49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
I understand supporting Shanahan. But what's with the anti mcvay people? The guy has taken the team to 2 superbowls in 5 years, is a superbowl champion, and is the youngest coach to win a superbowl. This is the guy that Shanahan yelled at for not laminating his play sheet.

The guy has been extremely successful and a great hire and if you can't be envious of that you've got homer goggles on.

Both are good coaches, and the 6-1 record against McVay gives me hope that Kyle is the better coach vs McVay. Key is for Kyle's GM to be better than McVAy's GM. That means we keep Adam Peters as long as we can, and bolster the personnel that is surrounding John Lynch, just in case Adam decides to go to be a Bottom Feeder GM.

I think the 49ers are set up for long term success. For example, twice now in three years - the 49ers have been to the NFCCG. Their strategy of building through the draft seems to be working. Keep in mind during the Dynasty Years, the 49ers appeared in (I think) almost 20 straight playoff games, and only had 5 super bowls to show for it. Drafting almost dead last ShanaLYnch got Aiyuk and Jauan Jennings, vs HarBaalke and AJ Jenkins. So clearly ShanaLych, drafting even dead last, still draft well. I think the future is bright with Trey and the Rams star will be descending for some time, perhaps even for a half decade, considering their cap hell situation.

At some point in time the NFC West will be one of the weaker divisions in the NFL, and not the strongest. It's my hope that the 49ers will be dominating the NFC west if that happens, just like the Patriots did the AFC east.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
I understand supporting Shanahan. But what's with the anti mcvay people? The guy has taken the team to 2 superbowls in 5 years, is a superbowl champion, and is the youngest coach to win a superbowl. This is the guy that Shanahan yelled at for not laminating his play sheet.

The guy has been extremely successful and a great hire and if you can't be envious of that you've got homer goggles on.

Envious?

Why would I be envious of someone else's hot GF when I have my own hot GF?

#Faithful

Speaking of hot wife/GFs. That's the only area McVay has a clear advantage over every coach in the NFL.

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
I understand supporting Shanahan. But what's with the anti mcvay people? The guy has taken the team to 2 superbowls in 5 years, is a superbowl champion, and is the youngest coach to win a superbowl. This is the guy that Shanahan yelled at for not laminating his play sheet.

The guy has been extremely successful and a great hire and if you can't be envious of that you've got homer goggles on.

Why should we be envious of McVay when the circumstances and teams each coach took over are vastly different?

How good do you think McVay looks without Donald? We saw what McVay did before he was able to get a top level QB.

Shouldn't we see what Kyle can do with one first before we become "envious" of McVay?

Am I envious of the Rams winning the SB? Absolutely. Am I envious of the Rams having McVay as HC, no. I'm more impressed by the job Shanahan has done with the 49ers than I am with what McVay has done regardless of the record of this last SB win.

Shanahan took over a rebuild roster with very few building blocks in place, certainly nobody of the level of Aaron Donald.
Shanahan had a first time GM to work with(I understand that was his choice)
Shanahan had a first time DC to work with

Right now McVay has the leg up in production but overall Shanahan has done a more impressive job with what he was given and I'm certainly not envious of McVay as a HC. That's not putting him down and it's not being anti McVay, it's just appreciating the job Shanahan has done and keeping everything in perspective when evaluating each job.

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ritz126:
this

I'm confused by the people bashing shannahan and propping McVay in this thread

its like people are so reactionary and dont think critically. One franchise sold out to win in next 2 years or so. One franchise is built to win now but also set themselves up to be a potential winner in next 10 years

I think both are top 5 coaches but i think Shannahan has proven himself to be clearly better. Rams were SB favorites to begin the season

It's not like we didn't make moves either....traded for the best LT in football. traded for a top EDGE who simply couldn't stay healthy. Trade for Sanders during the SB run. Also made the biggest trade in franchise history last draft.

When you're trying to trade for those star vets, they have a say in where they want to go. SF is clearly appealing BUT LA is always a top destination no matter what sport it is. That's never gonna change.

Trent Williams was a big trade but Dee Ford is not something would classify as a big trade. I mean Rams are pulling a basaeball type of moves

Traded 2 first for Jalen Ramsey
Traded 2 first for Stafford (34 years old)
Traded for Von miller who is a FA after this year

I dont think they had many big FA signings you could argue OBJ which is a fair point but they built a roster through trading high draft picks.

Also im not arguing against this strategy they clearly had the best roster in the NFL thats why they were SB favorites and that was before von miller and OBJ came which only made them stronger.

But on the flip side there is no arguing this will hurt them long term

How is trading for a top pass rusher using 2 2nd round picks not a big trade? Just cuz Ford got hurt and hasn't played much doesn't change they went for it and it resulted in a trip to the SB which he was very critical in.

49ers are trying to build a lasting team. Rams are cashing in all their chips. They got the SB so it was a success, can't argue otherwise but it certainly seemed like they got some nice assists along the way. LA market being a waste of football and the SB being at their home stadium certainly seems tin foil hat worthy as well.

OBJ, Miller wanted to go to LA because they were winning and had a good QB(for OBJ) if Trey proves to be a franchise QB vets will be flocking to join us much the same way.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ritz126:
this

I'm confused by the people bashing shannahan and propping McVay in this thread

its like people are so reactionary and dont think critically. One franchise sold out to win in next 2 years or so. One franchise is built to win now but also set themselves up to be a potential winner in next 10 years

I think both are top 5 coaches but i think Shannahan has proven himself to be clearly better. Rams were SB favorites to begin the season

It's not like we didn't make moves either....traded for the best LT in football. traded for a top EDGE who simply couldn't stay healthy. Trade for Sanders during the SB run. Also made the biggest trade in franchise history last draft.

When you're trying to trade for those star vets, they have a say in where they want to go. SF is clearly appealing BUT LA is always a top destination no matter what sport it is. That's never gonna change.

Trent Williams was a big trade but Dee Ford is not something would classify as a big trade. I mean Rams are pulling a basaeball type of moves

Traded 2 first for Jalen Ramsey
Traded 2 first for Stafford (34 years old)
Traded for Von miller who is a FA after this year

I dont think they had many big FA signings you could argue OBJ which is a fair point but they built a roster through trading high draft picks.

Also im not arguing against this strategy they clearly had the best roster in the NFL thats why they were SB favorites and that was before von miller and OBJ came which only made them stronger.

But on the flip side there is no arguing this will hurt them long term

How is trading for a top pass rusher using 2 2nd round picks not a big trade? Just cuz Ford got hurt and hasn't played much doesn't change they went for it and it resulted in a trip to the SB which he was very critical in.

49ers are trying to build a lasting team. Rams are cashing in all their chips. They got the SB so it was a success, can't argue otherwise but it certainly seemed like they got some nice assists along the way. LA market being a waste of football and the SB being at their home stadium certainly seems tin foil hat worthy as well.

OBJ, Miller wanted to go to LA because they were winning and had a good QB(for OBJ) if Trey proves to be a franchise QB vets will be flocking to join us much the same way.

I really do not get the sold out narrative or dynasty narrative. They have had a winning record every season since mcvay started and they had Goff for most of those years. What do you consider a dynasty? They've been good for 5 straight years.

They were good without Stafford.

I mean the Rams cashed in less for Stafford than we did and already got a trophy out of it. We don't even know if lance will even be a franchise QB.

Shanahan and lynch need to observe and take the good parts of their system (which is essentially the same as ours) and disregard the bad parts like blowing challenges etc...

Originally posted by stefano89:

Originally posted by pillageDatazz:

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
This guy Routinely loses the big game with big leads. Championship games and Super Bowls. He's actually horrific in those games. Especially with a lead.

So it was horrific to call plays where Aiyuk was wide open and didn't get the ball?

Mcvay can win the big game. But not Shanahan.

McVay's players made plays when they had to. Shanahan's players didn't. McVay was an idiot in our game but his stars made more plays. Dude made terrible challenges, s**t timeouts and got lucky our guys didn't execute. That's how it goes sometimes.

And while I'm not a tin foil hat guy…sometimes calls or no calls can swing a game and suddenly one coach looks like a chump and "can't win the big one" and another won.

Doesn't that tell you how bad of a HC Shanny10 is ?

you said it yourself... McVay was an idiot.... and KS10 still couldn't win the game..

"McVay's players made plays when they had to. Shanahan's players didn't"

Not to mention, maybe you forgot, but our defense held them to 7 points for 3 quarters, which rarely happens to their explosive offense

Defense got gassed. Our QB couldn't carry the team when we needed him to and most of that (unable to execute) wasn't on Shanny, Einstein

Ya but whose choice was it to continue to run the ball up the middle into a wall DL. That's not on the qb that's the play caller. I highly doubt JG10 audible called all the plays into runs that we're getting nowhere all game. That's on the coach. An that's why we lost. The run is getting stuffed all game, we have a 3rd an 2 that we HAVE TO convert to have a chance at winning…..an he runs our FB up the middle. Again. Into a….you guessed it a wall.

Terrible terrible play call. WRs we're wide open right behind the DL. Right where JG10 thrives. I wish he woulda said f**k you shanahan I'm not throwin this game I'm gonna go win an audibled into his own plays. Was like that all game. That's not on the qb that's on the coaching an that's the main reason we lost.

let's just hope the coach that called those idiotic season ending plays is now in Miami an not in SF.

Did you watch the Rams in the SB? And you wanna talk about running into walls?

Run plays still need player execution. It's not like he called a run out of a 4 WR set in shotgun. Sherfield missed his block and Weddle made a smart vet play. That's execution.

Imagine bashing a HC for running on 2nd and 1 like that was a bad idea with a team that won all our games on the strength of the running game? If you want to b***h then b***h about the run with Juice on 3rd down vs letting Deebo have a crack at it.

Though I do think Deebo was hurting in that game at the end.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ritz126:
this

I'm confused by the people bashing shannahan and propping McVay in this thread

its like people are so reactionary and dont think critically. One franchise sold out to win in next 2 years or so. One franchise is built to win now but also set themselves up to be a potential winner in next 10 years

I think both are top 5 coaches but i think Shannahan has proven himself to be clearly better. Rams were SB favorites to begin the season

It's not like we didn't make moves either....traded for the best LT in football. traded for a top EDGE who simply couldn't stay healthy. Trade for Sanders during the SB run. Also made the biggest trade in franchise history last draft.

When you're trying to trade for those star vets, they have a say in where they want to go. SF is clearly appealing BUT LA is always a top destination no matter what sport it is. That's never gonna change.

Trent Williams was a big trade but Dee Ford is not something would classify as a big trade. I mean Rams are pulling a basaeball type of moves

Traded 2 first for Jalen Ramsey
Traded 2 first for Stafford (34 years old)
Traded for Von miller who is a FA after this year

I dont think they had many big FA signings you could argue OBJ which is a fair point but they built a roster through trading high draft picks.

Also im not arguing against this strategy they clearly had the best roster in the NFL thats why they were SB favorites and that was before von miller and OBJ came which only made them stronger.

But on the flip side there is no arguing this will hurt them long term

How is trading for a top pass rusher using 2 2nd round picks not a big trade? Just cuz Ford got hurt and hasn't played much doesn't change they went for it and it resulted in a trip to the SB which he was very critical in.

49ers are trying to build a lasting team. Rams are cashing in all their chips. They got the SB so it was a success, can't argue otherwise but it certainly seemed like they got some nice assists along the way. LA market being a waste of football and the SB being at their home stadium certainly seems tin foil hat worthy as well.

OBJ, Miller wanted to go to LA because they were winning and had a good QB(for OBJ) if Trey proves to be a franchise QB vets will be flocking to join us much the same way.

I really do not get the sold out narrative or dynasty narrative. They have had a winning record every season since mcvay started and they had Goff for most of those years. What do you consider a dynasty? They've been good for 5 straight years.

They were good without Stafford.

I mean the Rams cashed in less for Stafford than we did and already got a trophy out of it. We don't even know if lance will even be a franchise QB.

Shanahan and lynch need to observe and take the good parts of their system (which is essentially the same as ours) and disregard the bad parts like blowing challenges etc...

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
I really do not get the sold out narrative or dynasty narrative. They have had a winning record every season since mcvay started and they had Goff for most of those years. What do you consider a dynasty? They've been good for 5 straight years.

They were good without Stafford.

I mean the Rams cashed in less for Stafford than we did and already got a trophy out of it. We don't even know if lance will even be a franchise QB.

Shanahan and lynch need to observe and take the good parts of their system (which is essentially the same as ours) and disregard the bad parts like blowing challenges etc...

Trading for Stafford and trading for Lance are different types of moves though---

Stafford is a short-term, we're going to win now move (that paid off for them). They're going to enjoy their Super Bowl this year, but I'm doubtful they can repeat this success past next year.

Lance is a steadier, long-term move. If he fails, then yeah... that's potentially damning for Shanahan/Lynch because of the loss of two first round picks (hedged by whatever draft picks we get from trading Jimmy), but from a long-term perspective... it helps to have our starting QB on a rookie contract for the next few years---the organization has the flexibility to maneuver. And if Trey Lance DOES pan out....... sky's the limit.

Just different ways of going about it. But certainly.... kudos to the Rams. Their moves paid off this year.

Originally posted by Wubbie:

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
I really do not get the sold out narrative or dynasty narrative. They have had a winning record every season since mcvay started and they had Goff for most of those years. What do you consider a dynasty? They've been good for 5 straight years.

They were good without Stafford.

I mean the Rams cashed in less for Stafford than we did and already got a trophy out of it. We don't even know if lance will even be a franchise QB.

Shanahan and lynch need to observe and take the good parts of their system (which is essentially the same as ours) and disregard the bad parts like blowing challenges etc...

Trading for Stafford and trading for Lance are different types of moves though---

Stafford is a short-term, we're going to win now move (that paid off for them). They're going to enjoy their Super Bowl this year, but I'm doubtful they can repeat this success past next year.

Lance is a steadier, long-term move. If he fails, then yeah... that's potentially damning for Shanahan/Lynch because of the loss of two first round picks (hedged by whatever draft picks we get from trading Jimmy), but from a long-term perspective... it helps to have our starting QB on a rookie contract for the next few years---the organization has the flexibility to maneuver. And if Trey Lance DOES pan out....... sky's the limit.

Just different ways of going about it. But certainly.... kudos to the Rams. Their moves paid off this year.

Stafford is only 34. He can easily have another 3 to 4 peak years. I wouldn't call a 5 year plan a short term plan.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
This guy Routinely loses the big game with big leads. Championship games and Super Bowls. He's actually horrific in those games. Especially with a lead.

So it was horrific to call plays where Aiyuk was wide open and didn't get the ball?

Mcvay can win the big game. But not Shanahan.

McVay's players made plays when they had to. Shanahan's players didn't. McVay was an idiot in our game but his stars made more plays. Dude made terrible challenges, s**t timeouts and got lucky our guys didn't execute. That's how it goes sometimes.

And while I'm not a tin foil hat guy…sometimes calls or no calls can swing a game and suddenly one coach looks like a chump and "can't win the big one" and another won.

Doesn't that tell you how bad of a HC Shanny10 is ?

you said it yourself... McVay was an idiot.... and KS10 still couldn't win the game..

Honestly mcvay is hands down better than shanahan. He has never had a losing season since starting as a head coach been to two Superbowls and won one. And he had Goff and he still had winning seasons.

It's blind homerism on that debate.

Now I will say that I think shanahan may be better than Carroll. Wilson is just that good that he can make up for their constant terrible drafting and boneheaded plays. I'm not sure Carroll can hack it anymore.

Both shanahan and mcvay have things to learn. Shanahan has Improved on his poor clock management but sometimes he gets really uncreative with play calling.

Mcvay needs to quite wasting timeouts on dumb challenges.

He's better at scheming guys open. Kupp basically was unstoppable in the playoffs even getting double teams and teams knowing they had to stop him. Mcvay was able to scheme him open.

One thing to consider about the overall record between the two. The L.A. team that McVay took over was a lot closer to what we were when Jim Harbaugh took over, a team with good amount of pieces already there, and about take off. That in no way was a ground up rebuild. The other thing is just a change of philosophy acquiring players. The Rams morgage their (eventual) future for established vets. While we take more of a draft and develop position. Theoretically the draft and develop approach keeps your competitve window open longer, while an approach like the Rams you find yourself with a bunch of guys who are down to their last 5-7 years of playing. It will be interesting to see how long the Rams can keep it going, but eventually that roster is going to get old and it may happen quickly (between 2-3 years. Honestly if the roles were reversed and eash team hired the other coach in 2017 I'm not sure each teams outcomes would have been much different from where they are now.

https://overthecap.com/2021-season-preview-the-nfls-youngest-and-oldest-rosters/

They have a younger roster than us.

Their roster is young. The question is what happens at the top.

Their key pieces this year were
Stafford - 34
Kupp - 28
Donald - 30 - talking about retiring
Ramsey - 27
Whitworth - 40 - retiring
Miller - 32 FA
Floyd - 29
OBJ - 29 FA

Most of the guys we have who are over 30 years old are more depth pieces outside of Trent Williams(33) and Alex Mack(36)

Outside of Trent our top talent guys are all in their prime or super young.

For the Rams it's all about how long Stafford can keep playing, and how long at a high level - how do they replace Whitworth? Their starting C and RG are also free agents this offseason.

We'll see what both teams look like going into next year. Definitely gonna be some changes to both squads. We're short on cap space now but can free up a bunch by moving Jimmy. Rams right now are at -10 million in cap space...certainly can clear cap space with Whitworth retiring and extensions to some guys but it will be interesting to see the Rams next season.

Please retire Aaron Donald...go out on top of the world.

Originally posted by Wubbie:
Trading for Stafford and trading for Lance are different types of moves though---

Stafford is a short-term, we're going to win now move (that paid off for them). They're going to enjoy their Super Bowl this year, but I'm doubtful they can repeat this success past next year.

Lance is a steadier, long-term move. If he fails, then yeah... that's potentially damning for Shanahan/Lynch because of the loss of two first round picks (hedged by whatever draft picks we get from trading Jimmy), but from a long-term perspective... it helps to have our starting QB on a rookie contract for the next few years---the organization has the flexibility to maneuver. And if Trey Lance DOES pan out....... sky's the limit.

Just different ways of going about it. But certainly.... kudos to the Rams. Their moves paid off this year.

I argue it's riskier. Stafford you new what you were getting. It is true he is older but he still has years left. It's entirely possible the rest of his career is longer than lances.

Lance has more upside because he's not a known commodity and younger but he also has significantly more downside and he costs more.

The chances are not great that top 10 QBs pan out
https://football.pitcherlist.com/pessimists-guide-to-the-nfl-draft/

It would look a lot better had we not mortgaged so much for lance.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ritz126:
this

I'm confused by the people bashing shannahan and propping McVay in this thread

its like people are so reactionary and dont think critically. One franchise sold out to win in next 2 years or so. One franchise is built to win now but also set themselves up to be a potential winner in next 10 years

I think both are top 5 coaches but i think Shannahan has proven himself to be clearly better. Rams were SB favorites to begin the season

It's not like we didn't make moves either....traded for the best LT in football. traded for a top EDGE who simply couldn't stay healthy. Trade for Sanders during the SB run. Also made the biggest trade in franchise history last draft.

When you're trying to trade for those star vets, they have a say in where they want to go. SF is clearly appealing BUT LA is always a top destination no matter what sport it is. That's never gonna change.

Trent Williams was a big trade but Dee Ford is not something would classify as a big trade. I mean Rams are pulling a basaeball type of moves

Traded 2 first for Jalen Ramsey
Traded 2 first for Stafford (34 years old)
Traded for Von miller who is a FA after this year

I dont think they had many big FA signings you could argue OBJ which is a fair point but they built a roster through trading high draft picks.

Also im not arguing against this strategy they clearly had the best roster in the NFL thats why they were SB favorites and that was before von miller and OBJ came which only made them stronger.

But on the flip side there is no arguing this will hurt them long term

How is trading for a top pass rusher using 2 2nd round picks not a big trade? Just cuz Ford got hurt and hasn't played much doesn't change they went for it and it resulted in a trip to the SB which he was very critical in.

49ers are trying to build a lasting team. Rams are cashing in all their chips. They got the SB so it was a success, can't argue otherwise but it certainly seemed like they got some nice assists along the way. LA market being a waste of football and the SB being at their home stadium certainly seems tin foil hat worthy as well.

OBJ, Miller wanted to go to LA because they were winning and had a good QB(for OBJ) if Trey proves to be a franchise QB vets will be flocking to join us much the same way.

I really do not get the sold out narrative or dynasty narrative. They have had a winning record every season since mcvay started and they had Goff for most of those years. What do you consider a dynasty? They've been good for 5 straight years.

They were good without Stafford.

I mean the Rams cashed in less for Stafford than we did and already got a trophy out of it. We don't even know if lance will even be a franchise QB.

Shanahan and lynch need to observe and take the good parts of their system (which is essentially the same as ours) and disregard the bad parts like blowing challenges etc...

Well for one...where in my post did I mention dynasty?

You bring up blowing challenges when the discussion is about McVay vs Shanahan and think you're doing something? Did you forget how terrible McVay was in our last game? He got incredibly lucky our guys dropped the ball(literally in some cases) because he had his guys without any timeouts at home with terrible challenges that had no business being made.

The only thing Shanahan should want to emulate from McVay is his luck having his key players avoid injuries early in the season.

You bring up them cashing in for Stafford but forget they also added Ramsey(after we embarrassed them in 2019 btw), they added Von Miller and OBJ(both free agents) Stafford is up for a new deal after next year.

So yes they got a SB out of it but had OBJ chosen another team or Von Miller didn't want to be traded they're watching at home. Obviously Lance has to prove himself but that's the difference in trading up for a rookie to develop vs going with a vet QB. It worked out for them but let's not act like it was a move made for long term success.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
Stafford is only 34. He can easily have another 3 to 4 peak years. I wouldn't call a 5 year plan a short term plan.

Fair point... just depends on how well he ages. Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers have aged well. Matt Ryan has declined at Age 36.

Reports are saying though that the Rams are looking to extend Stafford, who is only signed through 2022. That's going to be a huge contract for the next few years. They'll be competitive with him at QB, but their cap should be maxed out in the next few years and they haven't had a first round pick since 2016. I could certainly see them falling off in the same way the Seahawks did---after Russell Wilson signed his contract, the Seahawks were always a playoff team, but their rosters never felt very balanced and were not the world-wreckers we saw them in 2012-2014.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
I argue it's riskier. Stafford you new what you were getting. It is true he is older but he still has years left. It's entirely possible the rest of his career is longer than lances.

Lance has more upside because he's not a known commodity and younger but he also has significantly more downside and he costs more.

The chances are not great that top 10 QBs pan out
https://football.pitcherlist.com/pessimists-guide-to-the-nfl-draft/

It would look a lot better had we not mortgaged so much for lance.

Very true point. Of course, I do point out that there's very little precedence of a playoff contending team drafting a QB in the top 10.

Failed rookie QB's tend to fail because of their surrounding casts. Alex Smith turned out to be a solid, above-average QB, but that guy was ruined by ending up on a roster that previously went 2-14, and suffered through mismanagement by Nolan/Singletary.

Trey Lance is about in as advantageous position to develop as you could possibly get.

* Choked in Super Bowl as OC with a big lead.

* Choked in Super Bowl with a lead.

* Choked in the NFCCG with a lead.

Not a big game coach. If you are up in big games he routinely finds ways to lose.

Facts are facts guys.