Kelly walks line between coaching and personnel

A year ago, some Eagles were unsure who made contract decisions for the team.

In December, amid a three-game losing streak, three players sat at their lockers and argued whether it was Chip Kelly or Howie Roseman who had ultimate say over the business side of football operations.

Player 1 insisted that Roseman, then the Eagles general manager, controlled the salary cap and contract negotiations. Player 2 agreed but jokingly said a coach who monitors their every move with tracking devices would eventually want complete authority. But Player 3 wasn't convinced and figured Kelly was already pushing all the buttons.

Player 3 is no longer on the team and the other two remain, although Player 1 never received the new contract he had hoped for this offseason.

There is no gray area anymore. Kelly has totalitarian rule after owner Jeffrey Lurie handed him the reins in January. Roseman was to remain in charge of contracts and the salary cap, per the Eagles' news release at the time, but his authority is window dressing, according to multiple NFL and team sources.

That hasn't stopped Kelly from taking a neutral stance with players. When some Eagles have attempted to talk about their deals with him this offseason, the coach has answered that he has no authority over contracts, sources familiar with the conversions said.

Kelly hasn't mentioned Roseman by name, only referring to contract deciders as "they" or "them." Ed Marynowitz, promoted to vice president of player personnel after the front-office shake-up, deals with agents, but it's been made clear decisions aren't coming from his desk.

There is no "they" or "them," only the coach. Which is fine. Bill Belichick has managed to make his absolute power work for the Patriots. But he has essentially been the exception to the rule that coaches fail when given complete control.

There are countless examples of coaches succumbing to the pressures of having responsibility over both football and business. It could have been a mismanagement of time, or not having the stomach for contract negotiations, or being a poor evaluator of talent. But sometimes it is because he couldn't juggle the disparate nature of being a coach and a businessman.

Kelly said last week that he didn't foresee any problems with balancing the two.

"I think that happens everywhere. That happens in any type of business," he said. "You may not be happy with your contract at The Inquirer. You've got to go talk to your boss about it, and that's part of the job. When you're the boss, you have to make those decisions, and that's what it's all about."

But many bosses can pass the buck to a higher authority. Andy Reid, who had final say with the Eagles for a decade, had Joe Banner and then Roseman who could wear the black hat while he kept his reputation in the locker room intact. And yet, when he took the Chiefs job, Reid forfeited that power.

Kelly has said that the roster subtractions he made this offseason were because of money, and in most cases the players who were either released or traded - LeSean McCoy, Trent Cole, Todd Herremans, Cary Williams - made less at their next stops.

It remains to be seen whether Evan Mathis, released on June 11, will sign for less than he was slated to earn in the final two years of his contract with the Eagles. But Kelly received nothing in return for a Pro Bowl guard who had little leverage and claimed that he was prepared to report and perform without being a disruption - as he did last year.

Most surprising was how some of Mathis' former teammates spoke openly about his contract demands, often suggesting that he had overreached. While that may prove to be true, their vociferous support of management stood in sharp contrast to how NFL players generally react to a teammate's contract demands.

What goes around comes around.

"I understand where he's coming from. In his mind he thinks he's underpaid, so he's got to do what he thinks is best," tight end Zach Ertz said. "But we want people here that are going to trust the process."

Linebacker Connor Barwin, for instance, had his contract restructured and sweetened in April even though the Eagles had no need to do so. Barwin had a great season, but didn't Mathis have one as good in 2013 without a reward? There will always be players unhappy with their contracts, and it's likely some still remain on the roster.

Ertz is an interesting case study. He's entering the third year of his four-year rookie contract, a fixed one in which negotiations were a formality. But what happens if he goes out and has a Pro Bowl-caliber season? Will he want an extension like the one center Jason Kelce received after his third season?

What happens if the Eagles place the franchise tag on Ertz after a productive fourth season, when he could make significantly more as a free agent?

"It's going to be a contentious process. But that's why you have an agent," Ertz said. "I don't want to deal with Chip directly or Ed or Howie or whoever it might be dealing with the contracts. Whenever the time comes it'll come, and I think it'll work out."

The players are saying all the right things, as they should with six weeks to go until training camp. Kelly has assembled a group that he believes places team goals about individual ones, as unrealistic as that may seem. Can he pacify the discontented ones and at the same time motivate them to sacrifice their bodies in the name of winning a game?

@Jeff_McLane