49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Yes it is. He wasn't playing for a 3rd possession. He was making a decision with a 3rd possession being a possibility, as the linked quote clearly stated in full context.

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. So got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal and if we did, we thought it was in our hands after that."

Again the operative word here is 'if'. If you are too stupid to understand the best case scenario is that the game ends in two possessions, but could possibly go a third I can't help you.

Imagine arguing that Kyle didn't want to get a stop on that second possession…

Smokey: "Kyle didn't say he was playing for 3rd possession.

Kyle: "we wanted the ball third"

sounds like you're argument is with him man. I'll take this opportunity to bow out of your argument

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Smokey: "Kyle didn't say he was playing for 3rd possession.

Kyle: "we wanted the ball third"

sounds like you're argument is with him man. I'll take this opportunity to bow out of your argument

'Playing for' has an actual meaning. It indicates a goal. Same with faithful's other plain language comment that Kyle was 'wanting the game to go 3 possessions'.

Quite a mastery of the language you have. It's your* by the way.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Yes it is. He wasn't playing for a 3rd possession. He was making a decision with a 3rd possession being a possibility, as the linked quote clearly stated in full context.

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. So got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal and if we did, we thought it was in our hands after that."

Again the operative word here is 'if'. If you are too stupid to understand the best case scenario is that the game ends in two possessions, but could possibly go a third I can't help you.

Imagine arguing that Kyle didn't want to get a stop on that second possession…

Smokey: "Kyle didn't say he was playing for 3rd possession.

Kyle: "we wanted the ball third"

sounds like you're argument is with him man. I'll take this opportunity to bow out of your argument

What Smokey is having trouble with is Kyle said we want the ball 3rd, if it goes to 3 possessions. That was his rationale for his decision. Take it as you will folks. I say possession 1 and possession 2 advantages trump a possession 3 sudden death advantage. That's as simple and straightforward as I can boil it down, to avoid any misunderstandings

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
What Smokey is having trouble with is Kyle said we want the ball 3rd, if it goes to 3 possessions. That was his rationale for his decision. Take it as you will folks. I say possession 1 and possession 2 advantages trump a possession 3 sudden death advantage. That's as simple and straightforward as I can boil it down, to avoid any misunderstandings

I'm not having trouble with anything Kyle said. I took issue with your incorrect re-wording of Kyle Shanahan's statement.

Did Kyle want the game to go 3 possessions Faithful? He wanted it to be tied up after 2?

This s**t is inane.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I'm not having trouble with anything Kyle said. I took issue with your incorrect re-wording of Kyle Shanahan's statement.

Did Kyle want the game to go 3 possessions Faithful? He wanted it to be tied up after 2?

This s**t is inane.

I blame it all on Jed York. He hired Kyle.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I'm not having trouble with anything Kyle said. I took issue with your incorrect re-wording of Kyle Shanahan's statement.

Did Kyle want the game to go 3 possessions Faithful? He wanted it to be tied up after 2?

This s**t is inane.

what's insane is your strawman. you are debating yourself at this point. you misinterpret, and debate your own misinterpretations. have fun with that..

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
what's insane is your strawman. you are debating yourself at this point. you misinterpret, and debate your own misinterpretations. have fun with that..

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.

Buddy, I posted your exact words. Multiple times…. Multiple different days.

You said word for word Kyle was 'wanting the game to go 3 possessions'. There it is above again. And that was after you said in plain English he was 'playing for a third possession'. He wanted to end the game in two possessions just like any other coach would. Get a score, get a stop. This isn't hard, and stop pretending I'm strawmanning what you clearly wrote (including the multiple times before you regurgitated it yesterday).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
what's insane is your strawman. you are debating yourself at this point. you misinterpret, and debate your own misinterpretations. have fun with that..

Irony is fun

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
what's insane is your strawman. you are debating yourself at this point. you misinterpret, and debate your own misinterpretations. have fun with that..

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.

Buddy, I posted your exact words. Multiple times…. Multiple different days.

You said word for word Kyle was 'wanting the game to go 3 possessions'. There it is above again. And that was after you said in plain English he was 'playing for a third possession'. He wanted to end the game in two possessions just like any other coach would. Get a score, get a stop. This isn't hard, and stop pretending I'm strawmanning what you clearly wrote (including the multiple times before you regurgitated it yesterday).

Just read my words above I say word for word, that obviously if we can win before that great. What does that mean to you? It means he wants to win as early as possible. Heck I'm sure he wants 73-0 over OT in the first place right? Obvious. Now when it came time for OT he had choices, he prioritized the possession 3 advantage (per him).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Just read my words above I say word for word, that obviously if we can win before that great. What does that mean to you? It means he wants to win as early as possible. Heck I'm sure he wants 73-0 over OT in the first place right? Obvious. Now when it came time for OT he had choices, he prioritized the possession 3 advantage (per him).

Again, you are clearly stating the goal was to go 3 possessions, and if something good happens before that 'great'.

And this post was after you the one you said he was 'playing for a third possession'. That's not correct. As I replied, and as you said today just a couple posts up, he was making a decision with it being a possibility. Again, you said this same b******t multiple times before and I linked three of those posts yesterday as well.

For the third time, you could have simply said 'that's what I meant' to my response, in which I clearly said he was making a decision with a third possession being a possibility. But you didn't. You instead linked a partial quote and kept going. Stop trying to weasel out of a poorly worded comment and man up.

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.

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.

Next time just say that's what you meant.

Last time I respond on this until you inevitably say the same thing in the same fashion days/weeks from now.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Yes it is. He wasn't playing for a 3rd possession. He was making a decision with a 3rd possession being a possibility, as the linked quote clearly stated in full context.

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. So got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal and if we did, we thought it was in our hands after that."

Again the operative word here is 'if'. If you are too stupid to understand the best case scenario is that the game ends in two possessions, but could possibly go a third I can't help you.

Imagine arguing that Kyle didn't want to get a stop on that second possession…

Smokey: "Kyle didn't say he was playing for 3rd possession.

Kyle: "we wanted the ball third"

sounds like you're argument is with him man. I'll take this opportunity to bow out of your argument

I'm taking this as one big April Fools SJ pulling my chain with his oh you think Kyle wants possession 3 over a ring posts

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Nevermind, found your post regarding the topic:

"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"

Worth asking, is this still your opinion now that Ernie Adams, the coaching GOATs analyst is of the exact opposite opinion? Gonna stick to those guns?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
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.

Now back to this nonsense:

Here's the actual relevant post on your question. Note the bolded. You were probably too busy missing the point of the conversation you jumped in to notice.

To remind you (as I tried to tell you in the above post) the question being discussed was how the players 'not knowing the rules' actually affected the players play on the field. Still waiting on an answer beyond 'who knows?', from Faithful.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Smokey: "Kyle didn't say he was playing for 3rd possession.

Kyle: "we wanted the ball third"

sounds like you're argument is with him man. I'll take this opportunity to bow out of your argument

'Playing for' has an actual meaning. It indicates a goal. Same with faithful's other plain language comment that Kyle was 'wanting the game to go 3 possessions'.

Quite a mastery of the language you have. It's your* by the way.

Ooo let me try again. Your inability to reason is only surpassed by you're desire to argue. Did I get it right?

Lost and argument with Kyle Shanahan. Lost an argument with analyst Ernie Adams. Running out of gas here on the boards.

Ability to reason: 0
Desire to argue: 100
Entertainment factor: not as fun as it was yesterday.

when someone corrects your grammar, you know they're on the ropes

I'm glad this discussion finally happened, a lot of minds were changed.