The Eagles had 53 plays in the first half against the Redskins last Monday. The Eagles didn't match that the second half but, today, Chip Kelly said he thought the offense was slow and would like to see his team run 100 plays in a game. The NFL average is 66 offensive plays in a full game. Let's say the Eagles only average what Kelly did at Oregon last season — 84 plays. That's a total of 1344 in the regular season when the average is 1056 for other teams — around a 21% increase. During the Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations, the NFLPA fought adding two additional regular season games because of the risk of injury. At this pace, a player on the Eagle's offense would be better off from a hits standpoint playing 18 NFL games than playing Kelly's style of offense for 16 games. If Kelly's approach is successful, more NFL teams will copy. Does this set up the NFL for liability issues because players are taking 21% more hits per game? Do gassed defenders do a better or worse job controlling their body when making tackles? It adds to the risk of poor technique which equals more injuries. Why isn't the NFLPA saying a player whose body takes 21% more punishment deserves 21% more money? Where is Goodell on this? The NFL continues to add rules to make the game safer yet, IMO, overlooks the most obvious here. How will 21% more plays impact concussion numbers? Vick has already played 1 1/2 games-worth of snaps in the first game. Anyone believe he'll survive a 16-game season at this pace? It's a fun offense to watch but I don't think we'll see Kelly asking for 100 offensive snaps by mid-season when a few of his best offensive weapons aren't dressing out on Sunday.