Potato Chip Kelly: What's your plan?

During my copius reading on the internet I stumbled upon this interesting article.  Interesting right, crazy Chip Kelly is desperate to get his hands on Johnny Manziel.  He recruited him to Oregon oh so long ago, he must need him back now.

Then there was this, woops wrong angle.  Crazy Chip Kelly doesn't want his former recruit Manziel, He wants his former QB Mariota.  I mean it isn't like we haven't heard that before, or anything.

Truthfully though, all snark aside, there  have been some odd goings on from within the Eagles brain trust.  Things like this, or this, or this  Mychal Kendricks traded?  Not selling Sam Bradford jerseys at the team run pro-shops? Someone wants an Eagles secondary player?  What is going on?

I don't know anything about the direction the team is going, I have no idea what they are thinking, and I would imagine the majority of these rumors are overblown reporting of minor conversations between team executives.  But as they say where there is smoke there is fire.

So let's see if we can observe the actions and the rumors, and divine a bit about what the old Chipster has up his sleeve.

I think it is fairly safe to draw the conclusion that Chip decided he couldn't make it work by adjusting his system to a group of talented players whose flaws were different then what he wanted (Shady's dancing, Nick's lead feet, Desean's look at me act.)  and a team that was financially constructed in a way that wasn't allowing him to direct resources in the direction of his choosing.  So he cleaned house, not because he didn't see the talent, but because he saw trying to bend the talent and the system to meet was butting him against a ceiling that was lower then his aspirations.

 So Chip started using what was removed to bring in pieces that fit his needs specifically.  Murray and Matthews, talented bruising one cut runners that he feels comfortable rotating.  Kiko Alonso a young fast talented linebacker who can run with Tight ends, giving them flexibility in coverage. Byron Maxwell and Walter Thurmond, big physical corners that fit the scheme Billy Davis likes to play well.  All with their own flaws (much of which he seems to be banking on covering with sports science) but whose strengths are the things that make his system go.

Then there is Sam Bradford.  The still young (he is only a year + older then Foles)  somewhat talented (the evidence from his production is not good, but the physical tools that made him the #1 pick are still evident)  quarterback.  Bradford has a reputation for intelligence, has a slightly stronger arm then Foles, according to some advanced stats is one of the more accurate throwers in football, and has an absurdly low interception percentage.

Chip has stated he wants his QB to be like a point guard who distributes the ball to wherever the defense isn't.  For this he is looking for intelligence, a quick mind, and what he termed "repetitive accuracy"  from what we can tell it seems Bradford could check off this boxes, but it just doesn't feel right.  Chip doesn't need a running QB, but his offense works better with one.  That doesn't mean he wants Michael Vick, but Aaron Rodgers would be more up his alley.  Add to this the multitude of rumors from all over the place and I have a few bets on what is happening.

First, I think Chip would be content with Bradford as his quarterback.  I think he sees a healthy Bradford as an upgrade on Foles in many ways, but most importantly he won't have an offense that turns the ball over nearly as much, giving him more opportunities to execute the gameplan.

Second, I think Chip is gunning for Mariota, but much like the Jeremy Maclin situation he has a price he is willing to hit, and if it goes higher he walks away.  I believe him when he says that good teams build through the draft, because if he doesn't believe that he is an idiot and Eagles fans are doomed.  But I do believe there is a mortgage he would be willing to pay for Mariota.  I believe his preference for larger corners makes Boykin expendable, and the presence of Alonso, and the resigning of Ryans makes Kendricks a trade chip as far as Chip is concerned.  Considering how talented Kendricks is it is one hell of a trade chip too.  I also believe Chip is very willing to unload Bradford, if he is getting his QB.

So it would seem plan A is to use whatever draft picks they are willing to sacrifice, which will be more then we like but fear not the Eagles are good at this late round draft thing.  As well as some combination of Kendricks, Boykin, and Bradford to move up for Mariota while keeping their draft pick stock reasonably full.

But the draft is a fickle thing, and many teams will do unexpected things, and many teams will pay absurd prices for players that can severely hamper their ability to build a team.  So I also believe there is a plan B.  In the scenarios I'm seeing it appears as if Sanchez was brought in as a mentor/insurance policy for the young passer Chip wants, if it is Mariota he is the emergency plan, but I think Chip sees a different possibility where Sanchez plays a more active mentorship role.  In my Plan B, the rumors with the Browns come to fruition and the Eagles acquire one of their first round picks.  If this is not enough to grab Mariota, instead Chip uses his two first round picks to unload and reload totally.  He most likely trades Kendricks for some high value, Boykin for some Value, and uses those picks, and his two first rounders to take some new offensive line blood, a new wide receiver, and Brett Hundley.  It isn't as crazy as it sounds he is a supremely talented player with experience in a system like Chip's.  He cant play right away, but he might be worth taking a swing at.

Plan C I imagine is to play the draft smart, Keep Bradford, add more piece, and if he doesn't work out take another swing at the QB position.  You don't win in the NFL without an Elite QB, which can mean different things in different systems, but it is a fact of life.  But it is also a fact that those QB's have come into the league in a myriad of ways, so the most logical approach is to take as many swings as possible until you hit it out of the park.

April 30th can't come soon enough

Framing the Argument, how public relations put the corporate reformers at the forefront of the debate.

Earlier today yahoo recommended this article for me. Yahoo doesn't know me at all, either that or Marissa Meyer secretly hates me.

While I hate linking the article here, I think it brings to the forefront one of the major issues that those who are trying to save education have, we don't message nearly well enough.

Go ahead, waste 5 minutes of your life and read that trash.  Look at how carefully the author works to frame tests as a positive for the poor, and minorities.  Note how they use children and their innocence to bolster their argument, how they very subtly cast teachers and their union as villains.  Then look at how they somewhat smoothly eave the reader from opting out of tests to school choice, and take another shot at teachers and their unions in the process.  Notice the use of words with specific connotation like trapped.

The reality is that teachers are behind the eight ball, because we aren't public relation experts we are education experts, and the big money isn't there if we win this oh so important argument.  The big money is there for the taking if the corporate reformers win, so they have more to invest in the public relations process.  It is sad, and as an educator it is frightening.

Let's take a moment and discuss some of the arguments made in the article.

• he offers no evidence about the frequency of parents paying for tutoring, nor does he offer evidence that the parents want their children to take those tests.  Where is the logic that people would hate tests but think those are fine?
• He ignore the obviousness of the opt out moving being about two key things, valueless tests (the SAT and the ACT get you college admission)  and too many tests (why add more if you take the SAT or the ACT?) 
• He makes the claim the new tests are better, with no context as to what better means, and no evidence as to them actually meeting that criteria.  
• He claims that these tests are important to minorities "trapped"  in failing schools so they can see the failure.  but offers no indication as to how these tests can help us improve.  Nor does he acknowledge the bevy of research that indicates that all these tests do is measure your socioeconomic status.  
• He makes a leap that allowing test opt outs, should allow school opt outs without addressing the motivation for test opt outs is so that schools can spend more time on education and less on test prep.  Thereby making the school a better place for the students.  
• He almost doesn't seem to realize that test scores are not why parents choose schools.  

Basically the article claims the existence of a false world based on the authors perceptions of reality, and expects us all to live in it.  What makes me sad, is far too many of us too willing to embrace it.