowlers for gosh sakes.

Please tell me where I said that?

I said "Scheme, game plan, preparation, and of course execution, tends to be what separates winners from losers."

The talent differential between NFL teams is narrow. This is indisputable. It's why there is such variation between team's records year-to-year (say, unlike the NBA, where teams can retain 3-4 great players, which causes larger talent disparities and leads to much less annual variation in performance).

It's not college where some coach can overcome his game planning deficiencies and beat 8-9 teams a year by out-talenting the opposition.

Let's say the Eagles end up with 8 wins this year. Since the talent is similar to last year, would you concede that scheme played a role in the improved performance?

 

[TheCusian]

Yep RF, you win. The 461 total yards of offense that ranks third in the league was definitely the issue last night. The pace and style was most definitely the issue.

NO! Don't try to talk me out of it, it's definitely the offensive style, and not the defense that for a second straight year can't keep an offense off the field, and it's definitely NOT the five turnovers that the Eagles made. Nope, it wasn't any of those things. I mean, that awful offense only averaged 7 yards per play last night, and gained 431 yards total. But you're right, this new style surely isn't working at all.

All sarcasm aside, coaches can institute a scheme (one that does work based on how quickly and effectively they can move the ball) but players are still going to make mistakes. Especially a player like Michael Vick who, ya know has a history of this. The scheme still works, sometimes players make mistakes. But you're right, boring ball is much better, and no team that plays boring ball EVER makes mistakes. Thank goodness for the board geniuses.

This. The offense was still dynamic. McCoy is by far the most electrifying back in the NFL, Adrian included. If they hadn't turned the ball over and if their defense was even respectable - they'd have won by 21.

Plus - KC had a top 5 D going into the game. Just wait until this team hits the bottom half of the league.

 

[MikeSU02]

This. The offense was still dynamic. McCoy is by far the most electrifying back in the NFL, Adrian included. If they hadn't turned the ball over and if their defense was even respectable - they'd have won by 21.

Plus - KC had a top 5 D going into the game. Just wait until this team hits the bottom half of the league.

Vick doesn't make decisions quick enough and is much too TO prone. Also, Philly's D isn't good enough to be on the field as much as they are.

Does not mean this isn't going to move the needle with some offensive strategies in the future.

Let's remember, the NFC is not good. A team may win the division at 8-8.

 

[RF2044]

RF, I like you. You're a great poster and I love reading what you have to say. We're not as polar opposite on this as you might think either. I agree, talent is more important than scheme. Always has been. But when you have the right kind of talent for a unique scheme, you can be great.

You're saying the same thing people said about the West Coast offense in the early '80s. "It's a fad, it will never last." Yet here we are 30 years later and the West Coast offense pervades every single aspect of the sport. People though Bill Walsh was nuts at first, until he started winning Super Bowls. Bill Walsh was 2-14 and 6-10 his first two years, until he got his personnel for his scheme. He didn't look back.

Is Chip Kelly the next Bill Walsh? Time will tell. What I do know is that he has taken an Eagles offense that was less than pedestrian last year, and created an offense that is exciting to watch and moves the chains. They scored 33 and 30 points their first two games this season. They scored 16 last night because of turnovers. It wasn't the offense that was broken, it was the execution. It was also the defense, plain and simple.

Everyone is so quick to rule out new concepts because they think about the wildcat gimmicks, etc... This offense isn't a gimmick play, or even a gimmick set of plays. The scheme works, but if you don't have the players to fit it, it can look ugly. If and when he gets all of 'his' guys in this offense, it will be a scary thing to watch. To me, it still is pretty potent. I think it will be even more so if he's given the time to develop it fully.

With roughly the same players as last year this team is averaging roughly 50 yards more per game through the first three games. If you want to blame an offensive scheme for a poor defense and for execution errors, feel free. It's just not true though. Remember, a revolution doesn't happen in great big jumps, it happens in baby steps. We have to look no further than the West Coast offense to see that.

I was wondering originally why you jumped down my throat, before realizing that you were the originator of that other thread. Oops.

Interesting that you reference the wildcat, because that was all the rage a couple of seasons ago. It fizzled out pretty quickly, once teams were ready for it. My favorite team [Miami] made great use of it for one year, but it worked better when it was new and teams didn't know what to make of it than it did as a long term strategy.

Ultimately, there have been lots of systems over the years that have seemed innovative, and many of these have left an impression on the game despite not being revolutionary. The no huddle offense is a great example of this. But teams are successful in a lot of different ways. Dallas used to have the biggest OL imaginable, but it's tough to emulate / duplicate that without personnel. How long have teams been trying to emulate New England's system? For awhile, every coordinator / front office person they had went right to the top of the list when teams were looking for new coaches or GMs. Just about every one of them failed, despite being disciples of Belichik's system.

It remains to be seen what will happen with some of the read option teams. Chances are that Washington is going to look to do more to protect RGIII better rather than expose him to as many hits. The speed / size of NFL defenses is a challenge for every team to keep their QBs upright, especially those who expose themselves to undue punishment. Buffalo is playing at an impressively fast tempo, but will EJ Manuel be up to the challenge of winning ball games? Tough to play like San Francisco b/c few of these QBs are as good as Kaepernick.

I think the word I reacted to in your original thread was "revolutionary." Too soon to make that proclamation, IMO. Its a copy cat league, and teams are eager to adopt what works for successful other teams, but often personnel shortcomings undermine the attempt to duplicate successfully.

 

[Bayside44]

Tell that to bill belicheck et al. You can't win with no talent, but teams that are about even separate themselves with systems.


-

There is a ton to be said about continuity and having a great QB in the NFL - and being in a conference with the Bills, Fins, and Jets.

 

[bnoro]

Oh please.

You really believe that scheme is more important than talent? Why is that Chip is having about the same success that Andy Reid had last year with the Eagles? Because he has pretty much the same team. The scheme is interesting, but the players make the difference.

Are you suggesting that first round picks in the NFL draft don't mean anything - they aren't important??

So the Cleveland Browns traded a great RB because they were more interested in changing the scheme rather than getting a first round pick in the 2014 draft?

Obviously not - talent is pretty much everything - in every sport. The teams with the talent generally win and the teams without talent generally lose - regardless of scheme.

And, yes, the Chiefs have way more talent than the Eagles.

They have five Pro Bowlers for gosh sakes.

Actually they traded him because he didn't fit the scheme...

 

[OrangePA]

Please tell me where I said that?

I said "Scheme, game plan, preparation, and of course execution, tends to be what separates winners from losers."

The talent differential between NFL teams is narrow. This is indisputable. It's why there is such variation between team's records year-to-year (say, unlike the NBA, where teams can retain 3-4 great players, which causes larger talent disparities and leads to much less annual variation in performance).

It's not college where some coach can overcome his game planning deficiencies and beat 8-9 teams a year by out-talenting the opposition.

Let's say the Eagles end up with 8 wins this year. Since the talent is similar to last year, would you concede that scheme played a role in the improved performance?

Its a tough question to answer.

Reid had a lot of injuries last year - especially at QB and OL - Jason Peters missed the entire season for gosh sakes.

So, the comparison is tough to make.

And Reid was still dealing with the death of his son - that situation certainly hung over the team.

So, again, tough comparison.

This years team should be better because it probably has more talent and fewer distractions.

But, let's see.

 

[OrangePA]

[qu.e="bnoro, post: 751116, member: 71"]Actually they traded him because he didn't fit the scheme...[/quote]


I doubt that.

They want a big time QB.