49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 9moon:
HOW we going to find out if we won't find anyone IF we don't replace KYLE?

Brady won w/o Bill so he at least proved that he can win w/o him.. Bill has yet to prove that he can win w/o Brady... so, we have the team now, we have a pretty good QB, a defense that needs some coaching..

WHY NOT BILL ??

Because his old as dirt and his offense stinks. He's a horrible drafter and shown that outside of Brady he can't develop much at QB.

Dude will want to make his own roster and by the time anything happens he's gonna be closer to 80 lol. Only place I see him coaching for is NYG.

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Hilarious post… didn't see the plot twist coming.

Nodding my head in agreement as you make the case for Tom being the goat and bill riding his coat tails.

then recommend…. Bill?? Who saw that coming???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣.

He's a regular M. Night Shyamalan 😝

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
Eight playoff wins and four NFC Championship appearances in the last five seasons and we're talking about moving on from him for a total wild card coach that might not even get us to a winning record.

This fanbase is a bunch of spoiled brats. Y'all are exactly the reason we lost Harbaugh and had to suffer through the total suckage of Tomsula and Kelly.

I didn't know the fans have the authority to hire and fire staff and players.

Originally posted by Koldo:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
Eight playoff wins and four NFC Championship appearances in the last five seasons and we're talking about moving on from him for a total wild card coach that might not even get us to a winning record.

This fanbase is a bunch of spoiled brats. Y'all are exactly the reason we lost Harbaugh and had to suffer through the total suckage of Tomsula and Kelly.

I didn't know the fans have the authority to hire and fire staff and players.

Funny how Kyle supporters automatically assume that firing Kyle will bring on the next Tomsula or Kelly. They use Jim Harbaugh as their example. Why not use a more realistic one like George Seifert following Bill Walsh ? Where Seifert inherited a good roster from Bill and continued excellence leading to 2 SB titles and 5 NFCC appearances.

it's such a lazy argument on their part…

Originally posted by DrEll:
Funny how Kyle supporters automatically assume that firing Kyle will bring on the next Tomsula or Kelly. They use Jim Harbaugh as their example. Why not use a more realistic one like George Seifert following Bill Walsh ? Where Seifert inherited a good roster from Bill and continued excellence leading to 2 SB titles and 5 NFCC appearances.

it's such a lazy argument on their part…

So your answer is to hire Nick Sorensen? Wow

Originally posted by DrEll:
Funny how Kyle supporters automatically assume that firing Kyle will bring on the next Tomsula or Kelly. They use Jim Harbaugh as their example. Why not use a more realistic one like George Seifert following Bill Walsh ? Where Seifert inherited a good roster from Bill and continued excellence leading to 2 SB titles and 5 NFCC appearances.

it's such a lazy argument on their part…

Is this a serious question? One of these things happened in 1990 with a completely different organization, and the other examples are less than 10 years old and under the same owner.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Hilarious post… didn't see the plot twist coming.

Nodding my head in agreement as you make the case for Tom being the goat and bill riding his coat tails.

then recommend…. Bill?? Who saw that coming???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣.

He's a regular M. Night Shyamalan 😝

Stupid gonna stupid

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:
Sorry NY, another non answer. The NFL has clear success metrics. Winning more games than you lose is one of them. Making the post season is another. Then we have winning your division and your conference. The ultimate goal is the superbowl. If you lose more than you win the layers you refer to become pointless. This is a business. So once again, what would it take for you to support change? 2 years of a losing record? 3? 4?

I mean he's won more games than he's lost. He's gone to the playoffs a bunch. Won his division. Gone to NFCC. Gone to SBs. Those are favorable metrics in the grand scheme of the NFL and what other coaches have been doing.

matt lafleur hasn't even been to a SB and that's with Aaron Rogers. Should they be talking about firing him in GB? Sean McDermott should be fired by now according to you. Tomlin hasn't done anything meaningful in 14 yrs (lost a SB). How long does he get? What because he won a SB with someone's else team two yrs into his tenure, he's good to go forever? If Kyle won a SB for SF in 2008 and nothing since then ya'll would be screaming for him to be fired 17 yrs later….And don't b******t me as say no you wouldn't.

If you actually read what I wrote you would understand where I'm coming from. It's not a black and white SB of your fired thing. That's my stance. There's layers and context to what would have to happen.

again no one can name me one legit person to replace him with that does better than what we've done overall.

Yet another non answer.

I gave you my answer. You just didn't like it. Also still waiting on a legit replacement that makes this team better than what Kyle has done. Crickets there.

Sorry NY, you avoided the question and redirected the conversation. How many losing season would it take for you to support a change? I will make it simple for you to answer. Just focus if you can on losing seasons. More losses than wins. My answer is 2 consecutive seasons where the Ls add up to more than the Ws.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Is this a serious question? One of these things happened in 1990 with a completely different organization, and the other examples are less than 10 years old and under the same owner.

Phoenix laid out all the coaching hires and firings around the league since Kyle has been here….its a s**t show of mediocrity and bad for the most part.

using one example from back in 1990 as a "realistic" scenario is being stupid for the hell of it.

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:
Sorry NY, you avoided the question and redirected the conversation. How many losing season would it take for you to support a change? I will make it simple for you to answer. Just focus if you can on losing seasons. More losses than wins. My answer is 2 consecutive seasons where the Ls add up to more than the Ws.

There is no finite amount of time for me. It's about evaluating the job he's doing, and for me honestly my focus would be more on how he does replenishing the roster as we are seemingly on the edge of major roster transition, if not already partly in that phase.

If we move off of Kyle, we aren't just replacing a HC. We're replacing the HC, de facto GM, and the new person or people would have to successfully coexist with the structure of the organization that isn't changing (Jed/Paraag).

In our last hiring cycle we targeted multiple GMs who pulled themselves out of contention. Kyle had an insane amount of leverage for first time HC and got a ridiculous contract. There are actual reasons for that.

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:
Sorry NY, you avoided the question and redirected the conversation. How many losing season would it take for you to support a change? I will make it simple for you to answer. Just focus if you can on losing seasons. More losses than wins. My answer is 2 consecutive seasons where the Ls add up to more than the Ws.

I most certainly did not. I told you I don't have a cut in dry he will be fired if stance. There has to be layers and context to that answer. I don't work in black and white. It's not bad or good.

If are team is a walking injury like 2018, I do not blame the HC for that. It's a lost season because of injuries, not because of poor coaching. That's context. If we have multiple losing seasons with a mostly healthy team, then there's a convo to be had as to why that happened and then adjust from there.

you continue to not answer my question of who do you replace him with that makes this team better than what it's been. So who??

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
There is no finite amount of time for me. It's about evaluating the job he's doing, and for me honestly my focus would be more on how he does replenishing the roster as we are seemingly on the edge of major roster transition, if not already partly in that phase.

If we move off of Kyle, we aren't just replacing a HC. We're replacing the HC, de facto GM, and the new person or people would have to successfully coexist with the structure of the organization that isn't changing (Jed/Paraag).

In our last hiring cycle we targeted multiple GMs who pulled themselves out of contention. Kyle had an insane amount of leverage for first time HC and got a ridiculous contract. There are actual reasons for that.

This.

also if a new guy comes in, why would it just be stance quo? They will most certainly want say in roster building, coaching hires, roster change etc etc. that doesn't always equal success from the start. Folks want SBs NOW and think that's just gonna happen with a whole new everything from the jump….bringing up Walsh to Seifert from over 30 yrs ago isn't a normal thing, also it was someone that was hired from within that kept everything the same. They hire someone from outside. They will most certainly want their team…not kyle's team, which apparently some in here thinks stinks anyway

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:
Sorry NY, you avoided the question and redirected the conversation. How many losing season would it take for you to support a change? I will make it simple for you to answer. Just focus if you can on losing seasons. More losses than wins. My answer is 2 consecutive seasons where the Ls add up to more than the Ws.

I most certainly did not. I told you I don't have a cut in dry he will be fired if stance. There has to be layers and context to that answer. I don't work in black and white. It's not bad or good.

If are team is a walking injury like 2018, I do not blame the HC for that. It's a lost season because of injuries, not because of poor coaching. That's context. If we have multiple losing seasons with a mostly healthy team, then there's a convo to be had as to why that happened and then adjust from there.

you continue to not answer my question of who do you replace him with that makes this team better than what it's been. So who??

I will let you know in two years because that's my threshold. Two consecutive losing seasons. We don't know who will be available then. I guess it doesn't matter for you and your layering… it's Kyle or nothing for you. We all know that and you just confirmed it. Nobody is better than Kyle. Not now not next year not the year after that. You would accept multiple losing years with Kyle but you will not support a change because anyone else would be worse. You would rather lose with Kyle. It's perplexing and I hate to burst your bubble.. ownership will not agree with you. Two losing seasons and this guy is gone.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Is this a serious question? One of these things happened in 1990 with a completely different organization, and the other examples are less than 10 years old and under the same owner.

Phoenix laid out all the coaching hires and firings around the league since Kyle has been here….its a s**t show of mediocrity and bad for the most part.

using one example from back in 1990 as a "realistic" scenario is being stupid for the hell of it.

And that is why you (and your ilk) continue to sip the Kool-Aid. It's why you couldn't answer the question from a previous poster regarding Kyle's leash. Instead you went into a BS rant about absolutes and context. Kyle could lose the next 5 SBs and I bet you'd still support him because the "journey" was well worth it, in your opinion.

As I said, it's a lazy argument from a lackadaisical fanbase consisting of youngsters and millennials that haven't seen anything better from this team in their lifetime. Shame