49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
he had to play with that thumb cuz the other option was Turd Ferguson

Turd Ferguson could've missed every open WR in the nfc title game too and then maybe Jimmy would've gotten us something in a trade.

as usual your logic is
against Donald, Von and Ramsey he would have looked so bad, we would be begging JG to come back, which is not far from what happened anyway.. right?

Don't call people out on logic. Have you seen your posts in the NBA, MLB, Politics threads? You get mocked in every thread by everyone lmao

you forget i got a thumbs up, that one time

Originally posted by Montana:

Originally posted by genus49:
First of all...you gotta learn how to format your posts. Nobody wants to read a paragraph of garbage takes but since I just broke my foot I don't have much else to do.

Overtime decision - I don't know why some of you are so hell bent to trash Kyle that you're willing to expose yourselves as complete fools in actually saying out loud that Shanahan didn't know the OT rules. He knew the rules. The whole hooplah about OT is that our players weren't told about them before the game.

In hindsight we can claim it was a terrible coaching decision by Kyle and the Chiefs and Andy Reid were so smart in going over the rules before the game. Guess what, if you take off the hate blinders you'll realize spending time on a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually change ANYTHING isn't a great use of time. The Chiefs spent time on it because maybe their HC didn't have to babysit the DC and could concentrate on his expertise - the offense, which btw was not very good schematically.

The new OT rules changed nothing about what the goal of the offense was when we took the ball first - score a TD. If anything under the old rules you want to score the TD cuz it secures the win. The new rules changed nothing about how OT is played save a TD on the opening possession doesn't guarantee victory and the other team gets a chance to score as well.

Kyle knew the rules. He went over it with our analytics department and our department as well as the overall analytics community had it basically a 50/50 split whether to take it first or kick it off to the other team. For all the talk of Kyle not being good at game management the decision to take it first even in hindsight is more logical than not.

At the time of the decision we knew a few things - the Chiefs did not have a single TD drive in the game that wasn't a result of a fumbled punt within our own 20 yard line. We knew they could kick FGs and at a good distance. We knew they were starting to find their groove against our defense who was just out on the field giving up the tying FG in under 2 minutes and a defense that was on the field a good amount of plays in the 4th quarter. They were tired.

The decision to take the ball allowed that defense to rest and try to find a way to fix the cracks that KC found towards the end of the 4th. It also gave us the first possession that while didn't give us a "know what you have to match/exceed" situation gave us a chance to kick a FG and if KC does what they've done most of that game gives the 49ers the next possession where they can win with a FG.

That is all logical and given how the game was going made sense. That's what game management is. You're making calls based on what you've seen in that game, in that moment. The whole "you can't give Mahomes the ball last" narrative is fun now but that same Mahomes wasn't showing he could lead his offense down the field and score a TD even against our defense without Greenlaw.

But yes please do go on. You claim he didn't run enough show me what plays he clearly should've ran on that he didn't. The whole he didn't run enough in the 3rd quarter is a lazy narrative that I've gone over in this thread a few times. I already wrote a lot above so I won't get into it again. But considering every actual in game decision you mentioned as a coaching fail wasn't...you'll have to bring something else to this conversation.

Lol dude it's Mahomes though. You better make damn sure you score a TD after electing to receive, cause he is sure damn capable or likely to be able to score a TD when he gets the ball back-regardless of how he played in the game prior to that. That's irrelevant. It's Mahomes/Reid we are talking about lol. You have to play the best game of football, period. To make a decision on how he has played in the game, really? And just forget it's Mahomes. ok lol. I knew we were screwed after the fg when Kyle decided to receive. I wasn't surprised at all of the outcome.

Every game and season is different. You take the lead every time if you can in the SB. What Mahomes showed in that game was he could get Butcker into FG range. You can't go for it on 4th down vs a great defense who just stopped you even though you had an easy TD play called if executed properly.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Do you see any non-fact in my post that you are responding too? (Strawman)

I don't think it's a fact that Kyle liked Beathard more than Mahomes. That's a pretty ridiculous assumption with the only supporting evidence being a report from Peter King (I believe) that said Beathard was the only QB Kyle was willing to take in the draft. Even if that report were true, it's not actually a confirmation that he liked Beathard more than a player who was much more costly in terms of draft picks.

Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
What was my take?

This

Shanahan is the Head Coach & the O.C, who put Burford (who was unprepared) out on the field in that situation?

He was the backup. Wtf do you expect there? Burford also admitted he f**ked up. He even got called out by a teammate. But some crunch finger cheetos guy on his couch just knows better.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

he probably would have fallen in love with Mitchell T. 11 on 11 positionless, Mitchell T action

Originally posted by tankle104:
Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

That was reported. I also think that was an egregious mistake and the product of not having a 'real' GM.

I'd also agree with your thinking about Beathard's selection. A potential solid low rounder who could be a cheap backup for a handful of years.

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by eastie:
Using Glory's logic, a sixth grader in Hoboken NJ fails his math test. It's the parents fault? NO? It's the teachers fault, NO. It's the Principals fault. NO It's the fault of the leader of the school board's fault. Nope. It would be the fault of the Federal Dept of Education as they sit atop the organizational chart. But wait, there is an even higher chart. IT's the fault of the President of the United States. Now if you are of a religious vein then the fault must go to the Leader of your religion of choice. Right, Glory? I mean, its all right there in the charts, correct?

Strawman.

Nothing to see here. Moving on...

LOL. But, it's the ORGANIZATION CHART!!! Who's name is on top? That's the responsible party. That's what YOU said. Are you now saying that it only applies to this team? I'm just trying to see this thing from your perspective. Please explain to me the difference.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

ehhh. Lynch, Peters and Mayhew were at Mahomes pro day

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/4/1/15148084/patrick-mahomes-pro-day-78-yard-throw

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Do you see any non-fact in my post that you are responding too? (Strawman)

I don't think it's a fact that Kyle liked Beathard more than Mahomes. That's a pretty ridiculous assumption with the only supporting evidence being a report from Peter King (I believe) that said Beathard was the only QB Kyle was willing to take in the draft. Even if that report were true, it's not actually a confirmation that he liked Beathard more than a player who was much more costly in terms of draft picks.

Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

Well, none of that is what happened.

What happened was Solomon Thomas got drafted at #3 overall and Beathard got drafted (3rd round) #104 overall.

Meanwhile Andy Reid made a trade with the Buffalo Bills of all teams, trading up from #27 to #10 to get a generational talent.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Do you see any non-fact in my post that you are responding too? (Strawman)

I don't think it's a fact that Kyle liked Beathard more than Mahomes. That's a pretty ridiculous assumption with the only supporting evidence being a report from Peter King (I believe) that said Beathard was the only QB Kyle was willing to take in the draft. Even if that report were true, it's not actually a confirmation that he liked Beathard more than a player who was much more costly in terms of draft picks.

Isn't it widely reported that Kyle and his staff didn't really look at any of the top qbs in this draft cause they didn't play on taking one and would get cousins in FA the following year?

I think it's ridiculous that a rookie head coach wouldn't evaluate a draft with a handful of really talented qbs (Watson, mahommes etc). But I don't think that means he liked beathard more than mahommes. I think it means they wanted a young guy to draft and have as a back up in the later rounds and probably just loved beathard film and drafted him earlier than they anticipated.

There's two mindsets when it comes to NFL GMs/HCs and how they build their teams.

QB First or build the skill/positions/trenches first.

Based on how we drafted early on, our philosophy was the latter. A move I also agree with it. You've had QBs thought the history that get drafted early go to a bad team, and most of the time they are busts. Sometimes you get lucky with a generational talent type player, or a very very good QB that can still elevate above that. But I also prefect build the team first, and then go get your QB.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
What was my take?

This

Shanahan is the Head Coach & the O.C, who put Burford (who was unprepared) out on the field in that situation?

He was the backup. Wtf do you expect there? Burford also admitted he f**ked up. He even got called out by a teammate. But some crunch finger cheetos guy on his couch just knows better.

Doesn't change a thing, he is out there because Kyle allowed it. The fact that he didn't know what to do is even more of a knock on the head coach/o.c.

This isn't little league baseball.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Only reason McVay even won is because s**tty Jimmy was playing with a thumb and shoulder injury in the NFCC…but you know players have zero impact on winning and losing. That victory was solely because of McVay.

'member when Tom Brady left the Pats for the Bucs and Belichik won the next Supe....oh wait.

Players don't matter

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
There's two mindsets when it comes to NFL GMs/HCs and how they build their teams.

QB First or build the skill/positions/trenches first.

Based on how we drafted early on, our philosophy was the latter. A move I also agree with it. You've had QBs thought the history that get drafted early go to a bad team, and most of the time they are busts. Sometimes you get lucky with a generational talent type player, or a very very good QB that can still elevate above that. But I also prefect build the team first, and then go get your QB.

good post, I also agree with the latter. you can't get the QB, when you don't have OL and weapons figured out. the QB will flounder, on the all important rook deal. You will notice SF and DET built it up, without drafting the early round QB, and when SF did draft the early round guy, that was our flop. You have to be some crazy good QB, to be on a poor team and win all your games, that's Jimmy G and maybe P Manning.

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
You don't like the fact that everything falls on leadership. I know that is a hard concept for some folks but EVERYTHING on any side of the ball will fall at the feet of the Head Coach good or bad, he gets all the credit and blame.

I don't even know what the bolded above means, but it reminds me of a small child having no response to being owned.

Nothing wrong with this argument in my opinion. Personally think it's correct.

Where this breaks down is any conclusion other than Shanahan has done a stellar job overall.

A perfect example is Steve Wilks, as you referenced. His first two hires were so successful he was forced to make a third and it didn't work out as well. There aren't an infinite amount of high quality coordinators available to teams.

Very good post! I have been waiting for this response hence me stating over and over again that Shanahan is responsible for EVERYTHING football related with our team. I had to throw in that little nugget, Good or Bad, for someone to catch on but I can take that.

If he's credited for CMC's TD's he's also responsible for the fumbles. If he's credited for the great offense, defense, and ST game plans he's also responsible for the ones that fail. If he's responsible for Robert Saleh, Mike McDaniel, and Demeco Ryans success then he is responsible for Steve Wilks failure.

NO EXCUSES

Dude stfu. There are plenty of coaches including Andy Reid who get to delegate parts of the team to other coaches.

Yes Kyle hired Wilks and he's to blame for that. It doesn't excuse Wilks from not doing his job. And as SmokeyJoe pointed out and you while claiming he made a great point chose to ignore the logic behind, only so many candidates out there.

49ers lost DeMeco after the NFCCG. Go back and check how many coaches were hired at that point. Not like the NFL waits until the SB is over so all the coaching hires happen at the same time.

Kyle and Wilks met. They talked about what each wanted and came to an understanding that Wilks would bring in his own flair but keep the status quo for the most part. That's clearly not what happened and yet here you are blaming it all on Kyle.

I can guarantee you Reid didn't have to babysit Spags. He got to work on his group and let Spags and Troub or whatever his ST coordinator is do their thing.

Kyle apparently isn't as good a HC if he doesn't oversee everything else on his team outside of the offense.

Originally posted by eastie:
LOL. But, it's the ORGANIZATION CHART!!! Who's name is on top? That's the responsible party. That's what YOU said. Are you now saying that it only applies to this team? I'm just trying to see this thing from your perspective. Please explain to me the difference.

What's strawman is comparing a HC and a league from almost 40 years ago and saying that's the standard…there's no nuance or discussion on what leads to a loss allowed players don't matter. Execution doesn't matter. It's all about the HC.