49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I'm pro Shanahan. He screwed up his OT decision. Having the ball first put us at a disadvantage. Obviously

That doesn't answer the question, but I also would have deferred.

This is a coaching decision where the analytical community finds no actual advantage either way. In the end you still need to score and get some kind of stop.

The question is how does the players 'not knowing the rules' change anything that happened on the field in regards to their execution or effort. When you realize it doesn't and we have people who have continually argued that it was a problem with no examples of how… we'll be on the same page.

They didn't suddenly forget that they needed to score a TD and/or get a stop because both teams are guaranteed to touch the ball. The players aren't deciding to kick or receive, or go on 4th downs.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We didn't go over OT, they did. This is documented. From ESPN:

Armstead added that he first realized that the postseason overtime rules were different when he saw them displayed on the scoreboard at Allegiant Stadium.
"They put it on the scoreboard, and everyone was like 'Oh, even if you score, they get a chance still,'" Armstead said.

The Chiefs, conversely, said they were well prepared for an overtime contingency in the postseason. Defensive lineman Chris Jones told reporters that Kansas City "talked for two weeks about new overtime rules," while safety Justin Reid said their preparation began in training camp.

"We've talked about it all year," Reid said. "We talked about it in training camp about how the rules were different in regular season versus the playoffs. Every week of the playoffs we talked about the overtime rule."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39511676/49ers-players-say-know-super-bowl-rules

I would expect us to go over it, particularly if they are, and also cuz Shanny has been in SB OT before (SB51). We in fact weren't prepped for any playoff OT (since the rule change).

Still waiting for how this affected either side of the ball in the context of actual play on the field.

I'm pro Shanahan. He screwed up his OT decision. Having the ball first put us at a disadvantage. Obviously

edit: I'll help you. Answer this question: why did we kick a field goal in overtime if we knew we needed a TD?

if the answer is "we didn't know we needed a TD", the next question is "why didn't we know we needed a TD?"

if the answer is "because we got the ball first"….. yeah that decision was a mistake

We kicked a FG because if we go for it on 4th and don't get it it's game over. The defense held them to 1 TD in regulation. Defense was also just on the field for a long drive.

Analytics also had this as a 50/50 call, and if you want to ignore analytics, rven Reid said it was a 50/50 call and didn't know how the 49ers would elect to play out OT.

It's not like we played it safe in OT and didn't try and score a TD, we obviously tried to score on that 3rd down, and we would've had a walk in TD if Burford doesn't forget he has to block a player.

Once again, there wasn't a clear choice here, just like others have said, including Reid. If you let KC get the ball first, they get to play against the defense that was just on the field for a long drive, most likely outcome would've been the same. Then you also let KCs defense rest.

This wasn't a clear a case of what call was the correct call. Kyle said we took the ball first so if KC scores on their possession, we get to decide the game on the 3rd possession (a FG would've won the game if the game ended up being tied)

I'll be back in a month again to explain this again since we haven't beat the s**t out of this dead horse enough.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We didn't go over OT, they did. This is documented. From ESPN:

Armstead added that he first realized that the postseason overtime rules were different when he saw them displayed on the scoreboard at Allegiant Stadium.
"They put it on the scoreboard, and everyone was like 'Oh, even if you score, they get a chance still,'" Armstead said.

The Chiefs, conversely, said they were well prepared for an overtime contingency in the postseason. Defensive lineman Chris Jones told reporters that Kansas City "talked for two weeks about new overtime rules," while safety Justin Reid said their preparation began in training camp.

"We've talked about it all year," Reid said. "We talked about it in training camp about how the rules were different in regular season versus the playoffs. Every week of the playoffs we talked about the overtime rule."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39511676/49ers-players-say-know-super-bowl-rules

I would expect us to go over it, particularly if they are, and also cuz Shanny has been in SB OT before (SB51). We in fact weren't prepped for any playoff OT (since the rule change).

Still waiting for how this affected either side of the ball in the context of actual play on the field.

Like I said, arguing with these flat earthers is a waste of energy. Not a one of them has addressed your spot on analysis of the overtime situation, that we got the ball and failed to score a TD. Our defense then failed to stop KC's offense. It really didn't matter if the OT rules had changed, or if the coaching staff went over them with the players. Bottom line, your team scores and stops the other team from scoring, you win. fail at either of those actions, you lose. We lost because we failed at both of those actions. Assigning blame to the coach is simple minded garbage. I'm surprised that we scored any points at all, considering that we were handicapped by a merely adequate HC. Maybe he should be celebrated for getting the team into the playoffs at all, since he's a drag on teams chances. right, flat earth fans?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I'm pro Shanahan. He screwed up his OT decision. Having the ball first put us at a disadvantage. Obviously

That doesn't answer the question, but I also would have deferred.

This is a coaching decision where the analytical community finds no actual advantage either way. In the end you still need to score and get some kind of stop.

The question is how does the players 'not knowing the rules' changes anything that happened on the field in regards to their execution or effort. When you realize it doesn't and we have people who have continually argued that it was a problem with no examples of how… we'll be on the same page.

They didn't suddenly forget that they needed to score a TD and/or get a stop because both teams are guaranteed to touch the ball. The players aren't deciding to kick or receive, or go on 4th downs.

See my edit. We kicked a field goal when we needed a TD to push second overtime. We didn't know we needed a TD because we got the ball first.

Taking the ball first was a bad decision

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I'm pro Shanahan. He screwed up his OT decision. Having the ball first put us at a disadvantage. Obviously

edit: I'll help you. Answer this question: why did we kick a field goal in overtime if we knew we needed a TD?

if the answer is "we didn't know we needed a TD", the next question is: why didn't we know we needed a TD?

if the answer is "because we got the ball first"….. yeah that decision was a mistake

Your edit doesn't actually make sense.

If they didn't know the rules, the players (who make no decisions) would have been more motivated (in theory) to score that opening TD believing it would end the game. And they didn't get it done.

Under neither the current rules, nor the last iteration, do we need to score a TD. We kicked a field goal because we had a 4th and 4 and the chances of converting that are low. Get a stop and we win anyway.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I'm pro Shanahan. He screwed up his OT decision. Having the ball first put us at a disadvantage. Obviously

That doesn't answer the question, but I also would have deferred.

This is a coaching decision where the analytical community finds no actual advantage either way. In the end you still need to score and get some kind of stop.

The question is how does the players 'not knowing the rules' changes anything that happened on the field in regards to their execution or effort. When you realize it doesn't and we have people who have continually argued that it was a problem with no examples of how… we'll be on the same page.

They didn't suddenly forget that they needed to score a TD and/or get a stop because both teams are guaranteed to touch the ball. The players aren't deciding to kick or receive, or go on 4th downs.

See my edit. We kicked a field goal when we needed a TD to push second overtime. We didn't know we needed a TD because we got the ball first.

Taking the ball first was a bad decision

That is completely incorrect, what are you talking about lol. Even with the old OT rules, a FG doesn't win the game in OT if you get the ball first. Did you see the the players jumping up and down on the sidelines after we made our FG and acting like we won the SB?

At least know the rules before you argue about them.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
See my edit. We kicked a field goal when we needed a TD to push second overtime. We didn't know we needed a TD because we got the ball first.

Taking the ball first was a bad decision

Total b******t. First of all to guarantee a 2nd OT we would have needed a TD and a 2pt conversion. We didn't need either to win, and we failed to get the TD anyway.

The Chiefs didn't need a TD either. We just couldn't stop them from scoring one and it had nothing to do with knowledge of the rules.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Koldo:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Our players and the coaches put the ball in his hands with a chance to win by not scoring a TD and a 2pt conversion on the first drive. That's the only scenario where he wouldn't have had a chance* to win the game.

Again, how would not knowing the new rules change that. Would have been exactly the same as the old rules.

What happened wasn't a failure of preparation. It was a failure of execution. They simply did not make the plays they needed to make on either side of the ball, and if you think that's strictly because of play calls and coaching, you have a lot to learn.

By this logic, no HC should ever be fired if they can't be held accountable for their players' failure to execute.

I notice ppl credit Kyle when the O goes well and fault the players when it goes sideways. I've seen NFL O-linemen break down our pass pro errors, JTO also, and they mention errors from players in this game, and also they go into the scheme in great detail, and how it does indeed have issues. I find it to be both.

You keep brining up all these breakdowns but the funny thing is a lot of times people are guessing. You can see it happen a few times every year when a former player makes a point of who was responsible for what and another player with even more pedigree disagrees.

What some guys were taught may not be what Shanahan is having his guys do here. That's why you should listen to players who actually know the play specifics and not guys doing breakdowns.

Yes in the end X's and O's are cut and dry but there are still minor differences between schemes and responsibilities on a given play that may not be easy to identify on film.

But personally I give Kyle credit for the call if it's there to be executed and logical. If the play is open but the OL doesn't do its job or the QB can't make the throw or make the right read that's not a bad play call.

Now if it's a call where guys are all in the same spot and nobody is getting open properly vs the defense we're playing then it's on the coach. Or if we need to grind the clock out and we're throwing no matter what and not even quick throws on top of it then it's on the coach.

ok let me explain a little better since this appears more complicated to understand than I thought it would have. To illustrate my point, let's assume the chiefs received the ball first, and their drive went exactly the same as it did…. They scored a touchdown.

then, we receive the ball second and our drive goes exactly the same as it did. Do we still kick the field goal? Nope.

Getting the ball first was a tactical error, as it created an unknown and gave the chiefs a known

lol at the uproar here.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think CMC fumbling is just a bad luck and rare event. Other stuff like players having mishaps, penalties, part of that does indeed fall on the coach. If we credit Kyle when the O does well we can't simply blame the players when the O doesn't do well. That's having it two ways. We saw NFL players break down the whiffed Burford block and they say it's on Burford and also the scheme from KS sucks, with popping out the center. On both.

Yes let's ignore the fact that the starting RG was injured and that he and Burford both acknowledged it was on Burford not doing his assigned task on that play and go with other NFL players who aren't with the team because that's a way to give Shanahan fault for something a player clearly f'd up.

CMC fumbling = bad luck but someone not doing their job properly is a reflection of the coach?

Has Shanahan ever been described as a guy who lets players do whatever they want? He's not Bill Belichick but he's also not Pete Carroll or any of the player coaches just happy to have a job.

I literally don't ignore that fact, I mention in my post 'it's on Burford'. That doesn't excuse crap scheme that makes it a lil harder on Burford than it probably needs to be (per guy who played NFL OL). So in conclusion, it's on both.

No it's not on both. In what scheme do you think the RG should ignore Chris Jones and help the center double someone else?

Crap scheme lol…that's certainly the book on Kyle isn't it?

Or are you just regurgitating what JTO said a couple of times because he's not a fan of it himself…the amazing QB that he was?

How many teams run the offshoot of that scheme?

Absolutely ridiculous take.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We didn't go over OT, they did. This is documented. From ESPN:

Armstead added that he first realized that the postseason overtime rules were different when he saw them displayed on the scoreboard at Allegiant Stadium.
"They put it on the scoreboard, and everyone was like 'Oh, even if you score, they get a chance still,'" Armstead said.

The Chiefs, conversely, said they were well prepared for an overtime contingency in the postseason. Defensive lineman Chris Jones told reporters that Kansas City "talked for two weeks about new overtime rules," while safety Justin Reid said their preparation began in training camp.

"We've talked about it all year," Reid said. "We talked about it in training camp about how the rules were different in regular season versus the playoffs. Every week of the playoffs we talked about the overtime rule."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39511676/49ers-players-say-know-super-bowl-rules

I would expect us to go over it, particularly if they are, and also cuz Shanny has been in SB OT before (SB51). We in fact weren't prepped for any playoff OT (since the rule change).

Still waiting for how this affected either side of the ball in the context of actual play on the field.

Just as I am still waiting to hear why not going over it is equal to or better than being prepared as KC was.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
See my edit. We kicked a field goal when we needed a TD to push second overtime. We didn't know we needed a TD because we got the ball first.

Taking the ball first was a bad decision

Total b******t. First of all to guarantee a 2nd OT we would have needed a TD and a 2pt conversion. We didn't need either to win, and we failed to get the TD anyway.

The Chiefs didn't need a TD either. We just couldn't stop them from scoring one and it had nothing to do with knowledge of the rules.

Posted again so you'll see it:

ok let me explain a little better since this appears more complicated to understand than I thought it would have. To illustrate my point, let's assume the chiefs received the ball first, and their drive went exactly the same as it did…. They scored a touchdown.

then, we receive the ball second and our drive goes exactly the same as it did. Do we still kick the field goal? Nope.

Getting the ball first was a tactical error, as it created an unknown and gave the chiefs a known

lol at the uproar here

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
ok let me explain a little better since this appears more complicated to understand than I thought it would have. To illustrate my point, let's assume the chiefs received the ball first, and their drive went exactly the same as it did…. They scored a touchdown.

then, we receive the ball second and our drive goes exactly the same as it did. Do we still kick the field goal? Nope.

Getting the ball first was a tactical error, as it created an unknown and gave the chiefs a known

lol at the uproar here.

That's not what you said. You clearly f**ked up with your first post, didn't understand the rules, and now are changing what you said lol

Analytics and Reid, both said this wasn't some clear cut call, it was a very 50/50.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:
Enough with this garbage.

What preparation was needed for OT that wasn't there? I asked you this before and you ignored it because you have nothing of substance behind this take.

Do the rules in OT change in terms of how many downs it takes to move the chains? Do passing vs rushing yards count more? What actually changes in the game they've been prepared to play in any way?

The only surprise was they wouldn't win with a TD. Does that mean they didn't want to score the TD on their opening drive? Did they not want to stop KC from matching or exceeding their points?

It made no difference on the execution. You can make the claim Kyle not going over it doesn't look good in comparison to Reid but considering there was no guarantee OT would even happen maybe Kyle felt their time was better served on planning and practicing the things they knew would actually happen?

We didn't go over OT, they did. This is documented. From ESPN:

Armstead added that he first realized that the postseason overtime rules were different when he saw them displayed on the scoreboard at Allegiant Stadium.
"They put it on the scoreboard, and everyone was like 'Oh, even if you score, they get a chance still,'" Armstead said.

The Chiefs, conversely, said they were well prepared for an overtime contingency in the postseason. Defensive lineman Chris Jones told reporters that Kansas City "talked for two weeks about new overtime rules," while safety Justin Reid said their preparation began in training camp.

"We've talked about it all year," Reid said. "We talked about it in training camp about how the rules were different in regular season versus the playoffs. Every week of the playoffs we talked about the overtime rule."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39511676/49ers-players-say-know-super-bowl-rules

I would expect us to go over it, particularly if they are, and also cuz Shanny has been in SB OT before (SB51). We in fact weren't prepped for any playoff OT (since the rule change).

Shocker…ignored the main question again and back to posting the same crap.

What rules does it change?

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
ok let me explain a little better since this appears more complicated to explain that I thought it would have. To illustrate my point, let's assume the chiefs received the ball first, and their drive went exactly the same as it did…. They scored a touchdown.

then, we receive the ball second and our drive goes exactly the same as it did. Do we still kick the field goal? Nope.

lol at the uproar here.

No we don't. We have to attempt a low percentage 4th down because we failed to get a stop. Your argument implies it is a good thing to have to go on 4th and 4 because your defense didn't do its job. We are not guaranteed to convert a 4th and 4. It's not even a 50 percent chance. What happens ideally is they get the ball, we get a stop, and any points win the game. Having to go on 4th downs is a position of weakness. When you are trailing and in a have to have it situation.


Now that we are done with this side argument, can we get back to the point that there is no substantive argument being made that a lack of knowledge of the current rules affected the execution on the field. That 'not knowing the rules' changed anything in regards to player effort or execution.