[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16408.msg185682#msg185682 date=1483998206]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16408.msg185674#msg185674 date=1483997580]
Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. ןɐɔ must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.
[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, ןɐɔ could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.
[/quote]

I agree with your point that Kelly has a fantastic record as a college coach and could resume that career and get back that success. (Think: Saban, Pitino, Calipari as other great college coaches who failed in the pros but resumed their success when they returned to university level sports).  But I disagree that the NFL stink with Kelly is only about his time with the 49ers.  He was already stinking from his last couple of years with Philadelphia.  One could argue that he only took a bad 49ers job because that previous experience left him reeking. 

I think Kelly's system fits great with the college game, but not so much with the pros (and maybe not so well against the Alabama's of the college world, with their athleticism on the defensive side of the ball).  And I also think Kelly's personality may not work all that well with grown men.  But college athletes who are more under your control and only passing through for a few years: perfect.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16408.msg185682#msg185682 date=1483998206]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16408.msg185674#msg185674 date=1483997580]
Put me in group that thinks:

ןɐɔ could do a LOT better than hiring Chip Kelly

Wow, a LOT better than a coach with a record of 46-7 (33-3 in conference), twice national coach of the year in a span of four years. Worst season was his first (10-3, final ranking was #11), finished in the top four nationally every year thereafter. ןɐɔ must be a much more desirable job than I thought if they can recruit someone who is a LOT better.
[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said the NFL stink will hang on Chip Kelly.  He was a ridiculously strong coach for Oregon, but we have multiple people on this site saying, "Yeah, ןɐɔ could do a lot better" because he walked into a no-win situation with horrendous people like Jed York and Trent Baalke and a roster bereft of talent, with no strong position coaches or OC's wanting to join him.  Total recency bias.
[/quote]

I agree with your point that Kelly has a fantastic record as a college coach and could resume that career and get back that success. (Think: Saban, Pitino, Calipari as other great college coaches who failed in the pros but resumed their success when they returned to university level sports).  But I disagree that the NFL stink with Kelly is only about his time with the 49ers.  He was already stinking from his last couple of years with Philadelphia.  One could argue that he only took a bad 49ers job because that previous experience left him reeking. 

I think Kelly's system fits great with the college game, but not so much with the pros (and maybe not so well against the Alabama's of the college world, with their athleticism on the defensive side of the ball).  And I also think Kelly's personality may not work all that well with grown men.  But college athletes who are more under your control and only passing through for a few years: perfect.