49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by MucketyMuck:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

You don't know what you're talking about and taking it out on others not understanding your nonsense?

We all understand how it works and it has been spelled out multiple times here why there are pros and cons to each option.

Had the 49ers scored a TD on the opening drive and then held KC and won the game would it matter?

KC didn't have a long TD drive all game. Their only TD all game was cuz of a fumbled punt. Taking the ball first with KC's offense looking unlikely to score a TD you're giving your defense a chance to rest and regroup from allowing a quick game tying FG to push it into OT and you're giving yourself a sudden death possession chance if you and KC trade FGs.

Blaming Shanahan for the offense not scoring a TD is dumb when we saw a clear play there to be made had Burford not f'd up. Defense had to do their part and saved their worst for last.

I didnt say any of the things you just said lol. I just said that we wouldn't have kicked the FG had we the knowledge of the chiefs TD. Therefore, given the decision to kick or receive, its advantageous to kick.

if you don't agree… well… ok. Nothing else to discuss. About anything really. Because this is really as simple as it gets.

and I'm pro Kyle all the way. Like the rest of us, he makes mistakes sometimes

lmao. SO WHY DIDN"T THE PLAYERS JUMP UP AND DOWN ON THE SIDELINES AFTER THE FG LIKE WE WON THE GAME??? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

It's way over your head bro. You don't even understand what he's saying.

lol let him continue this is good

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I didnt say any of the things you just said lol. I just said that we wouldn't have kicked the FG had we the knowledge of the chiefs TD. Therefore, given the decision to kick or receive, its advantageous to kick.

if you don't agree… well… ok. Nothing else to discuss. About anything really. Because this is really as simple as it gets.

and I'm pro Kyle all the way. Like the rest of us, he makes mistakes sometimes

On the tangential argument you presented, you're ignoring the counter argument that being forced to go on 4th downs in disadvantaged positions isn't actually a good thing.

Whether we kick or receive, our defense needs to prevent a touchdown drive. We're not going to assume we have to go for medium range fourth downs on the opening drive because the other team (who had one td all game long) is guaranteed to get one on the next possession, and we don't actually want to be forced into going on those 4th downs because our defense gave one up and we have no choice.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
lmao. SO WHY DIDN"T THE PLAYERS JUMP UP AND DOWN ON THE SIDELINES AFTER THE FG LIKE WE WON THE GAME??? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

We're on different planets. And that's ok. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Just a small, fraction of an advantage we gave away with the decision to receive.

not worth an argument. Go niners.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I didnt say any of the things you just said lol. I just said that we wouldn't have kicked the FG had we the knowledge of the chiefs TD. Therefore, given the decision to kick or receive, its advantageous to kick.

if you don't agree… well… ok. Nothing else to discuss. About anything really. Because this is really as simple as it gets.

and I'm pro Kyle all the way. Like the rest of us, he makes mistakes sometimes

On the tangential argument you presented, you're ignoring the counter argument that being forced to go on 4th downs in disadvantaged positions isn't actually a good thing.

Whether we kick or receive, our defense needs to prevent a touchdown drive. We're not going to assume we have to go for medium range fourth downs on the opening drive because the other team (who had one td all game long) is guaranteed to get one on the next possession, and we don't actually want to be forced into going on those 4th downs because our defense gave one up and we have no choice.

The bolded is a good point that I've certainly considered. But, after it took five posts to explain my first thought, I wasn't going to attempt explaining that one 🤣🤣

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
On the tangential argument you presented, you're ignoring the counter argument that being forced to go on 4th downs in disadvantaged positions isn't actually a good thing.

Whether we kick or receive, our defense needs to prevent a touchdown drive. We're not going to assume we have to go for medium range fourth downs on the opening drive because the other team (who had one td all game long) is guaranteed to get one on the next possession, and we don't actually want to be forced into going on those 4th downs because our defense gave one up and we have no choice.

One of the reasons we gave one up is they obviously had no choice but to go on 4th down, in their own territory. That's 2nd possession advantage. 1st possession is disadvantaged. 2nd possession has advantage. Like Kyle said he was playing for 3rd possession. He felt that advantage on possession 3 merited eating a 1st and 2nd possession disadvantage. That was his determination. He's right that 3rd possession does have an advantage, but paying a price on possession 1 and 2 ultimately meant we didn't get to experience it.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
We're on different planets. And that's ok. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Just a small, fraction of an advantage we gave away with the decision to receive.

not worth an argument. Go niners.

Except the people who calculate statistical advantages disagree. It's simply a feeling of yours that it's an advantage to go on offense second. Again, I would have also deferred but I recognize there isn't a meaningful advantage there.

It's not a very good argument to think it's a positive to have the 'knowledge' that you have to go on 4th downs, no matter the distance, because your defense failed to do it's job. It's not actually a different situation from a practical standpoint to rely on your defense to prevent a TD on a second possession because you kicked a FG on the first. It's a position of weakness. Especially in a game where your own offense was struggling to score TDs and your defense was playing well.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
One of the reasons we gave one up is they obviously had no choice but to go on 4th down, in their own territory. That's 2nd possession advantage. 1st possession is disadvantaged. 2nd possession has advantage. Like Kyle said he was playing for 3rd possession. He felt that advantage on possession 3 merited eating a 1st and 2nd possession disadvantage. That was his determination. He's right that 3rd possession does have an advantage, but paying a price on possession 1 and 2 ultimately meant we didn't get to experience it.

Need a clutch coach that takes a fg instead of taking a personal foul penalty and first down.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
One of the reasons we gave one up is they obviously had no choice but to go on 4th down, in their own territory. That's 2nd possession advantage. 1st possession is disadvantaged. 2nd possession has advantage. Like Kyle said he was playing for 3rd possession. He felt that advantage on possession 3 merited eating a 1st and 2nd possession disadvantage. That was his determination. He's right that 3rd possession does have an advantage, but paying a price on possession 1 and 2 ultimately meant we didn't get to experience it.

You're nuts if you think it's likely they are punting in that 4th and 1 spot on a first possession. It's a remote possibility at best.

Kyle didn't say he was playing for a 3rd possession, lol. They were prepping for the possibility. Good god. The goal was to end the game in two possessions. Us scoring and getting a stop. If it happened to go to a 3rd possession, then we would have had a clear advantage.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
We're on different planets. And that's ok. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Just a small, fraction of an advantage we gave away with the decision to receive.

not worth an argument. Go niners.

Except the people who calculate statistical advantages disagree. It's simply a feeling of yours that it's an advantage to go on offense second. Again, I would have also deferred but I recognize there isn't a meaningful advantage there.

It's not a very good argument to think it's a positive to have the 'knowledge' that you have to go on 4th downs, no matter the distance, because your defense failed to do it's job. It's not actually a different situation from a practical standpoint to rely on your defense to prevent a TD on a second possession because you kicked a FG on the first. It's a position of weakness. Especially in a game where your own offense was struggling to score TDs and your defense was playing well.

I understand your position. You understand mine.

Let's hope we don't face those circumstances again.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
One of the reasons we gave one up is they obviously had no choice but to go on 4th down, in their own territory. That's 2nd possession advantage. 1st possession is disadvantaged. 2nd possession has advantage. Like Kyle said he was playing for 3rd possession. He felt that advantage on possession 3 merited eating a 1st and 2nd possession disadvantage. That was his determination. He's right that 3rd possession does have an advantage, but paying a price on possession 1 and 2 ultimately meant we didn't get to experience it.

You're nuts if you think it's likely they are punting in that 4th and 1 spot on a first possession. It's a remote possibility at best.

Kyle didn't say he was playing for a 3rd possession, lol. They were prepping for the possibility. Good god. The goal was to end the game in two possessions. Us scoring and getting a stop. If it happened to go to a 3rd possession, then we would have had a clear advantage.

'We wanted the ball third' was his quote
the decision and we both have discussed the analytics, he's putting his decision into that side of it, wanting the game to go 3 possessions
obviously if we can win before that great, but understand there is ZERO advantage to the analytics of going first, the entire benefit kicks in with possession 3.

otherwise you are in fact disadvantaged.

The WZs best, Faithful, Jiks, and some guy that pretends he's in his 50s. All we missing is 9moon.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You're nuts if you think it's likely they are punting in that 4th and 1 spot on a first possession. It's a remote possibility at best.

Kyle didn't say he was playing for a 3rd possession, lol. They were prepping for the possibility. Good god. The goal was to end the game in two possessions. Us scoring and getting a stop. If it happened to go to a 3rd possession, then we would have had a clear advantage.

"We wanted the ball third"

if you'll be on the wrong side of that argument, you'll be on the wrong side of any argument, including the one you've been on the wrong side of for the last hour.

Good night. Satisfying end 🤣🤣

https://www.nfl.com/news/49ers-kyle-shanahan-explains-decision-to-receive-ot-kickoff-in-super-bowl-loss-we-just-thought-it-would-be-better

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You're nuts if you think it's likely they are punting in that 4th and 1 spot on a first possession. It's a remote possibility at best.

Kyle didn't say he was playing for a 3rd possession, lol. They were prepping for the possibility. Good god. The goal was to end the game in two possessions. Us scoring and getting a stop. If it happened to go to a 3rd possession, then we would have had a clear advantage.

Pshhhhhhh. Kyle knew we couldn't get a stop on D because he wasn't letting Wilks unleash his elite play designs.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
'We wanted the ball third' was his quote
the decision and we both have discussed the analytics, he's putting his decision into that side of it, wanting the game to go 3 possessions
obviously if we can win before that great, but understand there is ZERO advantage to the analytics of going first, the entire benefit kicks in with possession 3.

otherwise you are in fact disadvantaged.

You cannot seriously think Kyle wants the game to go to a 3rd possession. It should be easy to understand that we want to score and get a stop and if we end up in a sudden death scenario it's a clear advantage to have the ball first.

It's comical to me that you can't connect your logic on this issue. You talk about the Chiefs potentially punting on a first possession 4th and 1 while also taking the Chiefs' postgame comments that they would have gone for two if we had scored a TD on the first drive at face value.

You believe they would have gone for a 2 yard 2pt conversion to win or lose the game and avoid giving the ball away to a team that wins with any score, but you think it possible they wouldn't go for a 4th and 1 play on a first possession and punt to a team that would be in an any score wins situation. Completely contradictory thinking.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
I didnt say any of the things you just said lol. I just said that we wouldn't have kicked the FG had we the knowledge of the chiefs TD. Therefore, given the decision to kick or receive, its advantageous to kick.

if you don't agree… well… ok. Nothing else to discuss. About anything really. Because this is really as simple as it gets.

and I'm pro Kyle all the way. Like the rest of us, he makes mistakes sometimes

Yes it is an advantage to know what you have to match or exceed. However there are also disadvantages to going that route. That's the issue here. Not cut and dry.