49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So if thousands of vehicles disappear in one area on the planet, we just say, "Man, those captains just weren't lucky?" No point in looking at all the potential reasons for why that is.

Who said don't look at it?

This is all we're doing. You instantly dismissing a potential piece to it and chalking everything up to luck is really, the only issue.

it's not all we're doing. it's what you are doing. You can't accept a guy getting hurt from not protecting himself.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So if thousands of vehicles disappear in one area on the planet, we just say, "Man, those captains just weren't lucky?" No point in looking at all the potential reasons for why that is.

Who said don't look at it?

This is all we're doing. You instantly dismissing a potential piece to it and chalking everything up to luck is really, the only issue.

it's not all we're doing. it's what you are doing. You can't accept a guy getting hurt from not protecting himself.

Outside of thl, show me one other theory that's been presented other than luck and a gif.

How about you? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter other than just responses to my discussion points on the matter? Hoov? 9ers4eva? Hmmmm.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So if thousands of vehicles disappear in one area on the planet, we just say, "Man, those captains just weren't lucky?" No point in looking at all the potential reasons for why that is.

Who said don't look at it?

This is all we're doing. You instantly dismissing a potential piece to it and chalking everything up to luck is really, the only issue.

it's not all we're doing. it's what you are doing. You can't accept a guy getting hurt from not protecting himself.

Outside of thl, show me one other theory that's been presented other than luck and a gif.

How about you? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter other than just responses to my discussion points on the matter? Hoov? 9ers4eva? Hmmmm.

WWe use skinny lineman. It gets our skill players killed. That's my theory.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So if thousands of vehicles disappear in one area on the planet, we just say, "Man, those captains just weren't lucky?" No point in looking at all the potential reasons for why that is.

Who said don't look at it?

This is all we're doing. You instantly dismissing a potential piece to it and chalking everything up to luck is really, the only issue.

it's not all we're doing. it's what you are doing. You can't accept a guy getting hurt from not protecting himself.

Outside of thl, show me one other theory that's been presented other than luck and a gif.

How about you? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter other than just responses to my discussion points on the matter? Hoov? 9ers4eva? Hmmmm.

What theory ..why does there does there need to be some high power lol

i can accept reality, so i don't need to make things up

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So if thousands of vehicles disappear in one area on the planet, we just say, "Man, those captains just weren't lucky?" No point in looking at all the potential reasons for why that is.

Who said don't look at it?

This is all we're doing. You instantly dismissing a potential piece to it and chalking everything up to luck is really, the only issue.

it's not all we're doing. it's what you are doing. You can't accept a guy getting hurt from not protecting himself.

Outside of thl, show me one other theory that's been presented other than luck and a gif.

How about you? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter other than just responses to my discussion points on the matter? Hoov? 9ers4eva? Hmmmm.

WWe use skinny lineman. It gets our skill players killed. That's my theory.

And Kyle agrees! Hence why he moved to stronger G's with more powerful RB's upon moving more to IZ and power. Was this the healthiest the OL has ever been? Who knew?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Are we are talking Kyle's offensive scheme or defense too? Because if it's just offense, which I've been focusing on when you mention "Kyle's scheme", then that AGL list should be tailored to just offensive players. I'm not asking you to do that, just that the list is not relevant to what you and I have been discussing about Kyle's scheme. I was hoping that was clear when I listed a bunch of offensive characteristics in the post above - we're talking offensive scheme.

I just can't get on board with the bolded about how thinking more results in more injuries. I can't prove you wrong though.

I agree with you that there is no one single answer. But I have not seen evidence that it's the offensive scheme that promotes more injury. I don't know what to call this type of logic you are using - "People that breathe oxygen will die". Whatever the term is, I feel like that's the logic being applied by saying, "Players in Kyle's scheme are more likely to get injured". It's looking at the result, then pointing to some reason that is related, but can't be proven to play a role.

This might surprise you, but Kyle's scheme isn't some unorthodox style of offense. The most unique thing about Kyle's scheme is the players he's using to execute it. Sure he lines up players in different positions, but then now we're talking about how Deebo in the backfield running to the flat, or CMC running a slant from the slot promotes more injuries.

No, just offense. I was just using the Harbaugh regime to show the delineation of scheme-health. Granted, with the overall volume, all gas, no brakes could easily be part of the discussion as well in the total volume that makes up your annual AGL stats.

No worries on the hesitation thing...was just typing out loud there, picturing young rookies trying to play while thinking and what can happen within the speed of the NFL.

The results are a very consistent and an even predictable pattern that shows an extreme outlier position. Looking at all of the different factors that play into that makeup, scheme being one of those, is appropriate. At the end of the day, it's probably a collection of everything that makes up the outlier results (e.g. scheme, players targeted for the scheme, strength and conditioning, Fsyical mantra, volume of runs, volume of snaps counts with deep runs in the playoffs, player skill sets, player in-game decision making, luck, mindset to fight for the extra yard or take the sacrificial hit while throwing vs. making a business decision, etc.).

Appreciate the discussion either way though.

I just don't see anything that stands out in Kyle's offensive scheme that points to it resulting in more injuries. There isn't any one thing that the SF offense does that other teams don't do. Running the ball? There are other teams that run the ball more often than the 49ers. Running then passing, and switching back and forth, all teams do this. Requiring players to think before they execute, all teams do that. Perhaps strength and conditioning, but that's not offensive scheme.

I'll keep an open mind but until there is something distinct that sticks out as a reason that might cause more injuries due to Kyle's offensive scheme, I can't get on board with the scheme being a contributor to more injuries. I don't think we can prove it either way with the data we have. All the numbers out there for injuries are for team injuries (offense and defense), and we're just talking offense.

I think it has a lot to do with Shanahan's scheme, which requires a lot to be processed both pre- and post- snap, along with the inexperience or inability of our Quarterbacks to pull the trigger in a timely fashion.

to break it down further, I think opposing team DARE our quarterbacks to throw. With Jimmy, it's because he has limitations with his field of vision, so teams know to cram the middle of the field and take away the short/intermediate pass. With Trey / Brock it's just inexperience and teams think they're more likely to make mistakes if they're forced into errant passes.

So in essence, you're seeing our quarterbacks trying to process a lot of information before they throw the ball. Teams take advantage by playing aggressive in the box and forcing our guys out of the pocket or throwing it quicker than they'd like….and when our QBs just take that extra millisecond to read the play, they get hit.

Case on point, look at Brock's injury. He actually waits for Aiyuk (or maybe it was Deebo) to make a break before he throws the ball, instead of anticipating the break and releasing it just a millisecond earlier. If he had done that, yea he would have taken the hit but would not have lost his arm in the process.

It's why guys like Brady or Rodgers would thrive in this offense. They have quick releases and base their game on anticipation, rather than waiting on plays to develop. I think Brock has the ability to develop that as well with time and experience. Trey…meh…not so much. From the limited games we've seen, he's still in the "I gotta see the guy get open before I throw it to him" phase.

So IMO, it's a little bit of both. It's the QBs fault for putting themselves in that situation where they get hammered and subsequently hurt, but no doubt Kyle doesn't always dish out plays that are boom boom boom let's go down the field. They're all strategically planned plays that need multiple pieces to do certain things before the play develops, and that is why these youngsters take hits.

By the way, the times when Jimmy is clicking and he's using that quick release he looks awfully good in Kyle's offense. It's when he slows it down and tries to make the special reads then he takes the hits and gets injured…

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Are we are talking Kyle's offensive scheme or defense too? Because if it's just offense, which I've been focusing on when you mention "Kyle's scheme", then that AGL list should be tailored to just offensive players. I'm not asking you to do that, just that the list is not relevant to what you and I have been discussing about Kyle's scheme. I was hoping that was clear when I listed a bunch of offensive characteristics in the post above - we're talking offensive scheme.

I just can't get on board with the bolded about how thinking more results in more injuries. I can't prove you wrong though.

I agree with you that there is no one single answer. But I have not seen evidence that it's the offensive scheme that promotes more injury. I don't know what to call this type of logic you are using - "People that breathe oxygen will die". Whatever the term is, I feel like that's the logic being applied by saying, "Players in Kyle's scheme are more likely to get injured". It's looking at the result, then pointing to some reason that is related, but can't be proven to play a role.

This might surprise you, but Kyle's scheme isn't some unorthodox style of offense. The most unique thing about Kyle's scheme is the players he's using to execute it. Sure he lines up players in different positions, but then now we're talking about how Deebo in the backfield running to the flat, or CMC running a slant from the slot promotes more injuries.

No, just offense. I was just using the Harbaugh regime to show the delineation of scheme-health. Granted, with the overall volume, all gas, no brakes could easily be part of the discussion as well in the total volume that makes up your annual AGL stats.

No worries on the hesitation thing...was just typing out loud there, picturing young rookies trying to play while thinking and what can happen within the speed of the NFL.

The results are a very consistent and an even predictable pattern that shows an extreme outlier position. Looking at all of the different factors that play into that makeup, scheme being one of those, is appropriate. At the end of the day, it's probably a collection of everything that makes up the outlier results (e.g. scheme, players targeted for the scheme, strength and conditioning, Fsyical mantra, volume of runs, volume of snaps counts with deep runs in the playoffs, player skill sets, player in-game decision making, luck, mindset to fight for the extra yard or take the sacrificial hit while throwing vs. making a business decision, etc.).

Appreciate the discussion either way though.

I just don't see anything that stands out in Kyle's offensive scheme that points to it resulting in more injuries. There isn't any one thing that the SF offense does that other teams don't do. Running the ball? There are other teams that run the ball more often than the 49ers. Running then passing, and switching back and forth, all teams do this. Requiring players to think before they execute, all teams do that. Perhaps strength and conditioning, but that's not offensive scheme.

I'll keep an open mind but until there is something distinct that sticks out as a reason that might cause more injuries due to Kyle's offensive scheme, I can't get on board with the scheme being a contributor to more injuries. I don't think we can prove it either way with the data we have. All the numbers out there for injuries are for team injuries (offense and defense), and we're just talking offense.

All good.

I don't think the design of the plays per se' has much to do with it...maybe using a WR or QB to play RB to run up inside the biggest bodies on the field often could increase the probability but not much beyond that.

However, volume, variability, play style, the violence, the mindset, the specific players they choose for that scheme (with that mindset...from Pettis to Deebo), etc. I think are the biggest factors within it. Like we see with Kyle's scheme within his own protégés, same scheme, two totally different styles, priorities, and philosophies. It's unique here despite every team running plays we run too.

I hear you...appreciate the open mind. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint one unique cause of anything in football. Correlations are as close as you'll get (e.g. TO's correlated to the probability to W/L's).

True, AND it's moot because the scheme (offense and defense) isn't going to change. So the FO just needs to keep fielding the deepest 53 in football.

The trend suggests we'll be talking about this this time next year too. Hope not though!

Lol all you just did was regurgitate your exact same talking points that he's countered multiple times . This is why people generally don't have interest trying to discuss these things with you

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Kyle Shanahan on Trent Williams: "I'd be really surprised if Trent wasn't fired up in a few weeks"

Oh great. This is going to become another Alex Mack situation, huh? LOL

I don't see how it is. Mack was not the same player anymore and was pretty banged up by the end of his career.

Trent looks like he can still play at an elite level for a couple more years and isn't in constant pain.

Oh, I just meant where Trent is waiting to decide his future and then they get caught with their pants down when he retires days before the season starts. Just the fact he's thinking about it should prompt the FO to start planning now...and no, Colton McKivitz is not the answer. LOL

Its obvious that the 49ers need to infuse the Offensive Line with some talent. Anybody looking at Trents age and knows the positon he plays - clearly there is a need there.

Clearly it's not.

How many draft picks have gone to the offensive line in previous drafts? Seems like it's 2 a year. Obviously they have tried any blank can see that

Like with RB, it's not how many you draft in the 3rd round. It's the standard. That's why they gave up and went and got CMC. And Trent. How many did they develop with all those picks? 1? Banks? Unless you think MM is a well developed first rounder.

Brendel and Brunskill were UDFA we developed. We got more out of Tomlinson than Detroit did. Plus Banks.

Begun the development of Burford, Zakelj and Poe.

Do any of them meet your standard for when we need them to face the Chris Jones,' Dallas' and Philly's of the world in the playoffs?

Bud, you can't develop every prospect into an eraser for Chris Jones who is one of the leagues best as his position.

So you don't get move the goalposts because it's required to push the narrative. We developed the guys I listed...and we all know not everyone develops into a starter, let alone an All Pro type.

Unfortunately that's exactly what we needed. Or at least a G who can PP and block him out of passing lanes while staying engaged so he can't jump up and knock down game-changing 3rd down passes FTW. Good depth players though.

So your going to avoid the original point I made and continue to talk about blocking one guy in one game from 3 years ago instead.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Kyle Shanahan on Trent Williams: "I'd be really surprised if Trent wasn't fired up in a few weeks"

Oh great. This is going to become another Alex Mack situation, huh? LOL

I don't see how it is. Mack was not the same player anymore and was pretty banged up by the end of his career.

Trent looks like he can still play at an elite level for a couple more years and isn't in constant pain.

Oh, I just meant where Trent is waiting to decide his future and then they get caught with their pants down when he retires days before the season starts. Just the fact he's thinking about it should prompt the FO to start planning now...and no, Colton McKivitz is not the answer. LOL

Its obvious that the 49ers need to infuse the Offensive Line with some talent. Anybody looking at Trents age and knows the positon he plays - clearly there is a need there.

Clearly it's not.

How many draft picks have gone to the offensive line in previous drafts? Seems like it's 2 a year. Obviously they have tried any blank can see that

Like with RB, it's not how many you draft in the 3rd round. It's the standard. That's why they gave up and went and got CMC. And Trent. How many did they develop with all those picks? 1? Banks? Unless you think MM is a well developed first rounder.

Brendel and Brunskill were UDFA we developed. We got more out of Tomlinson than Detroit did. Plus Banks.

Begun the development of Burford, Zakelj and Poe.

Do any of them meet your standard for when we need them to face the Chris Jones,' Dallas' and Philly's of the world in the playoffs?

Bud, you can't develop every prospect into an eraser for Chris Jones who is one of the leagues best as his position.

So you don't get move the goalposts because it's required to push the narrative. We developed the guys I listed...and we all know not everyone develops into a starter, let alone an All Pro type.

Unfortunately that's exactly what we needed. Or at least a G who can PP and block him out of passing lanes while staying engaged so he can't jump up and knock down game-changing 3rd down passes FTW. Good depth players though.

So your going to avoid the original point I made and continue to talk about blocking one guy in one game from 3 years ago instead.

lol, let me introduce you to NC

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Lol all you just did was regurgitate your exact same talking points that he's countered multiple times . This is why people generally don't have interest trying to discuss these things with you

You should try it sometime. It's called a discussion. Two people discuss talking points on a challenging topic of reality, dive a little deeper into those points for clarity with an open mind, maybe agree or disagree with some or all points respectively after the discussion, and see how things trend over time. Maybe even revisit later.

If we needed one-line humor on the topic, we would just reach out to your wife.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Kyle Shanahan on Trent Williams: "I'd be really surprised if Trent wasn't fired up in a few weeks"

Oh great. This is going to become another Alex Mack situation, huh? LOL

I don't see how it is. Mack was not the same player anymore and was pretty banged up by the end of his career.

Trent looks like he can still play at an elite level for a couple more years and isn't in constant pain.

Oh, I just meant where Trent is waiting to decide his future and then they get caught with their pants down when he retires days before the season starts. Just the fact he's thinking about it should prompt the FO to start planning now...and no, Colton McKivitz is not the answer. LOL

Its obvious that the 49ers need to infuse the Offensive Line with some talent. Anybody looking at Trents age and knows the positon he plays - clearly there is a need there.

Clearly it's not.

How many draft picks have gone to the offensive line in previous drafts? Seems like it's 2 a year. Obviously they have tried any blank can see that

Like with RB, it's not how many you draft in the 3rd round. It's the standard. That's why they gave up and went and got CMC. And Trent. How many did they develop with all those picks? 1? Banks? Unless you think MM is a well developed first rounder.

Brendel and Brunskill were UDFA we developed. We got more out of Tomlinson than Detroit did. Plus Banks.

Begun the development of Burford, Zakelj and Poe.

Do any of them meet your standard for when we need them to face the Chris Jones,' Dallas' and Philly's of the world in the playoffs?

Bud, you can't develop every prospect into an eraser for Chris Jones who is one of the leagues best as his position.

So you don't get move the goalposts because it's required to push the narrative. We developed the guys I listed...and we all know not everyone develops into a starter, let alone an All Pro type.

Unfortunately that's exactly what we needed. Or at least a G who can PP and block him out of passing lanes while staying engaged so he can't jump up and knock down game-changing 3rd down passes FTW. Good depth players though.

So your going to avoid the original point I made and continue to talk about blocking one guy in one game from 3 years ago instead.

About how they were "developed here." Technically, you are right.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Kyle Shanahan on Trent Williams: "I'd be really surprised if Trent wasn't fired up in a few weeks"

Oh great. This is going to become another Alex Mack situation, huh? LOL

I don't see how it is. Mack was not the same player anymore and was pretty banged up by the end of his career.

Trent looks like he can still play at an elite level for a couple more years and isn't in constant pain.

Oh, I just meant where Trent is waiting to decide his future and then they get caught with their pants down when he retires days before the season starts. Just the fact he's thinking about it should prompt the FO to start planning now...and no, Colton McKivitz is not the answer. LOL

Its obvious that the 49ers need to infuse the Offensive Line with some talent. Anybody looking at Trents age and knows the positon he plays - clearly there is a need there.

Clearly it's not.

How many draft picks have gone to the offensive line in previous drafts? Seems like it's 2 a year. Obviously they have tried any blank can see that

Like with RB, it's not how many you draft in the 3rd round. It's the standard. That's why they gave up and went and got CMC. And Trent. How many did they develop with all those picks? 1? Banks? Unless you think MM is a well developed first rounder.

Brendel and Brunskill were UDFA we developed. We got more out of Tomlinson than Detroit did. Plus Banks.

Begun the development of Burford, Zakelj and Poe.

Do any of them meet your standard for when we need them to face the Chris Jones,' Dallas' and Philly's of the world in the playoffs?

Bud, you can't develop every prospect into an eraser for Chris Jones who is one of the leagues best as his position.

So you don't get move the goalposts because it's required to push the narrative. We developed the guys I listed...and we all know not everyone develops into a starter, let alone an All Pro type.

Unfortunately that's exactly what we needed. Or at least a G who can PP and block him out of passing lanes while staying engaged so he can't jump up and knock down game-changing 3rd down passes FTW. Good depth players though.

So your going to avoid the original point I made and continue to talk about blocking one guy in one game from 3 years ago instead.

lol, let me introduce you to NC

LMAO.

Sooooo...

How about you? Do you have any actual thoughts on the matter other than just responses to my discussion points on the matter? Hoov? 9ers4eva? Hmmmm.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Lol all you just did was regurgitate your exact same talking points that he's countered multiple times . This is why people generally don't have interest trying to discuss these things with you

You should try it sometime. It's called a discussion. Two people discuss talking points on a challenging topic of reality, dive a little deeper into those points for clarity with an open mind, maybe agree or disagree with some or all points respectively after the discussion, and see how things trend over time. Maybe even revisit later.

If we needed one-line humor on the topic, we would just reach out to your wife.

Nah it's called you doing what you do best. Make unsubstantiated claims and expect everyone to just lap it up because you fancy yourself a big football guy, resort to condescension when they don't and prove your ascertains wrong, then start moving goalposts and gaslighting to close things out. Every now and then you will give off the impression you are being open minded and/ or conceding, but in reality you are just repeating your exact same talking points and conceding nothing. Seems like a pretty disingenuous way of discussing things with folks. But as you like to say…that's OK