49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

We have the #1 rusher in the league, an offense that is designed around running the ball, and the lead for 59 minutes. If you can't see why going pass happy is a bad move I can't help you. The rams weren't running the ball any better than we were but they stuck with it even when they were losing, and look what happened. Like you, Kyle outthunk himself. Apply the above to the superbowl losses as well.

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
Love him or hate him, all of you will be reminiscing about Kyle one day when we hit our next dark age. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy that at least 49er football is entertaining in this era.

How can you reminisce about a guy that lost 2 SBs ? It's one of the two reasons why we don't really talk about the Harbaugh era. 1) SB loss. 2) couldn't overcome Seattle.

I guess if making it to the playoffs was your ultimate goal, then yea I guess we'll miss Shanny. But I'd rather look at it as starting fresh with good talent that needs someone that can set them right. Too bad Harbaugh already had his stint here, or he would be a great hire for a team that has key positions filled already…

Because he took a s**tty team that i hated watching and made them a great team that i enjoy watching. The roster is better, the offensive scheme is better, the locker-room isnt fractured, we found a good qb etc etc.

I cant imagine any available coaches doing a better job. would you like to suggest one? or just here to b***h?

Originally posted by mcwoot:
We have the #1 rusher in the league, an offense that is designed around running the ball, and the lead for 59 minutes. If you can't see why going pass happy is a bad move I can't help you. The rams weren't running the ball any better than we were but they stuck with it even even they were losing, and look what happened. Like you, Kyle outthunk himself. Apply the above to the superbowl losses as well.

yeah, they passed it deep and caught the ball and/or drew pass interference. wtf are you even talking about here? did you watch the game? Mason was just as likely to run for no gain as he was to break off any yardage. a couple big runs skewed the stat line . . .but even then, one would have to be on an outdated processor to imagine a scenario where handing the ball to mason over and over was going to win the game.

f**king receivers dropped the passes. Akin to RBs fumbling the exchange. What was supposed to be automatic. . wasnt.

Originally posted by Koldo:
Don't you know that the only option, should Shanny be fired, is either Chip Kelly or Tomsula?

It's not that it's the ONLY option, it's that it's the odds on likelihood to get a less successful head coach. Probability is a 1/20 shot to improve over Shanahan. Doesn't mean you'll get a guy that goes 2-15, but you could also get a Marvin Lewis type that loses in their first playoff game every year, or a Jeff Fisher type that goes 8-9/9-8 for a decade.

Here's the math: There have been 21 Super Bowl winning coaches in 58 years. By my quick count there have been 445 head coaches across the 32 teams in the Super Bowl era. So a 4.7% chance of hiring a SB winning head coach.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
Love him or hate him, all of you will be reminiscing about Kyle one day when we hit our next dark age. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy that at least 49er football is entertaining in this era.

How can you reminisce about a guy that lost 2 SBs ? It's one of the two reasons why we don't really talk about the Harbaugh era. 1) SB loss. 2) couldn't overcome Seattle.

I guess if making it to the playoffs was your ultimate goal, then yea I guess we'll miss Shanny. But I'd rather look at it as starting fresh with good talent that needs someone that can set them right. Too bad Harbaugh already had his stint here, or he would be a great hire for a team that has key positions filled already…

Because he took a s**tty team that i hated watching and made them a great team that i enjoy watching. The roster is better, the offensive scheme is better, the locker-room isnt fractured, we found a good qb etc etc.

I cant imagine any available coaches doing a better job. would you like to suggest one? or just here to b***h?

Belichick ? Ben Johnson ? Some of you guys posed this question last offseason. Mike Macdonald has his team 3-0, and he was DC for the Ravens.

Point being, there is absolutely NO evidence that replacing Kyle Shanahan automatically equates to the 49ers reverting back to a cellar dweller and picking top 5 in the draft for the next decade. Nick Sirianni replaced Doug Pederson and took the Eagles to a SB is less than 5 years.

Stop with the BS that Kyle is irreplaceable…

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Mason was just as likely to run for no gain as he was to break off any yardage.

You've just described every run game ever. This is why Kyle needs a game day playcaller so he doesn't overthink things

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Koldo:
Don't you know that the only option, should Shanny be fired, is either Chip Kelly or Tomsula?

It's not that it's the ONLY option, it's that it's the odds on likelihood to get a less successful head coach. Probability is a 1/20 shot to improve over Shanahan. Doesn't mean you'll get a guy that goes 2-15, but you could also get a Marvin Lewis type that loses in their first playoff game every year, or a Jeff Fisher type that goes 8-9/9-8 for a decade.

Here's the math: There have been 21 Super Bowl winning coaches in 58 years. By my quick count there have been 445 head coaches across the 32 teams in the Super Bowl era. So a 4.7% chance of hiring a SB winning head coach.

In case you missed it, Kyle is not one of those 21 Super Bowl winning coaches. So any other coach has the same odds as Kyle, if not better, to win a SB…

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
one would have to be on an outdated processor to imagine a scenario where handing the ball to mason over and over was going to win the game.

Announcer literally said at the beginning of the game if Mason gets 30+ carries SF wins. Mason got 19, Kyren Williams got 24

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
Love him or hate him, all of you will be reminiscing about Kyle one day when we hit our next dark age. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy that at least 49er football is entertaining in this era.

How can you reminisce about a guy that lost 2 SBs ? It's one of the two reasons why we don't really talk about the Harbaugh era. 1) SB loss. 2) couldn't overcome Seattle.

I guess if making it to the playoffs was your ultimate goal, then yea I guess we'll miss Shanny. But I'd rather look at it as starting fresh with good talent that needs someone that can set them right. Too bad Harbaugh already had his stint here, or he would be a great hire for a team that has key positions filled already…

Because he took a s**tty team that i hated watching and made them a great team that i enjoy watching. The roster is better, the offensive scheme is better, the locker-room isnt fractured, we found a good qb etc etc.

I cant imagine any available coaches doing a better job. would you like to suggest one? or just here to b***h?

Belichick ? Ben Johnson ? Some of you guys posed this question last offseason. Mike Macdonald has his team 3-0, and he was DC for the Ravens.

Point being, there is absolutely NO evidence that replacing Kyle Shanahan automatically equates to the 49ers reverting back to a cellar dweller and picking top 5 in the draft for the next decade. Nick Sirianni replaced Doug Pederson and took the Eagles to a SB is less than 5 years.

Stop with the BS that Kyle is irreplaceable…

im responding, friend. youre the one propagating a message. and i think we all understand you opinion. for some time now. for a looong time now we've all been acutely aware of your position.

Originally posted by mcwoot:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
one would have to be on an outdated processor to imagine a scenario where handing the ball to mason over and over was going to win the game.

Announcer literally said at the beginning of the game if Mason gets 30+ carries SF wins. Mason got 19, Kyren Williams got 24

dude. . .are you talking about mark sanchez? pls tell me mark sanchez is your source.

If mark sanchez said that, i suppose im inclined to believe it

thanks for that. . .I was definitely overestimating my audience

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Koldo:
Don't you know that the only option, should Shanny be fired, is either Chip Kelly or Tomsula?

It's not that it's the ONLY option, it's that it's the odds on likelihood to get a less successful head coach. Probability is a 1/20 shot to improve over Shanahan. Doesn't mean you'll get a guy that goes 2-15, but you could also get a Marvin Lewis type that loses in their first playoff game every year, or a Jeff Fisher type that goes 8-9/9-8 for a decade.

Here's the math: There have been 21 Super Bowl winning coaches in 58 years. By my quick count there have been 445 head coaches across the 32 teams in the Super Bowl era. So a 4.7% chance of hiring a SB winning head coach.

In case you missed it, Kyle is not one of those 21 Super Bowl winning coaches. So any other coach has the same odds as Kyle, if not better, to win a SB…

not sure your math is mathing. but we'll go with it

Turning over the roster?

Why not let another coach take over with this roster?.. before feeling we need to start over? We've seen that happen before in this league (and other sports). A Coach only does so much with a talented roster, different guy comes in... makes most of that roster and those opportunities.

Kyle was given an cheating team these last few years... and even more so when he lucked into Christian McCaffrey.

You expect him to have a less talented roster and...somehow do better? Pfffff... nope... I ain't dealing with another 5years of Kyle rebuilding this team, JUST to stick with the same mentality that gets him to lose Super Bowls by the time we get better.

Fuuuuuck that!

Let's look at the second half drives and if they didn't run enough:

First drive: TD

Second drive: Field goal from the red zone after running the ball got stuffed on 3rd and 1

Third drive: 1 pass and 2 runs get it to 1st and 10. Juice called for holding on next play, a run, now 1st and 20. Two passes gets it to 3rd and 8, a clear passing down (completed passes keep the clock going). Purdy ends up scrambling, Moody misses the FG. Note that this drive had zero incomplete passes so the clock ran just as much it would have with run plays or pass plays. In fact the only time the clock stopped once under 5 minutes was when Guerendo went out of bounds with the run that got the hold call.

Fourth drive: With the game now tied and 1:51 on the clock we get the last drive. Team has only one timeout. 5 pass plays, first two complete to get a 1st down at the SF 43 with 1:08 left. Next three plays are incomplete short pass to Yuk. Next play is the drop by Bell which would have likely won them the game. Purdy on 3rd and 10 finds no one and only gains 2 on the scramble. Punt.

Fifth drive: The scramble play with 2 seconds left. Guess we should have ran here.

So maybe - MAYBE - you run on the 1st and 10 with 1:08 left on the last drive. That's ONE pass call that can be argued to be a better choice to run. It's still moot if Bell catches a pass that hits him in the hands. I don't see how you argue against the play calls in the TD drive. It's a run play that fails in the red zone on the next drive. No run plays would have ran the clock anymore on the drive with the missed FG after they were put into 1st and 20 since the clock never stopped after that anyway except for Rams timeouts. Then the fourth drive is under 2 minutes, with one plausible pass play that can be swapped out for a run.

So, where exactly were another 10 running plays supposed to happen in the second half?

Originally posted by captveg:
Let's look at the second half drives and if they didn't run enough:

First drive: TD

Second drive: Field goal from the red zone after running the ball got stuffed on 3rd and 1

Third drive: 1 pass and 2 runs get it to 1st and 10. Juice called for holding on next play, a run, now 1st and 20. Two passes gets it to 3rd and 8, a clear passing down. Purdy ends up scrambling, Moody misses the FG. Note that this drive had zero incomplete passes so the clock ran just as much it would have with run plays or pass plays. In fact the only time the clock stopped was when Guerendo went out of bounds with the run that got the hold call.

Fourth drive: With the game now tied and 1:51 on the clock we get the last drive. Team has only one timeout. 5 pass plays, first two complete to get a 1st down at the SF 43 with 1:08 left. Next three plays are incomplete short pass to Yuk. Next play is the drop by Bell which would have likely won them the game. Purdy on 3rd and 10 finds no one and only gains 2 on the scramble. Punt.

Fifth drive: The scramble play with 2 seconds left.

So maybe - MAYBE - you run on the 1st and 10 with 1:08 left on the last drive. That's ONE pass call that can be argued to be a better choice to run. It's still moot if Bell catches a pass that hits him in the hands. I don't see how you argue against the play calls in the TD drive. It's a run play that fails in the red zone on the next drive. No run plays would have ran the clock anymore on the drive with the missed FG after they were put into 1st and 20 since the clock never stopped after that anyway except for Rams timeouts. Then the fourth drive is under 2 minutes, with one plausible pass play that can be swapped out for a run.

So, where exactly were another 10 running plays supposed to happen in the second half?

No room for reasonable opinions here.

Originally posted by captveg:
Two passes gets it to 3rd and 8

Are you even listening to yourself