Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Lol is this place always this negative after wins? Holy cow lol.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

How about jimmy and the O did a great job of executing the plays on crucial downs that Kyle put in place? We can give both of them credit?

jimmy benefits from kyles system and play calling while Kyle benefits from Jimmys execution, accuracy, and composure.

Yup. Even if this was one of Kyle's most vanilla game plans ever.

The good news is if we play a 3rd string team in the playoffs, we know we can still have a come-from-behind win in the 4Q with a run-centric game plan playing behind the sticks.

When Mitchell got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 3 yds, 7 yds, 8 yds, 9 yds, 7 yds, 12 yds, 1 yd and 6 yds. When CMC got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 4 yds, -1 yd, -1 yd, 3 yds, 5 yds, 12 yds, 0 yds, 0 yds and -3 yds. When Deebo got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 15 yds, 5 yds and 0 yds. On 1st down, Jimmy threw 3 incompletions, was sacked once and kneeled once. Only 1 pass on 1st down that was completed didn't go for a 1st down but instead went for 8. And 1 pass on 1st down that would have moved the chains ended up being a fumble and a turnover. The only reason that 2nd and long stat that you are throwing around to knock Kyle exists is because most of CMC's 1st down carries went nowhere. Mitchell didn't have that problem running it on 1st down.

Back up a few more steps. The reason we're a 2nd and long offense is because every DC in the world knows we're running on first downs more than any other team with the exception of three others.

Post #50448
https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/187983-49ers-head-coach-kyle-shanahan-thread/page3364/

That is not QB-friendly. That is not OL-friendly. IMHO, of course.

So why did Mitchell have so much success on 1st down?

I'm not arguing it still can't work. Like I said, it's no secret. The issue is when it's clear the defense is adjusting to it and winning.

If you want to get granular and say one RB was more successful, that's fine.

But the point is, Kyle's run-centric first-down tendency does not make life easy on that OL, RB and eventually, the QB and the passing game. It leaves no room for error esp. when the volume is so small to overcome so many 2nd and longs.

That starts with Kyle. But we as a fan base typically spend our time down stream with the passing game.

Kyle can make this a whole lot easier on everyone. And we've seen that first hand when he has come out more pass-centric and balanced.

But when we did throw the ball and the pass was completed it ended up as a 1st down a majority of the time. So there was no opportunity for a 2nd and short. When Mitchell ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and short a majority of the time. When CMC ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and long a majority of the time. You don't see the pattern?

It's not just Kyle here either. Penalties too and poor execution lead to a number of 2nd and longs. Not just the rushing attempts. It's really his first down offense but a big part of that IS the obvious tendency to run on first downs in between the tackles.

To your other point, it was clear to me Mitchell was clearly the better rusher. But that was another tendency. Kyle stuck with CMC on a series and then Mitchell on a series. But both were only used in the rush game minus a pass or two.

Mitchell had no issues running the ball in between the tackles on 1st down inspite of this known tendency you speak of. CMC is not a downhill runner. Calling CMC's number on 1st down to run in between the tackles was the real issue and I hope that Kyle sees that on film and gets that corrected ASAP.

That's fair. Another tell is that Juice is in there with one or the other. My guess is Mitchell and Juice are probably more in sync with the intricate blocking scheme together vs. CMC who's still learning all of the nuances thus far.

To elaborate, DL just noted on his pod even further than I did. We were actually cumulatively negative on 1st AND 2nd downs.

Also, this still is not a formula for making life easier on a QB or the OL...the original point.

Not sure why we don't evaluate a play caller like we do a backup QB. Is there any scenario out there where we're equally critical of a game plan and play caller (not directed to you, YAC)?

If Mitchell wasn't finding the success he was having than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller on 1st downs. If receivers aren't getting open consistently because of coverage than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller. I just don't see the evidence that backs up the negative take on Kyle's playcalling.

As far as 2nd down situations, this is the first time I have seen it brought up. What is your evidence to back up your claim that 2nd down is also an issue when it comes to playcalling? Perhaps I should dig into those stats? But first, I'd like to see where you are coming from when it comes to 2nd down so that I am not doing the research for nothing.

It's his and Barrows, 'Here's the Catch,' podcast: A Sunday Night Comeback for the Niners

Advanced PFF stats. I'll try to get the time stamp for you. Edit: 32:40

I'm also not saying it wasn't a great game plan to start. I'm saying once it was obvious how they were defending it, he stuck with it making it very difficult for his QB and OL going forward.

Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

How about jimmy and the O did a great job of executing the plays on crucial downs that Kyle put in place? We can give both of them credit?

jimmy benefits from kyles system and play calling while Kyle benefits from Jimmys execution, accuracy, and composure.

Yup. Even if this was one of Kyle's most vanilla game plans ever.

The good news is if we play a 3rd string team in the playoffs, we know we can still have a come-from-behind win in the 4Q with a run-centric game plan playing behind the sticks.

When Mitchell got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 3 yds, 7 yds, 8 yds, 9 yds, 7 yds, 12 yds, 1 yd and 6 yds. When CMC got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 4 yds, -1 yd, -1 yd, 3 yds, 5 yds, 12 yds, 0 yds, 0 yds and -3 yds. When Deebo got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 15 yds, 5 yds and 0 yds. On 1st down, Jimmy threw 3 incompletions, was sacked once and kneeled once. Only 1 pass on 1st down that was completed didn't go for a 1st down but instead went for 8. And 1 pass on 1st down that would have moved the chains ended up being a fumble and a turnover. The only reason that 2nd and long stat that you are throwing around to knock Kyle exists is because most of CMC's 1st down carries went nowhere. Mitchell didn't have that problem running it on 1st down.

Back up a few more steps. The reason we're a 2nd and long offense is because every DC in the world knows we're running on first downs more than any other team with the exception of three others.

Post #50448
https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/187983-49ers-head-coach-kyle-shanahan-thread/page3364/

That is not QB-friendly. That is not OL-friendly. IMHO, of course.

So why did Mitchell have so much success on 1st down?

I'm not arguing it still can't work. Like I said, it's no secret. The issue is when it's clear the defense is adjusting to it and winning.

If you want to get granular and say one RB was more successful, that's fine.

But the point is, Kyle's run-centric first-down tendency does not make life easy on that OL, RB and eventually, the QB and the passing game. It leaves no room for error esp. when the volume is so small to overcome so many 2nd and longs.

That starts with Kyle. But we as a fan base typically spend our time down stream with the passing game.

Kyle can make this a whole lot easier on everyone. And we've seen that first hand when he has come out more pass-centric and balanced.

But when we did throw the ball and the pass was completed it ended up as a 1st down a majority of the time. So there was no opportunity for a 2nd and short. When Mitchell ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and short a majority of the time. When CMC ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and long a majority of the time. You don't see the pattern?

It's not just Kyle here either. Penalties too and poor execution lead to a number of 2nd and longs. Not just the rushing attempts. It's really his first down offense but a big part of that IS the obvious tendency to run on first downs in between the tackles.

To your other point, it was clear to me Mitchell was clearly the better rusher. But that was another tendency. Kyle stuck with CMC on a series and then Mitchell on a series. But both were only used in the rush game minus a pass or two.

Mitchell had no issues running the ball in between the tackles on 1st down inspite of this known tendency you speak of. CMC is not a downhill runner. Calling CMC's number on 1st down to run in between the tackles was the real issue and I hope that Kyle sees that on film and gets that corrected ASAP.

That's fair. Another tell is that Juice is in there with one or the other. My guess is Mitchell and Juice are probably more in sync with the intricate blocking scheme together vs. CMC who's still learning all of the nuances thus far.

To elaborate, DL just noted on his pod even further than I did. We were actually cumulatively negative on 1st AND 2nd downs.

Also, this still is not a formula for making life easier on a QB or the OL...the original point.

Not sure why we don't evaluate a play caller like we do a backup QB. Is there any scenario out there where we're equally critical of a game plan and play caller (not directed to you, YAC)?

If Mitchell wasn't finding the success he was having than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller on 1st downs. If receivers aren't getting open consistently because of coverage than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller. I just don't see the evidence that backs up the negative take on Kyle's playcalling.

As far as 2nd down situations, this is the first time I have seen it brought up. What is your evidence to back up your claim that 2nd down is also an issue when it comes to playcalling? Perhaps I should dig into those stats? But first, I'd like to see where you are coming from when it comes to 2nd down so that I am not doing the research for nothing.

It's his and Barrows, 'Here's the Catch,' podcast: A Sunday Night Comeback for the Niners

Advanced PFF stats. I'll try to get the time stamp for you. Edit: 32:40

I'm also not saying it wasn't a great game plan to start. I'm saying once it was obvious how they were defending it, he stuck with it making it very difficult for his QB and OL going forward.

Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

Matt Barrows and David Lombardi are YouTubers now?

I already gave you mine. They took it to 2nd downs too. And mine was just an observation.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Because I've posted it as proof in here for you that he had serious issues with the lack of control in this offensive scheme when LaFleur first arrived. That alone should dispell your theory Jimmy here has more control esp. given what we know about Kyle. LOL. He's a bit of a control freak.

And yes, Jimmy saved this game and was clutch. He had zero margin for error.

Rogers won two MVPs and what won 13 games each of his first 3 yrs? lol. Dude was gonna have a hissy fit over any HC that wasn't gonna allow him to go play backyard football. Talking about control freaks.

So what you think every single guy who's spent any time with the shanahan's coaches exactly the same way? So Burrow who learned for McVay who learned from the shanahan's doesn't give any control to burrow? McVay doesn't give Stafford any control? Your boy McDaniels doesn't allow Tua anything? Oh those don't count because they prove that theory wrong.

So first & second downs had NOTHING to do with the QB. But the 3rd down conversions were all Jimmy 😂 like he's running improving? I can't that type of nonsense seriously…I listen to your Here's the Catch and it's Lombardi's opinion lol. Typical

i also said Jimmy was good, stop acting like play calling didn't play a part in the success YET was the issue for not throwing up 40 pts.

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Lol is this place always this negative after wins? Holy cow lol.

Almost everyone has complimented Jimmy after his game. He played good football again. But like every single week, when a play could have been better, Jimmy defenders react as if someone personally insulted their mothers. Then the discussion drags for days because people are incapable of accepting that a play wasnt perfect.

Take the Aiyuk drop for example. 100% of this board has said that Aiyuk should have caught it. But when someone says that Jimmy could have made it easier on Aiyuk by throwing it to a slightly better location, all hell breaks loose.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

How about jimmy and the O did a great job of executing the plays on crucial downs that Kyle put in place? We can give both of them credit?

jimmy benefits from kyles system and play calling while Kyle benefits from Jimmys execution, accuracy, and composure.

Yup. Even if this was one of Kyle's most vanilla game plans ever.

The good news is if we play a 3rd string team in the playoffs, we know we can still have a come-from-behind win in the 4Q with a run-centric game plan playing behind the sticks.

When Mitchell got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 3 yds, 7 yds, 8 yds, 9 yds, 7 yds, 12 yds, 1 yd and 6 yds. When CMC got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 4 yds, -1 yd, -1 yd, 3 yds, 5 yds, 12 yds, 0 yds, 0 yds and -3 yds. When Deebo got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 15 yds, 5 yds and 0 yds. On 1st down, Jimmy threw 3 incompletions, was sacked once and kneeled once. Only 1 pass on 1st down that was completed didn't go for a 1st down but instead went for 8. And 1 pass on 1st down that would have moved the chains ended up being a fumble and a turnover. The only reason that 2nd and long stat that you are throwing around to knock Kyle exists is because most of CMC's 1st down carries went nowhere. Mitchell didn't have that problem running it on 1st down.

Back up a few more steps. The reason we're a 2nd and long offense is because every DC in the world knows we're running on first downs more than any other team with the exception of three others.

Post #50448
https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/187983-49ers-head-coach-kyle-shanahan-thread/page3364/

That is not QB-friendly. That is not OL-friendly. IMHO, of course.

So why did Mitchell have so much success on 1st down?

I'm not arguing it still can't work. Like I said, it's no secret. The issue is when it's clear the defense is adjusting to it and winning.

If you want to get granular and say one RB was more successful, that's fine.

But the point is, Kyle's run-centric first-down tendency does not make life easy on that OL, RB and eventually, the QB and the passing game. It leaves no room for error esp. when the volume is so small to overcome so many 2nd and longs.

That starts with Kyle. But we as a fan base typically spend our time down stream with the passing game.

Kyle can make this a whole lot easier on everyone. And we've seen that first hand when he has come out more pass-centric and balanced.

But when we did throw the ball and the pass was completed it ended up as a 1st down a majority of the time. So there was no opportunity for a 2nd and short. When Mitchell ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and short a majority of the time. When CMC ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and long a majority of the time. You don't see the pattern?

It's not just Kyle here either. Penalties too and poor execution lead to a number of 2nd and longs. Not just the rushing attempts. It's really his first down offense but a big part of that IS the obvious tendency to run on first downs in between the tackles.

To your other point, it was clear to me Mitchell was clearly the better rusher. But that was another tendency. Kyle stuck with CMC on a series and then Mitchell on a series. But both were only used in the rush game minus a pass or two.

Mitchell had no issues running the ball in between the tackles on 1st down inspite of this known tendency you speak of. CMC is not a downhill runner. Calling CMC's number on 1st down to run in between the tackles was the real issue and I hope that Kyle sees that on film and gets that corrected ASAP.

That's fair. Another tell is that Juice is in there with one or the other. My guess is Mitchell and Juice are probably more in sync with the intricate blocking scheme together vs. CMC who's still learning all of the nuances thus far.

To elaborate, DL just noted on his pod even further than I did. We were actually cumulatively negative on 1st AND 2nd downs.

Also, this still is not a formula for making life easier on a QB or the OL...the original point.

Not sure why we don't evaluate a play caller like we do a backup QB. Is there any scenario out there where we're equally critical of a game plan and play caller (not directed to you, YAC)?

If Mitchell wasn't finding the success he was having than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller on 1st downs. If receivers aren't getting open consistently because of coverage than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller. I just don't see the evidence that backs up the negative take on Kyle's playcalling.

As far as 2nd down situations, this is the first time I have seen it brought up. What is your evidence to back up your claim that 2nd down is also an issue when it comes to playcalling? Perhaps I should dig into those stats? But first, I'd like to see where you are coming from when it comes to 2nd down so that I am not doing the research for nothing.

It's his and Barrows, 'Here's the Catch,' podcast: A Sunday Night Comeback for the Niners

Advanced PFF stats. I'll try to get the time stamp for you. Edit: 32:40

I'm also not saying it wasn't a great game plan to start. I'm saying once it was obvious how they were defending it, he stuck with it making it very difficult for his QB and OL going forward.

Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

Matt Barrows and David Lombardi are YouTubers now?

I already gave you mine. They took it to 2nd downs too. And mine was just an observation.

Okay. Youtubers. Beat writers. Whatever. What about 2nd down are you concerned about when it comes to playcalling?

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Because I've posted it as proof in here for you that he had serious issues with the lack of control in this offensive scheme when LaFleur first arrived. That alone should dispell your theory Jimmy here has more control esp. given what we know about Kyle. LOL. He's a bit of a control freak.

And yes, Jimmy saved this game and was clutch. He had zero margin for error.

Rogers won two MVPs and what won 13 games each of his first 3 yrs? lol. Dude was gonna have a hissy fit over any HC that wasn't gonna allow him to go play backyard football. Talking about control freaks.

So what you think every single guy who's spent any time with the shanahan's coaches exactly the same way? So Burrow who learned for McVay who learned from the shanahan's doesn't give any control to burrow? McVay doesn't give Stafford any control? Your boy McDaniels doesn't allow Tua anything? Oh those don't count because they prove that theory wrong.

So first & second downs had NOTHING to do with the QB. But the 3rd down conversions were all Jimmy 😂 like he's running improving? I can't that type of nonsense seriously…I listen to your Here's the Catch and it's Lombardi's opinion lol. Typical

What does any of this have to do with how much a QB has control in a Kyle system?

No, DL was citing advanced metrics. The opposite of "his opinion." Lord.

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

I just listened to it, it was Lombardi's opinion nothing more…yes I'd like to know what on 1st or 2nd down was negative from a play calling aspect (we already pointed out audibles from Jimmy) AND what on 3rd down was not…because guess what Kyle still calls plays on 3rd down, shocker I know 🙃

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

How about jimmy and the O did a great job of executing the plays on crucial downs that Kyle put in place? We can give both of them credit?

jimmy benefits from kyles system and play calling while Kyle benefits from Jimmys execution, accuracy, and composure.

Yup. Even if this was one of Kyle's most vanilla game plans ever.

The good news is if we play a 3rd string team in the playoffs, we know we can still have a come-from-behind win in the 4Q with a run-centric game plan playing behind the sticks.

When Mitchell got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 3 yds, 7 yds, 8 yds, 9 yds, 7 yds, 12 yds, 1 yd and 6 yds. When CMC got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 4 yds, -1 yd, -1 yd, 3 yds, 5 yds, 12 yds, 0 yds, 0 yds and -3 yds. When Deebo got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 15 yds, 5 yds and 0 yds. On 1st down, Jimmy threw 3 incompletions, was sacked once and kneeled once. Only 1 pass on 1st down that was completed didn't go for a 1st down but instead went for 8. And 1 pass on 1st down that would have moved the chains ended up being a fumble and a turnover. The only reason that 2nd and long stat that you are throwing around to knock Kyle exists is because most of CMC's 1st down carries went nowhere. Mitchell didn't have that problem running it on 1st down.

Back up a few more steps. The reason we're a 2nd and long offense is because every DC in the world knows we're running on first downs more than any other team with the exception of three others.

Post #50448
https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/187983-49ers-head-coach-kyle-shanahan-thread/page3364/

That is not QB-friendly. That is not OL-friendly. IMHO, of course.

So why did Mitchell have so much success on 1st down?

I'm not arguing it still can't work. Like I said, it's no secret. The issue is when it's clear the defense is adjusting to it and winning.

If you want to get granular and say one RB was more successful, that's fine.

But the point is, Kyle's run-centric first-down tendency does not make life easy on that OL, RB and eventually, the QB and the passing game. It leaves no room for error esp. when the volume is so small to overcome so many 2nd and longs.

That starts with Kyle. But we as a fan base typically spend our time down stream with the passing game.

Kyle can make this a whole lot easier on everyone. And we've seen that first hand when he has come out more pass-centric and balanced.

But when we did throw the ball and the pass was completed it ended up as a 1st down a majority of the time. So there was no opportunity for a 2nd and short. When Mitchell ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and short a majority of the time. When CMC ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and long a majority of the time. You don't see the pattern?

It's not just Kyle here either. Penalties too and poor execution lead to a number of 2nd and longs. Not just the rushing attempts. It's really his first down offense but a big part of that IS the obvious tendency to run on first downs in between the tackles.

To your other point, it was clear to me Mitchell was clearly the better rusher. But that was another tendency. Kyle stuck with CMC on a series and then Mitchell on a series. But both were only used in the rush game minus a pass or two.

Mitchell had no issues running the ball in between the tackles on 1st down inspite of this known tendency you speak of. CMC is not a downhill runner. Calling CMC's number on 1st down to run in between the tackles was the real issue and I hope that Kyle sees that on film and gets that corrected ASAP.

That's fair. Another tell is that Juice is in there with one or the other. My guess is Mitchell and Juice are probably more in sync with the intricate blocking scheme together vs. CMC who's still learning all of the nuances thus far.

To elaborate, DL just noted on his pod even further than I did. We were actually cumulatively negative on 1st AND 2nd downs.

Also, this still is not a formula for making life easier on a QB or the OL...the original point.

Not sure why we don't evaluate a play caller like we do a backup QB. Is there any scenario out there where we're equally critical of a game plan and play caller (not directed to you, YAC)?

If Mitchell wasn't finding the success he was having than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller on 1st downs. If receivers aren't getting open consistently because of coverage than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller. I just don't see the evidence that backs up the negative take on Kyle's playcalling.

As far as 2nd down situations, this is the first time I have seen it brought up. What is your evidence to back up your claim that 2nd down is also an issue when it comes to playcalling? Perhaps I should dig into those stats? But first, I'd like to see where you are coming from when it comes to 2nd down so that I am not doing the research for nothing.

It's his and Barrows, 'Here's the Catch,' podcast: A Sunday Night Comeback for the Niners

Advanced PFF stats. I'll try to get the time stamp for you. Edit: 32:40

I'm also not saying it wasn't a great game plan to start. I'm saying once it was obvious how they were defending it, he stuck with it making it very difficult for his QB and OL going forward.

Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

Matt Barrows and David Lombardi are YouTubers now?

I already gave you mine. They took it to 2nd downs too. And mine was just an observation.

Okay. Youtubers. Beat writers. Whatever. What about 2nd down are you concerned about when it comes to playcalling?

Haha. He's citing advanced PFF so you can review it yourself but if you are cumulatively negative on 1st and 2nd downs, 3rd downs typically are longer and harder to achieve. No?

Again, not making it easy on an OL and QB to transcend. Esp. a dude like Mike McGlinchey. LOL

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

I just listened to it, it was Lombardi's opinion nothing more…yes I'd like to know what on 1st or 2nd down was negative from a play calling aspect (we already pointed out audibles from Jimmy) AND what on 3rd down was not…because guess what Kyle still calls plays on 3rd down, shocker I know 🙃

I debunked the 1st down theory already this morning by doing my own research. I am just trying to find out whether 2nd down is even worth looking into but NC keeps beating around the bush.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

I just listened to it, it was Lombardi's opinion nothing more…yes I'd like to know what on 1st or 2nd down was negative from a play calling aspect (we already pointed out audibles from Jimmy) AND what on 3rd down was not…because guess what Kyle still calls plays on 3rd down, shocker I know 🙃

Lies!

You sure are hyper protective of Kyle. It's not even Monday morning anymore. LOL

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Lol is this place always this negative after wins? Holy cow lol.

Almost everyone has complimented Jimmy after his game. He played good football again. But like every single week, when a play could have been better, Jimmy defenders react as if someone personally insulted their mothers. Then the discussion drags for days because people are incapable of accepting that a play wasnt perfect.

Take the Aiyuk drop for example. 100% of this board has said that Aiyuk should have caught it. But when someone says that Jimmy could have made it easier on Aiyuk by throwing it to a slightly better location, all hell breaks loose.

So one single pass surpasses his other big time throws on say third and longs? I personally don't see the big deal. I actually think Jimmy expected BA to stop in the zone and Aiyuk kept going. Regardless it very well should've been caught. I just don't think you can really say what happened there without an explanation from Jimmy, BA or Coach. There might be that I have missed admittedly but to me it seemed more like miscommunication/not reading each other than anything else.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

How about jimmy and the O did a great job of executing the plays on crucial downs that Kyle put in place? We can give both of them credit?

jimmy benefits from kyles system and play calling while Kyle benefits from Jimmys execution, accuracy, and composure.

Yup. Even if this was one of Kyle's most vanilla game plans ever.

The good news is if we play a 3rd string team in the playoffs, we know we can still have a come-from-behind win in the 4Q with a run-centric game plan playing behind the sticks.

When Mitchell got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 3 yds, 7 yds, 8 yds, 9 yds, 7 yds, 12 yds, 1 yd and 6 yds. When CMC got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 4 yds, -1 yd, -1 yd, 3 yds, 5 yds, 12 yds, 0 yds, 0 yds and -3 yds. When Deebo got the ball on 1st down he had carries of 15 yds, 5 yds and 0 yds. On 1st down, Jimmy threw 3 incompletions, was sacked once and kneeled once. Only 1 pass on 1st down that was completed didn't go for a 1st down but instead went for 8. And 1 pass on 1st down that would have moved the chains ended up being a fumble and a turnover. The only reason that 2nd and long stat that you are throwing around to knock Kyle exists is because most of CMC's 1st down carries went nowhere. Mitchell didn't have that problem running it on 1st down.

Back up a few more steps. The reason we're a 2nd and long offense is because every DC in the world knows we're running on first downs more than any other team with the exception of three others.

Post #50448
https://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/187983-49ers-head-coach-kyle-shanahan-thread/page3364/

That is not QB-friendly. That is not OL-friendly. IMHO, of course.

So why did Mitchell have so much success on 1st down?

I'm not arguing it still can't work. Like I said, it's no secret. The issue is when it's clear the defense is adjusting to it and winning.

If you want to get granular and say one RB was more successful, that's fine.

But the point is, Kyle's run-centric first-down tendency does not make life easy on that OL, RB and eventually, the QB and the passing game. It leaves no room for error esp. when the volume is so small to overcome so many 2nd and longs.

That starts with Kyle. But we as a fan base typically spend our time down stream with the passing game.

Kyle can make this a whole lot easier on everyone. And we've seen that first hand when he has come out more pass-centric and balanced.

But when we did throw the ball and the pass was completed it ended up as a 1st down a majority of the time. So there was no opportunity for a 2nd and short. When Mitchell ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and short a majority of the time. When CMC ran the ball, it ended up being 2nd and long a majority of the time. You don't see the pattern?

It's not just Kyle here either. Penalties too and poor execution lead to a number of 2nd and longs. Not just the rushing attempts. It's really his first down offense but a big part of that IS the obvious tendency to run on first downs in between the tackles.

To your other point, it was clear to me Mitchell was clearly the better rusher. But that was another tendency. Kyle stuck with CMC on a series and then Mitchell on a series. But both were only used in the rush game minus a pass or two.

Mitchell had no issues running the ball in between the tackles on 1st down inspite of this known tendency you speak of. CMC is not a downhill runner. Calling CMC's number on 1st down to run in between the tackles was the real issue and I hope that Kyle sees that on film and gets that corrected ASAP.

That's fair. Another tell is that Juice is in there with one or the other. My guess is Mitchell and Juice are probably more in sync with the intricate blocking scheme together vs. CMC who's still learning all of the nuances thus far.

To elaborate, DL just noted on his pod even further than I did. We were actually cumulatively negative on 1st AND 2nd downs.

Also, this still is not a formula for making life easier on a QB or the OL...the original point.

Not sure why we don't evaluate a play caller like we do a backup QB. Is there any scenario out there where we're equally critical of a game plan and play caller (not directed to you, YAC)?

If Mitchell wasn't finding the success he was having than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller on 1st downs. If receivers aren't getting open consistently because of coverage than it would be justifiable to question the playcaller. I just don't see the evidence that backs up the negative take on Kyle's playcalling.

As far as 2nd down situations, this is the first time I have seen it brought up. What is your evidence to back up your claim that 2nd down is also an issue when it comes to playcalling? Perhaps I should dig into those stats? But first, I'd like to see where you are coming from when it comes to 2nd down so that I am not doing the research for nothing.

It's his and Barrows, 'Here's the Catch,' podcast: A Sunday Night Comeback for the Niners

Advanced PFF stats. I'll try to get the time stamp for you. Edit: 32:40

I'm also not saying it wasn't a great game plan to start. I'm saying once it was obvious how they were defending it, he stuck with it making it very difficult for his QB and OL going forward.

Not trying to sound like an a*****e but I really don't give a s**t about what some youtuber says. They are a dime a dozen and all have their own opinions which are usually all over the place. I want your assessment. Your researched evidence to back up your claims. So what about 2nd down do you believe is a negative on Kyle Shanahan the playcaller?

Matt Barrows and David Lombardi are YouTubers now?

I already gave you mine. They took it to 2nd downs too. And mine was just an observation.

Okay. Youtubers. Beat writers. Whatever. What about 2nd down are you concerned about when it comes to playcalling?

Haha. He's citing advanced PFF so you can review it yourself but if you are cumulatively negative on 1st and 2nd downs, 3rd downs typically are longer and harder to achieve. No?

Again, not making it easy on an OL and QB to transcend. Esp. a dude like Mike McGlinchey. LOL

So you are bringing up 2nd down in the same light as you were 1st down? You are saying we are in a lot of 3rd and longs due to failure to get positive yards on 2nd down due to playcalling?

Originally posted by NCommand:
What does any of this have to do with how much a QB has control in a Kyle system?

No, DL was citing advanced metrics. The opposite of "his opinion." Lord.

"Advanced metrics" saying what? That Kyle's play calling was the problem on early downs, but it played no part on 3rd down? Do you see how dumb that sounds?

what does Rogers have to do with anything? You deflected to a different coach and QB. So I showed other coaches under the same Shanny umbrella.

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Lol is this place always this negative after wins? Holy cow lol.

Almost everyone has complimented Jimmy after his game. He played good football again. But like every single week, when a play could have been better, Jimmy defenders react as if someone personally insulted their mothers. Then the discussion drags for days because people are incapable of accepting that a play wasnt perfect.

Take the Aiyuk drop for example. 100% of this board has said that Aiyuk should have caught it. But when someone says that Jimmy could have made it easier on Aiyuk by throwing it to a slightly better location, all hell breaks loose.

So one single pass surpasses his other big time throws on say third and longs? I personally don't see the big deal. I actually think Jimmy expected BA to stop in the zone and Aiyuk kept going. Regardless it very well should've been caught. I just don't think you can really say what happened there without an explanation from Jimmy, BA or Coach. There might be that I have missed admittedly but to me it seemed more like miscommunication/not reading each other than anything else.

Nope. Thats not what I nor anyone else said.