49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
And still, we are 30 years in the wilderness when it comes to our last Superbowl win.

It's hard to be irrelevant for 30 years.

Who would have thought when we beat the San Deigo Chargers, that 30 years later, the fans would still be thirsty for No 6.

Thirst like a Vampire at a Blood Bank.

If we were irrelevant for 30 years, the franchise wouldn't be worth 6 Billion today. So I don't think we're irrelevant, actually the opposite. We haven't won a chip in 30 years I agree and sadly hate.

Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys are more relevant than us. Cause they are worth 11 billion, 3 billion more than anyone else.

And more relevant than the New England Patriots and Kansas City..

Noooo Money is irrelevant.

It is a Socialist league with a draft and free trading.

So the $ value of each franchise is not relevant.

The Rings, the Thing!

Yes the Cowboys are relevant, if they weren't people wouldn't still be buying their merchandise. The rings are different issue, 49ers are relevant and your bolded post is wrong.

If you want to go the Rings route what is relevant to Super Bowl rings, teams that want to win it correct? What teams just past 5 years have been close to winning it? Are they 49ers one of those? Doesn't that make them relevant to Rings then? If you want to bring up total rings we have 5 so we're relevant there too.

You either win or you don't.

Pretty much and they're relevant.

the funniest thing about the Dallas Cowboys is that they aren't really relevant.

13 billion or no 13 billion.

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
And still, we are 30 years in the wilderness when it comes to our last Superbowl win.

It's hard to be irrelevant for 30 years.

Who would have thought when we beat the San Deigo Chargers, that 30 years later, the fans would still be thirsty for No 6.

Thirst like a Vampire at a Blood Bank.

If we were irrelevant for 30 years, the franchise wouldn't be worth 6 Billion today. So I don't think we're irrelevant, actually the opposite. We haven't won a chip in 30 years I agree and sadly hate.

Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys are more relevant than us. Cause they are worth 11 billion, 3 billion more than anyone else.

And more relevant than the New England Patriots and Kansas City..

Noooo Money is irrelevant.

It is a Socialist league with a draft and free trading.

So the $ value of each franchise is not relevant.

The Rings, the Thing!

Yes the Cowboys are relevant, if they weren't people wouldn't still be buying their merchandise. The rings are different issue, 49ers are relevant and your bolded post is wrong.

If you want to go the Rings route what is relevant to Super Bowl rings, teams that want to win it correct? What teams just past 5 years have been close to winning it? Are they 49ers one of those? Doesn't that make them relevant to Rings then? If you want to bring up total rings we have 5 so we're relevant there too.

You either win or you don't.

Pretty much and they're relevant.

the funniest thing about the Dallas Cowboys is that they aren't really relevant.

13 billion or no 13 billion.

You entitled to your opinion, so not going to go back and forth here anymore...

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
And still, we are 30 years in the wilderness when it comes to our last Superbowl win.

It's hard to be irrelevant for 30 years.

Who would have thought when we beat the San Deigo Chargers, that 30 years later, the fans would still be thirsty for No 6.

Thirst like a Vampire at a Blood Bank.

If we were irrelevant for 30 years, the franchise wouldn't be worth 6 Billion today. So I don't think we're irrelevant, actually the opposite. We haven't won a chip in 30 years I agree and sadly hate.

Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys are more relevant than us. Cause they are worth 11 billion, 3 billion more than anyone else.

And more relevant than the New England Patriots and Kansas City..

Noooo Money is irrelevant.

It is a Socialist league with a draft and free trading.

So the $ value of each franchise is not relevant.

The Rings, the Thing!

Yes the Cowboys are relevant, if they weren't people wouldn't still be buying their merchandise. The rings are different issue, 49ers are relevant and your bolded post is wrong.

If you want to go the Rings route what is relevant to Super Bowl rings, teams that want to win it correct? What teams just past 5 years have been close to winning it? Are they 49ers one of those? Doesn't that make them relevant to Rings then? If you want to bring up total rings we have 5 so we're relevant there too.

You either win or you don't.

So the book of 49er history is titled "5-70-4: Usually a Total Waste of Your Time Over the Decades: A 49ers Franchise Tale"?

The book could be:-

First half - Fail

Middle - the Eddie D days - 5 Superbowls

End - the York years Fail

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
The book could be:-

First half - Fail

Middle - the Eddie D days - 5 Superbowls

End - the York years Fail

That doesn't respect that Eddie D was 5-17 for 1977-1998 when he controlled the team. That record says loser plain as day - 17 seasons out of 22 without a championship!

Not a single person ever associated with the NFL has won more than they lost when you talk about all or nothing this way. Lombardi, Halas, Brown, Belichick, Parcells, Walsh, Kraft, Rooney, Noll - They're losers, every one of them!

Or maybe we also value other qualities/achievements in non-championship seasons too, even if its not *the* top quality/achievement.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
The book could be:-

First half - Fail

Middle - the Eddie D days - 5 Superbowls

End - the York years Fail

That doesn't respect that Eddie D was 5-17 for 1977-1998 when he controlled the team. That record says loser plain as day - 17 seasons out of 22 without a championship!

Not a single person ever associated with the NFL has won more than they lost when you talk about all or nothing this way. Lombardi, Halas, Brown, Belichick, Parcells, Walsh, Kraft, Rooney, Noll - They're losers, every one of them!

Or maybe we also value other qualities/achievements in non-championship seasons too, even if its not *the* top quality/achievement.

lol Divisional and NFCC game appearances are not achievements ! Losing Super Bowls is not an achievement. Stop spinning it as such. Everyone remembers our 5 SB wins. No one cares (outside of you and your ilk) about the "journeys" we embarked on en route to 3 Super Bowl losses. No one (outside of you and your ilk) celebrates Kyle Shanahan's "glorious" failures in the most important games.

do some of us a favor and stop trying to dilute our glory years with the failures of the last half decade. Eddie D's 5 Super Bowl wins, becoming the first team to win 5 rings, is nothing in comparison to Kyle Shanahan's 2 SB and 2 NFCC game losses. And you can't use dumb stats like "EddieD was 5 for 17 during the Super Bowl years" to defend Kyle's incompetence.

😂

I have just learnt to do my shoelaces up at the age of 33, that's an achievement.

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by RonnieLott:
The book could be:-

First half - Fail

Middle - the Eddie D days - 5 Superbowls

End - the York years Fail

That doesn't respect that Eddie D was 5-17 for 1977-1998 when he controlled the team. That record says loser plain as day - 17 seasons out of 22 without a championship!

Not a single person ever associated with the NFL has won more than they lost when you talk about all or nothing this way. Lombardi, Halas, Brown, Belichick, Parcells, Walsh, Kraft, Rooney, Noll - They're losers, every one of them!

Or maybe we also value other qualities/achievements in non-championship seasons too, even if its not *the* top quality/achievement.

lol Divisional and NFCC game appearances are not achievements ! Losing Super Bowls is not an achievement. Stop spinning it as such. Everyone remembers our 5 SB wins. No one cares (outside of you and your ilk) about the "journeys" we embarked on en route to 3 Super Bowl losses. No one (outside of you and your ilk) celebrates Kyle Shanahan's "glorious" failures in the most important games.

do some of us a favor and stop trying to dilute our glory years with the failures of the last half decade. Eddie D's 5 Super Bowl wins, becoming the first team to win 5 rings, is nothing in comparison to Kyle Shanahan's 2 SB and 2 NFCC game losses. And you can't use dumb stats like "EddieD was 5 for 17 during the Super Bowl years" to defend Kyle's incompetence.

😂

what a crock of s**t ..

Originally posted by DrEll:
lol Divisional and NFCC game appearances are not achievements ! Losing Super Bowls is not an achievement. Stop spinning it as such. Everyone remembers our 5 SB wins. No one cares (outside of you and your ilk) about the "journeys" we embarked on en route to 3 Super Bowl losses. No one (outside of you and your ilk) celebrates Kyle Shanahan's "glorious" failures in the most important games.

do some of us a favor and stop trying to dilute our glory years with the failures of the last half decade. Eddie D's 5 Super Bowl wins, becoming the first team to win 5 rings, is nothing in comparison to Kyle Shanahan's 2 SB and 2 NFCC game losses. And you can't use dumb stats like "EddieD was 5 for 17 during the Super Bowl years" to defend Kyle's incompetence.

😂

I can't even imagine what you were like the 20+ years before that.