49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by DrEll:
The spin by the Kyle fan club is insane. I'll repeat. No where else outside this forum are you finding the ludicrous takes some of the fans here are defending. It's like Kyle has attained deity status, only players make mistakes, and head coaches are irreplaceable.

it's actually quite pathetic, but refreshing to know there are real analysts out there (both 49ers and non 49ers) that can state the obvious without bias.

Its actually not that many people, a solid handful or two on these forums that will talk down to anyone when you question Kyle.

While you know I do not think he should be fired I also said the reality is he may have missed his chances and that's that. Obviously there are many key points in the game that added up to the loss, but I stand by my opinion taking the ball first in OT was a strategic mistake.

Purdy is who gives me hope, but after this season the roster is pretty much going to be overhauled so...we shall see.

It's sad to say, but this truly is the last year with this group of players. Basically we used up half a decade with a great core of guys with nothing to show for it (some will argue that all those wins in the regular season were the best thing ever). I blame coaching for not getting us over the hump. Can't keep using the Jimmy excuse eg player x cost us the SB. I don't think Shanahan will win one here. He's maxed out, and at some point likely 2 years from now he'll be out and the spin here will be ridiculous.

I suppose the bolded is true if you consider the SB as the only measure of success. I don't, because I remember the Kelly/tomsula years so vividly.

kyle has his weaknesses. Obviously. I just don't think it's reasonable to ditch the perennial second-place coach in search of the perennial first-place coach. Will likely end up with another Kelly/tomsula era.

you seem pretty convicted in your opinion, and I don't care to try to change it. Just stating mine.

maybe Kyle will win one here, maybe he won't. His chances are much higher than his statistically-likely replacement

also worth noting that the "great core of players" you reference are all Kyle guys. I wonder how one reaches the conclusion that a coach who's built a good roster couldn't continue to build a good roster.

See my post. I think Kyle has maxed out. Kind of how Tony Dungy maxed out in TB before Gruden arrived at took them to the Super Bowl. Sure, we can give Kyle credit for building a roster. But for what ? To make the playoffs every year ? The advantage if having a stacked roster is to win the SB with it. Not get to the SB, as some fans have become so gleeful about. Not to make the playoffs, as some fans like to celebrate. If you're going to reminisce about the Kelly/Tomsula era, and use Kyle's success here based on that measuring stick, I feel bad for you because you must have missed the entire 80s / 90s. Tomsula is not the measuring stick for greatness. It's the 80s and 90s team that we should be using to define ourselves.

This fanbase has become weak…decadent. Excellence is no longer measured by gold medals, but rather participation trophies. It's an awful mentality. It's either a coping mechanism to deal with two SB losses against inferior teams, or on par with the lunacy that Alex Smith was a great franchise quarterback for us that used to infest Niner forums about a decade ago….

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by Howlett49:
I'm a big Shanny fan. He blew the overtime situation though.

lol pretty much sums up the crowd mentality here…

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by DrEll:
The spin by the Kyle fan club is insane. I'll repeat. No where else outside this forum are you finding the ludicrous takes some of the fans here are defending. It's like Kyle has attained deity status, only players make mistakes, and head coaches are irreplaceable.

it's actually quite pathetic, but refreshing to know there are real analysts out there (both 49ers and non 49ers) that can state the obvious without bias.

Its actually not that many people, a solid handful or two on these forums that will talk down to anyone when you question Kyle.

While you know I do not think he should be fired I also said the reality is he may have missed his chances and that's that. Obviously there are many key points in the game that added up to the loss, but I stand by my opinion taking the ball first in OT was a strategic mistake.

Purdy is who gives me hope, but after this season the roster is pretty much going to be overhauled so...we shall see.

It's sad to say, but this truly is the last year with this group of players. Basically we used up half a decade with a great core of guys with nothing to show for it (some will argue that all those wins in the regular season were the best thing ever). I blame coaching for not getting us over the hump. Can't keep using the Jimmy excuse eg player x cost us the SB. I don't think Shanahan will win one here. He's maxed out, and at some point likely 2 years from now he'll be out and the spin here will be ridiculous.

I suppose the bolded is true if you consider the SB as the only measure of success. I don't, because I remember the Kelly/tomsula years so vividly.

kyle has his weaknesses. Obviously. I just don't think it's reasonable to ditch the perennial second-place coach in search of the perennial first-place coach. Will likely end up with another Kelly/tomsula era.

you seem pretty convicted in your opinion, and I don't care to try to change it. Just stating mine.

maybe Kyle will win one here, maybe he won't. His chances are much higher than his statistically-likely replacement

also worth noting that the "great core of players" you reference are all Kyle guys. I wonder how one reaches the conclusion that a coach who's built a good roster couldn't continue to build a good roster.

See my post. I think Kyle has maxed out. Kind of how Tony Dungy maxed out in TB before Gruden arrived at took them to the Super Bowl. Sure, we can give Kyle credit for building a roster. But for what ? To make the playoffs every year ? The advantage if having a stacked roster is to win the SB with it. Not get to the SB, as some fans have become so gleeful about. Not to make the playoffs, as some fans like to celebrate. If you're going to reminisce about the Kelly/Tomsula era, and use Kyle's success here based on that measuring stick, I feel bad for you because you must have missed the entire 80s / 90s. Tomsula is not the measuring stick for greatness. It's the 80s and 90s team that we should be using to define ourselves.

This fanbase has become weak…decadent. Excellence is no longer measured by gold medals, but rather participation trophies. It's an awful mentality. It's either a coping mechanism to deal with two SB losses against inferior teams, or on par with the lunacy that Alex Smith was a great franchise quarterback for us that used to infest Niner forums about a decade ago….

I disagree with almost everything you've posted here. Starting to think youre not even a DR at all, and I'll be damned if I'm going to argue with a big fat phony 🤣🤣🤣



naw I see your point. I disagree, but it's not unreasonable 👍🏻

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

"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

Originally posted by eastie:
"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

The tactics are choose what perk you want. Do you want the perk of having full info for possession 2? Or do you want the perk of having sudden death possession 3 advantage? That's the choice. Understand the flowchart, if the game gets to possession 3, receiving team has the edge. If the game doesn't get to 3rd possession, then the kicking team has the edge. That's how it breaks down.

Originally posted by eastie:

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

"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

Who in the fook is THAT guy??!!

Day late, dollar short. See you in the next topic

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by eastie:
"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

The tactics are choose what perk you want. Do you want the perk of having full info for possession 2? Or do you want the perk of having sudden death possession 3 advantage? That's the choice. Understand the flowchart, if the game gets to possession 3, receiving team has the edge. If the game doesn't get to 3rd possession, then the kicking team has the edge. That's how it breaks down.

Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

Originally posted by eastie:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by eastie:
"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

The tactics are choose what perk you want. Do you want the perk of having full info for possession 2? Or do you want the perk of having sudden death possession 3 advantage? That's the choice. Understand the flowchart, if the game gets to possession 3, receiving team has the edge. If the game doesn't get to 3rd possession, then the kicking team has the edge. That's how it breaks down.

Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

I just find the tactics of the new OT rules interesting. Your post is over the top.

I question if you are even following what I am talking about. Sure it's about 50/50. But let's say for the sake that the game is in possession 3, ok at that point it's not 50/50. That's what I am saying (and it's what Kyle was talking about).

Originally posted by eastie:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by eastie:
"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

The tactics are choose what perk you want. Do you want the perk of having full info for possession 2? Or do you want the perk of having sudden death possession 3 advantage? That's the choice. Understand the flowchart, if the game gets to possession 3, receiving team has the edge. If the game doesn't get to 3rd possession, then the kicking team has the edge. That's how it breaks down.

Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

The response you're likely to get:

Originally posted by eastie:
Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

That's not to mention it's not just a consideration of the numbers, but also the fact that you're putting your defense out there for back to back possessions, after 4 full quarters of play, in our particular situation that game (if we defer)

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by eastie:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by eastie:
"bow out? Dude , you were never in the argument. You stopped when you found a sentence that you could use to fortify your position without context. Kyle did say he was playing to win it by scoring first and then stopping KC from scoring. Failing that, he then wanted t be in position to get the ball and drive for the winning score. It's like you got half way through a math problem , stopped and claimed you got the answer. LOL.

The tactics are choose what perk you want. Do you want the perk of having full info for possession 2? Or do you want the perk of having sudden death possession 3 advantage? That's the choice. Understand the flowchart, if the game gets to possession 3, receiving team has the edge. If the game doesn't get to 3rd possession, then the kicking team has the edge. That's how it breaks down.

Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

I just find the tactics of the new OT rules interesting. Your post is over the top.

I question if you are even following what I am talking about. Sure it's about 50/50. But let's say for the sake that the game is in possession 3, ok at that point it's not 50/50. That's what I am saying (and it's what Kyle was talking about).

Cool, then you admit that Kyle "lost" what amounts to a coin flip. Then why are you still skewering him? So convoluted and confusing are these arm-chair arguments.

Originally posted by eastie:
Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

In this corner we have Earnie Adams, long time analyst and confidant to the GOAT, Bill Belichick. In the other corner we have, uhm, Eastie. This is shaping up to be a good fight, will be interesting to see how Eastie plans to attack the juggernaut. The predictable tactics of rapid fire nonsensical statements meant to muddy the topic may not work to his benefit against such a high profile analyst like Mr Adams. But he appears eager and full of energy… he may just pull off the upset!

get your popcorn ready

https://heavy.com/sports/san-francisco-49ers/bill-belichick-ernie-adams-super-bowl/amp/

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by eastie:
Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

That's not to mention it's not just a consideration of the numbers, but also the fact that you're putting your defense out there for back to back possessions, after 4 full quarters of play, in our particular situation that game (if we defer)

Kyle said outright that didn't factor. The decision was made in advance. In reality would it factor? Hard to say. The prior drive was a minute and 47 seconds and there's naturally time on the sideline getting from Q4 to Q5. I don't know if D rest was much of a thing here. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
That's not to mention it's not just a consideration of the numbers, but also the fact that you're putting your defense out there for back to back possessions, after 4 full quarters of play, in our particular situation that game (if we defer)

Good point. They had to be gassed… not sure how much they would have recovered during the break between quarters.

oh well, always next year

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by eastie:
Dude, who the F**k are you? Condescending with your 'understand the flow chart" bullcrap. It's not hard at all to figure out that there are those that want the loss to be the HC's fault. To rationalize that perspective, one must take quotes out of context, and, or, ignore al together what was said. Analytics has said that the 'advantage' was miniscule at best. Turns out, the reason we lost was that our defense couldn't stop KC's offense when it needed to. That s**t happens in every game played by every team all season long.

In this corner we have Earnie Adams, long time analyst and confidant to the GOAT, Bill Belichick. In the other corner we have, uhm, Eastie. This is shaping up to be a good fight, will be interesting to see how Eastie plans to attack the juggernaut. The predictable tactics of rapid fire nonsensical statements meant to muddy the topic may not work to his benefit against such a high profile analyst like Mr Adams. But he appears eager and full of energy… he may just pull off the upset!

get your popcorn ready

https://heavy.com/sports/san-francisco-49ers/bill-belichick-ernie-adams-super-bowl/amp/

Back your s**t up with statistical analysis, otherwise you're just cherry-picking (argumentative fallacy), and looking like a fool for puffing out your feathers.