An Eagles Conundrum

Jack Merlino

Following the team-wide abortion against Dallas three weeks ago, I penned an open letter to Eagles fans that can be summarized as "It's two weeks into the season so quit your whining." Now, the Eagles are 2-3, 0-2 in the division, and one or two more losses away from the rest of the season being a formality. Granted, it is a weak division. One oddmaker still has the Eagles as having the best chance to win the division at 39%. The Eagles, hilariously enough, will be playing next Monday night with a chance to put themselves in 1st place in the NFC East.  But still, I pride myself on being objective whenever I can. Here's the biggest argument for cutting ties with Chip Kelly.

It isn't even related to record. It isn't specifically about Kelly's moves as a whole. It isn't about play-calling, scheme, or bitter accusations of racism. It's about personnel; namely, the quarterback.

No team can function without a quarterback. It's the reason why certain teams (Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, etc) never seem to be considered anything more than an afterthought when you look at better teams' schedules, and it's the reason why I'm going to go on record right now and say the Jets will NOT be winning the Super Bowl this year, no matter how well that astounding D plays.

In fact, while I'm on the subject of the Jets, they're probably the closest anyone has come to winning it all without a QB, when they played in back-to-back AFC championships while being headed by Mark Sanchez. And you'd be a fool to think that the Sanchize isn't superior to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

So the Eagles have themselves a large problem. Sam Bradford is unarguably terrible. Fans have scratched their heads raw trying to comprehend why Nick Foles was sent away for someone so atrocious. Whether Bradford's play is a result of missing two straight years with injuries or not, he isn't the quarterback everyone thought he'd be when he stormed into the league and won the Offensive Rookie of the Year award.

Kelly should consider himself fortunate that Bradford decided to gamble on himself and decline to sign the 'noteworthy' extension that he'd been offered before the season began. Otherwise, it would almost certainly be impossible for even the staunchest of Chip supporters to argue that he should keep his job. So that's one thing he has going for him.

The issue lies in how much time is left in his contract. He has one more year after this one. That means that unless this season features a huge turnaround, the ownership shows faith in him that's hard to find in the average fan, or both he and the owner are committed to undergoing a short rebuild (or 'retool', as Philadelphia legend Ruben Amaro Jr. called it) and the losing that almost always accompanies it, Chip Kelly will not be the head coach of this team after the 2016-2017 season.

Back to the quarterback. Even the biggest supporters of Sam Bradford have to be close to conceding that he isn't the answer to the Eagles' search for a franchise quarterback that has apparently been going on since NUMBUH FIVE was traded to Washington.

If the Eagles continue to play the way their five-week start is implying they will, Kelly will be in position to select a highly-touted quarterback early in the first round (which I still have to believe he was attempting to do this past spring), and spend the rest of the draft fixing Philly's embarrassing O-Line.

Aaah, so therein lies the issue, doesn't it? If Chip Kelly is going to be gone after 2016, why would you keep him long enough for him to select the player who in theory should be a franchise cornerstone for years to come? In a weird way, this article is also presenting the best current argument for keeping Chip Kelly beyond his current contract; if Kelly is here next year, he should be extended for at least two more years. It's the same principle that made it so awkward that Ruben Amaro Jr. kept his job with the Phillies for the parts of the 2015 season where his job would seriously come into play, namely the trade deadline and the draft. It was certain that he would not be returning in 2016, so there was no point to him making the moves.

If Kelly gets his quarterback next spring and more of his guys, it'll mean that even more of the roster is his (coming into this season following his various moves, there was only a handful of Andy Reid holdovers left in Jason Peters, Mychal Kendricks, etc.). It'll make even less sense if next year is his make-or-break year, assuming he goes with the rookie quarterback. If he signs Sam Bradford to a (hopefully short) extension and keeps him under the helm, then all bets are off. After all, Bradford was SUPPOSEDLY his guy coming into the season. Then what he does next year, after taking an offseason to hopefully mend the other various issues plaguing this team, should determine where he will be coaching. Even without drafting a new signal-caller though, it'll still be his roster.

What you should take away from this article is this: it makes no sense to retain Chip Kelly for the 2016 season if he isn't a sure thing to be here for the near future after that. Now, you can argue with each other about whether THIS year was supposed to be his make-or-break year or not.

To stay up to date with the latest from 30 Minutes of Madness, be sure to follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook. For more thoughts and articles from this writer, follow Jack Merlino on Twitter.
Follow @PhilliesMind