49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Just watch this

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Lol you always want the strategic advantage. That's a huge part of what the coach is there to do-put the team at a strategic advantage. Why do you think the Chiefs sideline got excited? We were handing a strategic advantage away

You keep harping on that and yet you have nothing behind it.

I don't care that the Chiefs were excited. Think they would've showed that excitement from them if Burford does his job as coached and we score the opening TD and then maybe Wilks actually manages to hold a TD lead instead of pulling out the red carpet for Pat?

The issue was execution. Like what are you even b***hing about. The 49ers marched down the field and should've scored the TD. They didn't need that advantage. The issue was they didn't finish the job on either side of the ball.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Just watch this

And like I said above...would he be laughing if the 49ers actually scored their opening TD and then held the Chiefs?

You all are using hindsight. That's not how calls on the field are made. There is a lot more logic and analytics pointing to what Kyle did being the correct call.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Marquez Valdes-Scantling couldn't "practice" his way in front of others for us, but he and his speed just made a huge TD catch for the Steelers to help keep their playoff hopes alive.

We have a better record than the Steelers.

Why does everyone on this site worship every other team in an effort to bash our own? It's so strange. Even saw some ****-sucking for the Cowboys the past few weeks and THEY HAVE A LOSING RECORD.

I'm not worshipping them... I pointing out how they some how are finding a way to use him (in his first game for them I believe), yet we couldn't keep him and find a way to use him for big plays here or there?

This of course relates to Kyle's comments on Watkins.

I just feel we should be ready come playoff time...be versatile with our personnel....able to adjust to what playoff defenses do to us, ESPECIALLY with us going into the playoffs without Deebo or Aiyuk for the first time.

I don't feel a bunch of Jennings, Bournes, Robinsons will be enough.

MVS finished the night with 19 yards.

Wow we're totally missing that!

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Just watch this

And like I said above...would he be laughing if the 49ers actually scored their opening TD and then held the Chiefs?

You all are using hindsight. That's not how calls on the field are made. There is a lot more logic and analytics pointing to what Kyle did being the correct call.

There is no hindsight needed my guy. Everybody on the chiefs knew (as did Jason Kelce) it was the wrong choice in real time. Most people did. If we knew the Chiefs scored then we don't kick. Maybe our 3rd down call is different knowing we were playing 4 downs. We handed the advantage away

I'm a huge Kyle defender, and I hate living in specific moments in the past (especially negative ones) but I actually tend to agree that the decision to receive in OT was the wrong one.

The whole "Kyle didn't know the rules" narrative is debatable, I get it. But I do think whether he knew the rules or not he made the wrong choice.

Even if the Chiefs receive first and then score a TD on one play, at least we know what we need to do on offense and have 4 downs to do it.

Since we went first, we were kind of in an "aw shucks" situation and had to settle for a field goal in the red zone. And then the Chiefs knew what they needed to do on 4th and 1 and preferred to do in the red zone. Yes I'm aware if the Chiefs receive first they may not even face a 4th and 1, but that's not the point.

I get that the defense is probably tired. I get that hindsight is 20/20. I get that the Chiefs very well may have won anyway, or even scored 8 on their opening drive before winning (as unlikely as it is for a coach to decide to do this—but that's pretty much the only scenario where going first is worth it). But choosing to go first was simply the wrong choice there, whether he knew the rules or not.

The Rams game in LA this season was giving me PTSD until we (fortunately) won because unlike the Chiefs, they completely brain farted on 4th and 1.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Just watch this

Yeah, I knew it was over when he elected to receive. I was in Vegas watching and the KC fans where I was erupted in cheer..the 49er fans..excitement drained from our faces. But this is depressing and has been talked about so much. I just hope we get another shot soon.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Just watch this

And like I said above...would he be laughing if the 49ers actually scored their opening TD and then held the Chiefs?

You all are using hindsight. That's not how calls on the field are made. There is a lot more logic and analytics pointing to what Kyle did being the correct call.

No it is stupid to receive with the OT rules because if we do score a TD, then the Chiefs know they HAVE to score a TD and will try for it on all 4 downs.

If we don't receive, the chiefs are much less likely to go for it on 4th down, so there is a BETTER chance they don't score at all or just get a FG, giving us the opportunity to win the game.

Just a HORRIBLE decision.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by Silky:
This thread has so many things that make me scratch my head. Why are we comparing Kyle to Singletary, Nolan, Erickson, and Tomsula? Are we serious right now. I'd take 100 lost SBs then to ever see those guys coach the Niners again.

And still upset about the OT decision? There actually is no wrong decision there. If you take the ball, you have to score a TD. If you don't, you f'd up. But the original decision is not wrong. If you elect to kick it away, you need to stop them or hold them to a FG. If you give up a TD, you f'd up. But the initial decision is not wrong. People who believe in right and wrong, especially given a scenario where both teams get the ball anyway, are just scared fans. Scared of what ifs. The OT thing is much more simpler than that. You can scrutinize why we got 3pts instead of 7 or 8 all you want. The Niners are responsible, not the OT rules.

And the Jimmy slander is getting out of control. He had his limitations for sure, but he had some clutch throws and moments for us. Not gonna get into it too much, but it's like people clump him into the Brian Hoyer category when in reality he was much, much better than that. Jimmy played in a SB and a couple NFCCGs. Was he always his best? No. But you simply cannot be a scrub and lead a team that far.

And the original point about Watkins...let him sit. Kyle sees him every day and hears reports about him. You don't think he wants to add a wrinkle and throw a burner in the offense? He's simply not ready. Coaches can tell. It's ok to criticize the draft pick if it takes Jordan forever to become ready. But I trust the decision to not play him yet if he's not ready.

Maybe I'm wrong about everything and taking crazy pills. This forum has reached new heights in its haterism

Kicking the ball puts you at a strategic advantage. Doesn't mean you will win, but it is the right choice if you want the strategic advantage

Sure there's two perfect decisions and two perfect scenarios. You kick the ball off and then stop them for 0 pts. Perfect scenario. You receive and score 8 points. Perfect scenario. It's more about making reality happen. I didn't mind the decision to receive as long as we capitalized on it. Which we did not

You still get the strategic advantage if you kick first. If we had already seen the Chiefs TD drive, then we use 4 downs instead of kicking a FG

We threw that advantage away and had to kick the FG without knowing if it's the right choice or not

What if the Chiefs score the TD and the 2pt conversion? We lose the strategic advantage just like that. To have an advantage, you need to execute. I think the new OT rules are super fair and truly 50/50 imo. That's what they were going for after that "Josh Allen snubbed of a chance to answer playoff game against Mahomes." I'm just gonna agree to disagree on the advantage thing. It's also your right to think differently than me

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by Silky:
This thread has so many things that make me scratch my head. Why are we comparing Kyle to Singletary, Nolan, Erickson, and Tomsula? Are we serious right now. I'd take 100 lost SBs then to ever see those guys coach the Niners again.

And still upset about the OT decision? There actually is no wrong decision there. If you take the ball, you have to score a TD. If you don't, you f'd up. But the original decision is not wrong. If you elect to kick it away, you need to stop them or hold them to a FG. If you give up a TD, you f'd up. But the initial decision is not wrong. People who believe in right and wrong, especially given a scenario where both teams get the ball anyway, are just scared fans. Scared of what ifs. The OT thing is much more simpler than that. You can scrutinize why we got 3pts instead of 7 or 8 all you want. The Niners are responsible, not the OT rules.

And the Jimmy slander is getting out of control. He had his limitations for sure, but he had some clutch throws and moments for us. Not gonna get into it too much, but it's like people clump him into the Brian Hoyer category when in reality he was much, much better than that. Jimmy played in a SB and a couple NFCCGs. Was he always his best? No. But you simply cannot be a scrub and lead a team that far.

And the original point about Watkins...let him sit. Kyle sees him every day and hears reports about him. You don't think he wants to add a wrinkle and throw a burner in the offense? He's simply not ready. Coaches can tell. It's ok to criticize the draft pick if it takes Jordan forever to become ready. But I trust the decision to not play him yet if he's not ready.

Maybe I'm wrong about everything and taking crazy pills. This forum has reached new heights in its haterism

Kicking the ball puts you at a strategic advantage. Doesn't mean you will win, but it is the right choice if you want the strategic advantage

Sure there's two perfect decisions and two perfect scenarios. You kick the ball off and then stop them for 0 pts. Perfect scenario. You receive and score 8 points. Perfect scenario. It's more about making reality happen. I didn't mind the decision to receive as long as we capitalized on it. Which we did not

You still get the strategic advantage if you kick first. If we had already seen the Chiefs TD drive, then we use 4 downs instead of kicking a FG

We threw that advantage away and had to kick the FG without knowing if it's the right choice or not

What if the Chiefs score the TD and the 2pt conversion? We lose the strategic advantage just like that. To have an advantage, you need to execute. I think the new OT rules are super fair and truly 50/50 imo. That's what they were going for after that "Josh Allen snubbed of a chance to answer playoff game against Mahomes." I'm just gonna agree to disagree on the advantage thing. It's also your right to think differently than me

Why are we still talking about this, we are currently in the playoff hunt for a possible #1 seed and your still talking about the OT decision. Stop it already!

Originally posted by SlipAndSlideBosa:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Just watch this

And like I said above...would he be laughing if the 49ers actually scored their opening TD and then held the Chiefs?

You all are using hindsight. That's not how calls on the field are made. There is a lot more logic and analytics pointing to what Kyle did being the correct call.

No it is stupid to receive with the OT rules because if we do score a TD, then the Chiefs know they HAVE to score a TD and will try for it on all 4 downs.

If we don't receive, the chiefs are much less likely to go for it on 4th down, so there is a BETTER chance they don't score at all or just get a FG, giving us the opportunity to win the game.

Just a HORRIBLE decision.

Using capitals doesn't make you right.

All of you guys are using hindsight. I understand what you're trying to say, as mentioned we talked about it for a long time. I had the same thought at the time of the game.

The issue you all are ignoring is the situation in the game at that point which is all Kyle has to work with.

KC had not scored a TD. They scored 4 FGs. Including the longest one in SB history.

Pros to taking the ball first:
Defense gets to rest and get time to fix their issues from the prior 3 drives.
Ability to get sudden death opportunity on the 3rd drive if you swap the same score with KC

Pros to kicking off:
You get to see what you need to tie/win.

Analytics once again were split right down the middle. The way that game unfolded the move made sense. I don't care what KC thought. The execution was there for us to win - score the TD on the opening drive. Defend a TD lead.

We didn't do that. If we kicked off and they scored a TD then we got stopped would it have been the right decision?

Your big advantage doesn't even exist if you stay out of 4th down. You think if the Chiefs got the ball first and had 4th and 1 at their 34 yard line they would've punted? No they'd go for it regardless.

Originally posted by Oscar8325:
Why are we still talking about this, we are currently in the playoff hunt for a possible #1 seed and your still talking about the OT decision. Stop it already!

Because the people that want Kyle fired are having a miserable year right now.

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
I'm a huge Kyle defender, and I hate living in specific moments in the past (especially negative ones) but I actually tend to agree that the decision to receive in OT was the wrong one.

The whole "Kyle didn't know the rules" narrative is debatable, I get it. But I do think whether he knew the rules or not he made the wrong choice.

Even if the Chiefs receive first and then score a TD on one play, at least we know what we need to do on offense and have 4 downs to do it.

Since we went first, we were kind of in an "aw shucks" situation and had to settle for a field goal in the red zone. And then the Chiefs knew what they needed to do on 4th and 1 and preferred to do in the red zone. Yes I'm aware if the Chiefs receive first they may not even face a 4th and 1, but that's not the point.

I get that the defense is probably tired. I get that hindsight is 20/20. I get that the Chiefs very well may have won anyway, or even scored 8 on their opening drive before winning (as unlikely as it is for a coach to decide to do this—but that's pretty much the only scenario where going first is worth it). But choosing to go first was simply the wrong choice there, whether he knew the rules or not.

The Rams game in LA this season was giving me PTSD until we (fortunately) won because unlike the Chiefs, they completely brain farted on 4th and 1.

I don't have an issue with people second guessing the decision. I do have a major issue with people acting like it was a major and obvious mistake when it clearly wasn't.

Anyone acting like it was is using hindsight. That's the difference.

And like I said above, had the Chiefs had that 4th and 1 on their first drive they're going for it anyways. No different than us going for it on 4th and 3 early in the 4th quarter. The reason we settled for the FG wasn't because of any "aw shucks" situation. It was because we had a clear TD play called and still managed to F it up because Burford picked a hell of a time to freelance. In that situation you take the lead when facing a dominant defense.

Asking your defense to hold an offense that wasn't good to a FG at worst isn't too much IMO and I'm confident Saleh or Demeco would've had that defense hold.

That's my issue with this ridiculous take. You can question the call but to act like it was a guaranteed loss because of it is complete hindsight garbage.

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by 9moon:
ACTUALLY... the Giants out coached both 49ers and the Bills the year they won their 2nd Super Bowl... they knew they needed to slow down the game and keep it close because we and the Bills were not going to be patient enough if we don't score often...

to make a long story short... YES, THE GAME PLANNING COUNTS A LOT AND SHANNY'S YET TO LEARN THAT..

by the way... The Bengals (2nd Super Bowl) was a better team than us... they just did not have the better coach..

Roger Craig fumbled and gave the game away. We had that NFCCG won. I wouldn't say we got out coached

We got out-coached... Parcells kept that game OLD SCHOOL and we couldn't move the ball.. we were a great team and would have had a 3-PEAT but Casanova George couldn't dictate the game when we had the better players all around.

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by 9moon:
ACTUALLY... the Giants out coached both 49ers and the Bills the year they won their 2nd Super Bowl... they knew they needed to slow down the game and keep it close because we and the Bills were not going to be patient enough if we don't score often...

to make a long story short... YES, THE GAME PLANNING COUNTS A LOT AND SHANNY'S YET TO LEARN THAT..

by the way... The Bengals (2nd Super Bowl) was a better team than us... they just did not have the better coach..

Roger Craig fumbled and gave the game away. We had that NFCCG won. I wouldn't say we got out coached

We got out-coached... Parcells kept that game OLD SCHOOL and we couldn't move the ball.. we were a great team and would have had a 3-PEAT but Casanova George couldn't dictate the game when we had the better players all around.

Just curious, if Roger Craig didnt fumble that ball and the 49ers won would you still consider the 49ers being outcoached?