Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Originally posted by Dshearn:
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
Who the f**k doesn't go for two when you're down two? what was the rationale for taking the extra point?
the rational is....you are having a problem running, and 3 of your top 4 targets are injured... Most Jr High level kickers can hit an extra point...your punter and probably FB can hit an extra point...so I dont think many teams expect to miss an extra point.
I can only guess, Shanny did not trust they could get 2 yards with the tight rezone issues they have had this season, and the specific issues they were having in this game. So maybe...it was a confidence thing, they wanted to take the points, and get the offense back to the side line after a success. So they can build on it, and felt that boost was worth more then 1 point, and they control one more possible failure.
Math wise, it makes little sense otherwise. The defense averages 23 points against them per game...so to beat the season average the offense need to score 2 more TDs or a td and two more FGs so 14-12 or 14-13 really does not make a ton of sense...
The only way not going for two points makes sense is for it to not matter, IE the defense does not give up a single point the rest of the game and you can win it with a FG.
If they trade FGs, you loose out, if you trade TDs you loose out. The only thing it does is add one extra score your team needs the other team does not need.
You have to get to an absurd amount of FGs to have that extra point matter. So if KC went (14), FG, FG,FG,FG (26) the 49ers could win with 2 TDs (13) TD, TD.
That scenario would end with a 27-26 49ers victory.
Controlling momentum, lack of trust in your offensive line, and 4th and 5th string WRs, and trusting your defense can get a stop are the only things that make sense.
I agree wholeheartedly with the first part… the reason Kyle doesn't take the easy answers is because he thinks the defense is scheming to take away the easy answers….'so the easy answers are actually the incorrect answers.
the definition of over-thinking it. And he'll use the film review to further justify it. "It was there we just didn't execute". And that mentality has cost us in big moments over and over again. He legitimately has 239 regard for past results when considering future decisions. "My scheme should have worked" is good enough for him. Which lends itself to a prominent idea on these boards that he needs the best possible players to be successful in tough situations.
it would be a breath of fresh air to see us run the ball every down inside the 5-7 yard line. And perhaps attempt a couple different gaps. The inside lanes being clogged shouldn't always doom us to consecutive pass plays. Try another f**king lane kyle
and if we have multiple mistakes on each play, simplify the god damn playbook.
Well.....
yeah....but nothing works all the time in the NFL. No scheme works every single time, even for dynasty teams....all you can do is hope things workout as often as possible, and you have enough dynamic players on the team that when stuff fails...because...it is going to fail....the talent on the field can over come it.
As Tom Brady was saying on the broadcast...the Dynasty Pats rolled in 17-0 and got choked out against this defensive system.
At the end of the day...one team was able to "overcome" their system with a bizarre crazy helmet catch....the other team scored 14 points and lost the game.
So yeah....at the end to the day...players have to make a difference.
As far as the playbook goes..... yeah...dude....when you can't get people in the right spots...something has to change.....
We have farrrrr to many players pointing other players to the right spots on both sides of the ball. We are loosing games because players do not understand where they need to be.
It is probably clearer on defense...but it is happening on both sides of the ball.
I don't know what you can really do mid-season to crash course guys into a more reliable set of plays....but it is something that needs to happen next year. Under the CBA you only have a few hours per week for this stuff, so you really cannot just change stuff mid-season. We are getting to a point that college offense is getting as complex if not more complex than the NFL due to the restrictions in the CBA.
The NFL is completely reliant on the players studying on the own time, they simply do not have the time to coach players like they did previous eras.
As far as the defense goes....teams are only allowed 11 full speed practices in pads the first 11 weeks of the league year. They are an hour each. So you have a VERY limited about time to really diagnose corrections in tackling/blocking/pass-rushing/run defense issues outside of game tape.
Very limited amount of practice time in general, with a limited amount of time for coaches to actually coach...it is going to be tough to dig out of a hole with so many new faces on offense and defense.
You are 100% correct, it probably would be better to have at least half your playbook for complex stuff, and half your playbook pretty bullet proof..just incase you have seasons like this and have rookies allover the place on offense and defense.
Tom Moore... one of my favorite coaches of all time, famously only had a handful of plays...but they ran them to perfection. When you think of Barry Sanders, Brett Perlman and Herman Moore..and those 2 1000 yard WR tandems ....dude was great.... Peyton Manning and his great RBs/WRs...again.. Tom Moore
I dont remember the exact numbers of plays Tom Moore ran...but it was less then 10..they had a system that could shift those plays left, center or right...and a call to rotate patterns.... again I dont remember what the total was...but for example for 10 plays you had 90 combinations. On a center play the passing might have just been as called, left shift pattern would flex outside the hash, right...inside the hash....you get the idea. Run play would be more obvious... end of the day....it was simpler for a WR or whatever to know what he was doing
Point being, maybe there is some value to having at least some of the playbook be simplified.