49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

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.

Maybe so, it's been a long day

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
"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

Wanting to be the team that receives the ball third doesn't mean you are playing for a third possession. It means you are prepping for the possibility.

Using this line of thinking you could argue we would let them score on a 2nd possession when a child would understand that's not the case. I promise you the priority was to score a TD, get a stop, and end the game.

How are you guys this ridiculous.

Here is the full quote in context:

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

'If' being the operative word there. Nowhere is the implication that it's desired.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Here is the full quote in context:

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

'If' being the operative word there. Nowhere is the implication that it's desired.

I'm way past debating this issue. Time to look forward to the draft and next season.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Here is the full quote in context:

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

'If' being the operative word there. Nowhere is the implication that it's desired.

I found it then and now a bit laughable, the quote. Why concern yourself with an advantage that would have only realized itself after 5 full quarters are in the books. We get the advantage in quarter number six! I still think if he runs the calculation or spends more time on OT he starts to figure out that KC isn't letting us get possession 3. When you have a Mahomes you let him win it for you or go down trying. Yeah they probably do go on their own 34, but at least make them make that call. Make that call hard on em. Don't just give it to em easy like we did. We made it not even a decision, it was an automatic. They had to go.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Wanting to be the team that receives the ball third doesn't mean you are playing for a third possession. It means you are prepping for the possibility.

Using this line of thinking you could argue we would let them score on a 2nd possession when a child would understand that's not the case. I promise you the priority was to score a TD, get a stop, and end the game.

How are you guys this ridiculous.

cuz you are strawmanning. I have a literal post where I explain this to you. I say sure we wanted to win as quick as we can, yet his priority was let's get the advantage of possession 3 should it come to that..

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
cuz you are strawmanning. I have a literal post where I explain this to you. I say sure we wanted to win as quick as we can, yet his priority was let's get the advantage of possession 3 should it come to that..

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.

You said word for word Kyle was 'playing for a 3rd possession'. 'Playing for' indicates goal.

This was my response. Instead of agreeing with it, as you apparently are now, you provided a partial quote from Kyle which in it's full context said effectively the same thing as my post.

I addressed what you said in plain English. At any point prior to this last post you could have easily said 'that's what I meant'. And this isn't the first time this argument has been had. Kidding me.

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.

Again. Indicating a goal or desire.

Y'all still talking about the SB? lol

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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.

Again. Indicating a goal or desire.

Tad insulting you would honestly think that some argument is being made that he wants possession 3 more than, you know, winning the SB. That's not anyone's position other than something you misinterpreted.

realize that if the game doesn't go 3 possessions then you probably don't want the ball first. you want the ball 2nd. so he's couching his decision in the logic that possession three not only is something that may occur but he probably assigns a pretty good likelihood to it. if he doesn't think possession 3 is coming then he would kick to start OT. his reasoning of possession 3 for his decision was revealed as faulty logic in the aftermath, as we know now that KC was going for 2 if we scored a TD (per KC). this is from online: The Chiefs have made it clear that they would have gone for two, if the 49ers had scored seven points in the opening drive and if the Chiefs managed to score a touchdown of their own. The coaches knew it, and the players knew it. This means that the Chiefs had a two-point play ready to go.Feb 13, 2024

talk about preparation for the moment, and how it differed from ours. it widely thought the game winning play was in fact their 2 pt play or a variation thereof.
It's kinda of chess vs checkers in terms of being lapped on tactics here. possession 3 would have been tough to get to no matter how you slice it. If we score a TD it would basically not happen, as they are going for 2. If we don't score a TD we need Wilks in winning time to get the better of Mahomes and Reid and hold them scoreless or to 3, when they don't want 3, cuz it gives us the ball in sudden death. Probably not happening either (and didn't).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Tad insulting you would honestly think that some argument is being made that he wants possession 3 more than, you know, winning the SB. That's not anyone's position other than something you misinterpreted.

realize that if the game doesn't go 3 possessions then you probably don't want the ball first. you want the ball 2nd. so he's couching his decision in the logic that possession three not only is something that may occur but he probably assigns a pretty good likelihood to it. if he doesn't think possession 3 is coming then he would kick to start OT. his reasoning of possession 3 for his decision was revealed as faulty logic in the aftermath, as we know now that KC was going for 2 if we scored a TD (per KC). this is from online: The Chiefs have made it clear that they would have gone for two, if the 49ers had scored seven points in the opening drive and if the Chiefs managed to score a touchdown of their own. The coaches knew it, and the players knew it. This means that the Chiefs had a two-point play ready to go.Feb 13, 2024

talk about preparation for the moment, and how it differed from ours. it widely thought the game winning play was in fact their 2 pt play or a variation thereof.
It's kinda of chess vs checkers in terms of being lapped on tactics here. possession 3 would have been tough to get to no matter how you slice it. If we score a TD it would basically not happen, as they are going for 2. If we don't score a TD we need Wilks in winning time to get the better of Mahomes and Reid and hold them scoreless or to 3, when they don't want 3, cuz it gives us the ball in sudden death. Probably not happening either (and didn't).

You wrote that he was 'playing for a 3rd possession.' I responded that he's not playing for a third possession but prepping for the possibility. Instead of agreeing you ripped a partial quote and then re-stated he was 'wanting the game to go 3 possessions'.

Word for word. I linked your posts in addition to responding to them. It's not insulting to take what you say as it's written. Again you could have simply said that's what you meant and worded it poorly, instead of pretending someone is 'strawmanning' your position.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:

Originally posted by Koldo:

I hope Kyle at least has the Super Bowl OT rules down if we face the Chiefs again.

Still waiting on am explanation as to how that changes anything.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing with the "fire Shanahan" group because they either don't know ball, or are too blinded by extreme fandom in some weird, entitled way. It is worth mentioning tho that a lot of the chess match happens before the game. They come up with a game plan and practice that game plan all week. They don't have time to practice "break in case of emergency" plays. It's not so easy to just say "things aren't working, abandon the game plan amd go to plan B!" Execution would even more unreliable.

When I see this point made it exposes a certain willful blindness toward coaching mistakes. Let's see you explain to me why our approach of 'not going over it' per Juice was better than KCs approach of going over it since TC per their players. One team is prepared here and another isn't. It's clear as day.

In fairness to you, it looks like (maybe?) you thought my second thought RE game plan was related to my first question about the relevance of knowing the OT rules and the outcome of the game. So I ask again, what goes differently if we "have the rules down?"

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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.

Again. Indicating a goal or desire.

Understand he said 'want the ball third'
I'm quoting the man. If the game goes 3 possessions of OT, we would have had the ball and presumably the advantage. that was his rationale to receive, per him.

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
In fairness to you, it looks like (maybe?) you thought my second thought RE game plan was related to my first question about the relevance of knowing the OT rules and the outcome of the game. So I ask again, what goes differently if we "have the rules down?"

who knows? it's like saying what happens if we get the ball 2nd. I don't know. I know we get an extra play. Maybe we win the SB or score a TD on it..
the point is being prepared and having 2 pt concepts ready to go for an OT moment is greater than not being prepared and not going over it with the guys

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Understand he said 'want the ball third'
I'm quoting the man. If the game goes 3 possessions of OT, we would have had the ball and presumably the advantage. that was his rational, per him.

Oh I know. It's exactly what I said to you now, and in the past.

I didn't write that he was wanting the OT period to go three possessions. You did. More than once with different language. Obviously he wasn't wanting the OT period to go three possessions. Wanted a score, ideally a TD, and a stop.