The L.A. Times' Chris DuFresnse says yes.
He says the NFL can use a shot in the arm given its stale conservatism and reliance on the status quo.
NFL analyst Heath Evans disagrees, calling Kelly's hire the "worst in NFL history."
Evans' words are hyperbolic given the NFL's often dull history. I mean there is a lot of competition out there from over the years.
What do I think? Two answers: I don't know and it depends. One thing I do know, however, is that Evans' article is filled with factual errors regarding the Oregon program, which he obviously hasn't seen up close.
His argument that Oregon has the advantage of recruiting the "best" players in the land is mistaken. Oregon, under Mike Bellotti and Kelly, has never recruited a top-ten class. That honor goes annually to Alabama, Notre Dame, USC and several other programs.
Oregon, in fact, has never had a consensus PAC "best class" of recruits. That distinction nearly always goes to USC.
Not coincidentally, Stanford's recruiting classes of the past five years have been better than Oregon's. It is no accident that Stanford finally had the players to defeat the Ducks this season.
What Kelly and Bellotti before him excelled at is coaching. They took middling athletes, with few exceptions, and coached them up.
Kelly's system, particularly, thrived on speed, which is only one advantage in the development of a football program. Others are size, quickness, technique, attitude, smarts, work ethic, etc., etc.
Will Kelly succeed? I don't know. I do know that he will make the professional game a little more interesting for those of us who find it to be somewhat stale and generally way too conservative.
Don't think for a moment that Pete Carroll in Seattle and Jim Harbaugh in San Francisco weren't paying attention during their PAC coaching years when Kelly's teams regularly beat them.
They have integrated elements of Kelly's method into their pro systems with positive results.
TS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment