If you are quoting this, then I assume you probably are agreeing with it.
If you read this, you know more about football than Jim Kempsi.
The article is at least consistent with my thoughts though re: the screen.
If he is not getting targetted, maybe he is not getting open vs man coverage.
Could be the case, but is not forced to be true.
Objective data shows less snaps than worse prospects. All 22 footage review will almost always reveal open receivers who do not get targeted on any particular play (for whatever reason).
In any event, if receivers are consistently failing to get open, it may also demonstrate a failing in play calling- are the routes too predictable?
You can shit on his coaching all you want, but the biggest problem has been the lack of receiver talent. Donovan Mcnabb put up some pretty average numbers with James Thrash, Pinkston and Mitchell. You can blame Chip as a GM for this, but if you are going to shit on him for Demarco, Maclin and Desean (who has been very average this year) then you also have to applaud him for dumping foles, not resigning cole or herremans, signing Thurmond and Mathews and drafting hicks. Also if the Bradford experiment pays off, meaning he is a top 10 qb in the league, he is GM of the year.
As much as it seems like a ridiculous statement, I actually think you're right. if Bradford were a franchise QB, it would vindicate chip despite the bad year. Unfortunately, I still don't think he is. We fall apart the next four games and I doubt he's even on our roster next year. Bye bye second round pick.
McNabb made 3 conference championships with average receivers.
If the failing is our horrible talent at WR, then it's more than a failing on the GM for who he let go. He's also failed to bring in anyone of talent.
The decisions re:
Huff (third round pick). According to you can't ever get open.
Agholor (first round pick).
M Smith III (first round pick, look at the talent taken in that round, or afterwards re WR)
Austin (paid millions above market value)
All highly questionable.
Dumping Foles for Bradford is not forced to be a success, and indeed one could be critical of it. We'd be at least where we are this year with Foles. And we'd have a lot more money. If Bradford doesn't work out, we gave up a second round pick for nothing. Indeed, one would question whether the deal could have been done without the pick to start with (noting that the rams were obviously cap dumping). The trade reeks of inexperienced GM.
Re: Mathews, he's been good when on the field, but continually injured. Which was the knock on signing him. No master stroke yet.
Not resigning Cole was a pretty straight forward decision.
I don't think any, even the most manically unwilling to consider criticism could in good faith suggest that we should be praising chip for his handling of the offensive line. We cut both Herremans and Mathis
with no replacement plan other than deep depth back ups. That's your praise point? Seriously?