In Reply to: Re: The categorizing of Chip Kelly's recruiting efforts posted by Deplorable on June 30, 2024 at 18:29:59
overall contributions and general characteristics are relevant to the circumstances that existed when he left UCLA. If his recruiting towards the end of his tenure at UCLA was "lazy" that's not saying he had been a lazy person throughout his life. It's saying that his recruiting efforts at the end at UCLA were subpar, and based on the inaction, and "strategy" he was implementing at that time, calling it "lazy" was warranted.
I appreciate your honesty about WHY you labeled our new staff as "Lazy" before they had even begun their jobs, but to be clear, YOUR characterization of the new staff as Lazy wasn't based on any factual evidence. It was a tit-for-tat retort because the lazy label was used against Chip Kelly.
UCLA now effectively utilizing NIL under the new staff, is simply a matter of the school and staff upgrading their strategy based upon the current climate. We're playing the game by the current rules. Could Chip Kelly had done that? I mean AD Jarmond deserved to move forward with a coach he felt could take the program to the next level. If he didn't feel Chip was that guy, moving on was the right move. I'd also at that ....obviously...Chip didn't believe he was the right guy to be Head Coach ANYWHERE since he left with the specific goal of becoming an Assistant Coach in either the NFL or college.
I would say that "blaming" UCLA for Chip's failure would have more weight if he was wanted as a college head coach ANYWHERE, or if HE HIMSELF wanted to be a head football coach ANYWHERE.
It seems to me that both UCLA and Chip Kelly agreed that he wasn't currently built to be a head coach in this current climate.