49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think it's important to differentiate. I am talking about analytics, like go for 2, go for it on 4th, decisions. I don't recall any such in the SB. I'm not talking about pass vs run distribution.

What do the analytics say about playing your CB's off 10 yards on 4th and 5?

Originally posted by captveg:
Critics talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Against Green Bay I've seen the same people complain that Kyle didn't run enough yet was also too conservative at the end of the second half. Well, which is it? Was he too aggressive or too conservative?

A lot of this sounds like, to me, "If it didn't work it was wrong, and so I'll simply say he should have done the opposite."

Yup, typical fan is smarter than the coaches BS........

None of us are smarter than Arthur Smith, let alone Kyle.

Originally posted by captveg:
Critics talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Against Green Bay I've seen the same people complain that Kyle didn't run enough yet was also too conservative at the end of the second half. Well, which is it? Was he too aggressive or too conservative?

A lot of this sounds like, to me, "If it didn't work it was wrong, and so I'll simply say he should have done the opposite."

I somewhat disagree with you on this example because while he didn't run it enough early on for sure, nobody expects him to run it a bunch when you're supposed to be in a two minute drill either. Now in hindsight we see he had a play picked where Aiyuk was wide open inside the ten, but our pass protection broke down and Purdy couldn't get to it. (That's an o line thread topic. lol)

He had a weird game especially early on and that's likely because deebo went out. That's still on him regardless as he is the head coach and oc etc etc.

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
I somewhat disagree with you on this example because while he didn't run it enough early on for sure, nobody expects him to run it a bunch when you're supposed to be in a two minute drill either. Now in hindsight we see he had a play picked where Aiyuk was wide open inside the ten, but our pass protection broke down and Purdy couldn't get to it. (That's an o line thread topic. lol)

He had a weird game especially early on and that's likely because deebo went out. That's still on him regardless as he is the head coach and oc etc etc.

Eh I see more of Brock taking the safer option. For whatever reason didn't want to risk the throw. It was there before the pressure came.

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by captveg:
Critics talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Against Green Bay I've seen the same people complain that Kyle didn't run enough yet was also too conservative at the end of the second half. Well, which is it? Was he too aggressive or too conservative?

A lot of this sounds like, to me, "If it didn't work it was wrong, and so I'll simply say he should have done the opposite."

I somewhat disagree with you on this example because while he didn't run it enough early on for sure, nobody expects him to run it a bunch when you're supposed to be in a two minute drill either. Now in hindsight we see he had a play picked where Aiyuk was wide open inside the ten, but our pass protection broke down and Purdy couldn't get to it. (That's an o line thread topic. lol)

He had a weird game especially early on and that's likely because deebo went out. That's still on him regardless as he is the head coach and oc etc etc.

Correct.

The above posts are using a logical fallacy.

Most of us wanted more running touches - but not in the 2 minute drill.

Its a bad take.

.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Eh I see more of Brock taking the safer option. For whatever reason didn't want to risk the throw. It was there before the pressure came.

Regardless, we didn't have to put ourselves in a position to where we had to make a big play on one play right? We could have simply conserved more clock and continued the drive. Are we not trusting the offense in that spot? Perhaps.

Not sure if this has been posted recently but this is Shanahans reasoning for being cautious before the half...


Note, this was after a game in November, not this past weekend.

We ended with one more possession than them in the game; I think we had nine [and] I think they had eight," Shanahan said. "It's usually that way or dead even. That happened because we scored with no time left in the second quarter, then right when we got back, we got the touchdown. It's a 7-3 game with four minutes in the second quarter, and you go on a four-minute [drive], you get to kill that clock, you kick a field goal, three of them to finish the second quarter.

"We take about 20 minutes off, come back out, and their offense hasn't touched the field for about an hour now. And last time they were out there, they were down four, now they're down 10, so it's a completely different feeling … It's a huge difference. They're going in there thinking it's a tight game at halftime, then when you get the ball back next time, it's two scores. When you do that, usually good things happen."

The 49ers head coach then revealed this strategy is a calculated formula backed by decades of data pointing to a massive spike in winning percentage for teams that hold the ball to end the first half.

"It's one I've heard for a long time, used to always hear it as a coordinator, never really followed it, started doing it our third year here," Shanahan told Papa. "There's a huge stat over the last 40 years that the team who finishes with the ball at the end of the second quarter or if they score at the end of the second quarter, their winning percentage in that game over these last 30 years just right below turnovers. I think blocked punts is bigger. So it's one of the top stats in the league for winning. It doesn't completely make sense. That's why I ignored it for so long."

Shanahan also detailed that while scoring before the half is the ideal outcome, simply keeping the ball away from your opponent still yields incredible results for the team that can register the second quarter's final possession.

"As long as they don't get an opportunity to do it," Shanahan explained. "That clock runs out. If you score, obviously much better, and that percentage goes up. But just finishing with the football, that stat is like that. I had the same facial expression as you for a while. We spent a lot of time looking into it, and it was all accurate. 2019 was the first year I really tried it. I thought our defense was going to be pretty unbelievable that year, and we were going to take that in and commit to it. If you watch how that year went, it went that way the whole year. We were so successful with it, the stats were even better than what I imagined, and we've always stuck with that."

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/kyle-shanahan-explains-wild-statistic/1672946/

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Not sure if this has been posted recently but this is Shanahans reasoning for being cautious before the half...

Note, this was after a game in November, not this past weekend.

We ended with one more possession than them in the game; I think we had nine [and] I think they had eight," Shanahan said. "It's usually that way or dead even. That happened because we scored with no time left in the second quarter, then right when we got back, we got the touchdown. It's a 7-3 game with four minutes in the second quarter, and you go on a four-minute [drive], you get to kill that clock, you kick a field goal, three of them to finish the second quarter.

"We take about 20 minutes off, come back out, and their offense hasn't touched the field for about an hour now. And last time they were out there, they were down four, now they're down 10, so it's a completely different feeling … It's a huge difference. They're going in there thinking it's a tight game at halftime, then when you get the ball back next time, it's two scores. When you do that, usually good things happen."

The 49ers head coach then revealed this strategy is a calculated formula backed by decades of data pointing to a massive spike in winning percentage for teams that hold the ball to end the first half.

"It's one I've heard for a long time, used to always hear it as a coordinator, never really followed it, started doing it our third year here," Shanahan told Papa. "There's a huge stat over the last 40 years that the team who finishes with the ball at the end of the second quarter or if they score at the end of the second quarter, their winning percentage in that game over these last 30 years just right below turnovers. I think blocked punts is bigger. So it's one of the top stats in the league for winning. It doesn't completely make sense. That's why I ignored it for so long."

Shanahan also detailed that while scoring before the half is the ideal outcome, simply keeping the ball away from your opponent still yields incredible results for the team that can register the second quarter's final possession.

"As long as they don't get an opportunity to do it," Shanahan explained. "That clock runs out. If you score, obviously much better, and that percentage goes up. But just finishing with the football, that stat is like that. I had the same facial expression as you for a while. We spent a lot of time looking into it, and it was all accurate. 2019 was the first year I really tried it. I thought our defense was going to be pretty unbelievable that year, and we were going to take that in and commit to it. If you watch how that year went, it went that way the whole year. We were so successful with it, the stats were even better than what I imagined, and we've always stuck with that."

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/kyle-shanahan-explains-wild-statistic/1672946/

Papa was referencing this today on KNBR. It's very hard to use this reasoning to justify how we managed the clock there IMO. Nothing would have been more beneficial than getting a TD as close to the end of the half as possible… and we for all intents and purposes willingly chose not to have a good chance at one simply to prevent a possible change of possession. And that's in a game where our O had only had two other possessions, our D was struggling to get off the field, and we had just scored a TD on our last possession, It's mind boggling.

I guess you guys don't realize that every year we have this discussion in playoffs. Over and Over and the end result in the last years has been the same.

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
I guess you guys don't realize that every year we have this discussion in playoffs. Over and Over and the end result in the last years has been the same.

There have been real positive developments are far as Kyle being more aggressive in situations he wouldn't have been in the past (not necessarily clock management). We'll see what happens as we continue.

It's one of those things where 50/50 you end up being right or wrong. In this game we witnessed the worst case scenario where the FG got blocked and then went 3 and out on the opening second half possession. Had we scored that FG we go into the half being up 10-6 which isn't that great but at least we have that lead with the ball, which we all would have taken it given how the game was going.

Say we got the FG and didn't have a play calling lapse in that next possession and get another 3 points. Then we are up a touchdown and now Green Bay has the pressure on them. Or even better we score a TD and we are now talking about a potential blowout with momentum massively on our side.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, just we will all disagree with Kyle or agree depending on what our personal philosophy is.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Not sure if this has been posted recently but this is Shanahans reasoning for being cautious before the half...

Note, this was after a game in November, not this past weekend.

We ended with one more possession than them in the game; I think we had nine [and] I think they had eight," Shanahan said. "It's usually that way or dead even. That happened because we scored with no time left in the second quarter, then right when we got back, we got the touchdown. It's a 7-3 game with four minutes in the second quarter, and you go on a four-minute [drive], you get to kill that clock, you kick a field goal, three of them to finish the second quarter.

"We take about 20 minutes off, come back out, and their offense hasn't touched the field for about an hour now. And last time they were out there, they were down four, now they're down 10, so it's a completely different feeling … It's a huge difference. They're going in there thinking it's a tight game at halftime, then when you get the ball back next time, it's two scores. When you do that, usually good things happen."

The 49ers head coach then revealed this strategy is a calculated formula backed by decades of data pointing to a massive spike in winning percentage for teams that hold the ball to end the first half.

"It's one I've heard for a long time, used to always hear it as a coordinator, never really followed it, started doing it our third year here," Shanahan told Papa. "There's a huge stat over the last 40 years that the team who finishes with the ball at the end of the second quarter or if they score at the end of the second quarter, their winning percentage in that game over these last 30 years just right below turnovers. I think blocked punts is bigger. So it's one of the top stats in the league for winning. It doesn't completely make sense. That's why I ignored it for so long."

Shanahan also detailed that while scoring before the half is the ideal outcome, simply keeping the ball away from your opponent still yields incredible results for the team that can register the second quarter's final possession.

"As long as they don't get an opportunity to do it," Shanahan explained. "That clock runs out. If you score, obviously much better, and that percentage goes up. But just finishing with the football, that stat is like that. I had the same facial expression as you for a while. We spent a lot of time looking into it, and it was all accurate. 2019 was the first year I really tried it. I thought our defense was going to be pretty unbelievable that year, and we were going to take that in and commit to it. If you watch how that year went, it went that way the whole year. We were so successful with it, the stats were even better than what I imagined, and we've always stuck with that."

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/kyle-shanahan-explains-wild-statistic/1672946/

Papa was referencing this today on KNBR. It's very hard to use this reasoning to justify how we managed the clock there IMO. Nothing would have been more beneficial than getting a TD as close to the end of the half as possible… and we for all intents and purposes willingly chose not to have a good chance at one simply to prevent a possible change of possession. And that's in a game where our O had only had two other possessions, our D was struggling to get off the field, and we had just scored a TD on our last possession, It's mind boggling.

You can't justify it because it was just stupid...

There was no strategy behind the wasted timeout and wasted 40 seconds on the 3rd and 2.

I don't even think there was much strategy on throwing it on 3rd and 2 in a 4 down situation...

The analytics will say that the conversion percentage is higher running the ball twice on third and short and that's why it's done most of the time.

Also coincidence does not equal causality as far as holding the ball or scoring at the end of the half. More than likely that "statistic" was done without correctly adding covariates into the equation. Ie there's more to the fact that the team that typically scores or holds the ball at the end of the half usually wins.

I can also pretty much guarantee that the likelihood over scoring utilizing methodical movement down the field is much higher than explosive plays... Otherwise why don't we just throw the ball up every play deep...

Any way you slice it there's no logical, rationale, or statistical reasoning to manage the clock and the play calls on the 3rd and 2 from the 40.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
You can't justify it because it was just stupid...

There was no strategy behind the wasted timeout and wasted 40 seconds on the 3rd and 2.

I don't even think there was much strategy on throwing it on 3rd and 2 in a 4 down situation...

The analytics will say that the conversion percentage is higher running the ball twice on third and short and that's why it's done most of the time.

Also coincidence does not equal causality as far as holding the ball or scoring at the end of the half. More than likely that "statistic" was done without correctly adding covariates into the equation. Ie there's more to the fact that the team that typically scores or holds the ball at the end of the half usually wins.

I can also pretty much guarantee that the likelihood over scoring utilizing methodical movement down the field is much higher than explosive plays... Otherwise why don't we just throw the ball up every play deep...

Any way you slice it there's no logical, rationale, or statistical reasoning to manage the clock and the play calls on the 3rd and 2 from the 40.

Agreed.

FWIW, when Papa was talking about it today, I think he was hinting at skepticism over the 'stat' as well. He got fed a line of b******t, lol.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think it's important to differentiate. I am talking about analytics, like go for 2, go for it on 4th, decisions. I don't recall any such in the SB. I'm not talking about pass vs run distribution.

What do the analytics say about playing your CB's off 10 yards on 4th and 5?

Its against it…alright make it 2 sugars lots of cream…LOTS of cream