49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
I'll concede that Ben Johnson is the reason why Detroit lost to the 49ers in the NFCC…if you concede Kyle Shanahan is the reason why Atlanta lost to NE in that Super Bowl. Deal ?

This is the depth of your football analysis. Generic comparisons.

I think Ben Johnson did a great job this season. Definitely one of the best coaching jobs of the season right there with our own coach.

What is it about Johnson that you would prefer over Kyle? Can you make a substantive argument based on his schemes, management of the team, ability to build a quality staff? Can you make any comparison that's free of 'Shanahan has no rings therefore he needs to go.'

I like Ben Johnson's 4th down aggressiveness, like you. Can you offer anything else of substance?

He's prettier than Kyle ?

Do well really need to rehash this argument ? Everyone knows why some of us want to move on from Kyle. Ten years. Zero Super Bowls. Multiple blown opportunities. Participation trophies don't count as accomplishments for some of us. Time to move on….we've seen the rerun too many times.

Originally posted by DrEll:
From the man himself:

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

Reid had no plans for a third possession. He was going to end the game in two, regardless of whether we scored a FG or TD.

Read the next sentence in that quote and stop being an idiot for the love of god.

Again, a possible 3rd possession in a sudden death situation makes the decision a 50/50 coinflip according to statistical analysis. That's not factoring that our defense was just on the field either.

Originally posted by niner4life21:

Originally posted by DrEll:

Originally posted by niner4life21:
Is no one going to talk about Ben Johnson's inability to take the 3 points time and time again in the playoffs?

Imagine if we lost a 3 point game because our coach did that in the playoffs multiple times.

Kyle took 3 points multiple times on Saturday night and got blown out 41-6…

I'll ignore the trolling. So you don't think Bears lost because of Johnson failing to take the 3 points multiple times?

Yes. I agree with you. The difference is one coach is in year 1 with a young team experiencing his first postseason berth. The other has been doing it for 10 years. The ten year veteran should be able to read the flow of the game an adjust accordingly. The expectation for Ben Johnson is next time he should make the smarter decision.

Originally posted by DrEll:
He's prettier than Kyle ?

Do well really need to rehash this argument ? Everyone knows why some of us want to move on from Kyle. Ten years. Zero Super Bowls. Multiple blown opportunities. Participation trophies don't count as accomplishments for some of us. Time to move on….we've seen the rerun too many times.

It's not a rehash. You have never made a substantive argument likely because you are incapable. I've never seen a post of yours that demonstrates any understanding of the sport beyond team results and maybe situational decision making (like 4th down aggressiveness etc).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
From the man himself:

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

Reid had no plans for a third possession. He was going to end the game in two, regardless of whether we scored a FG or TD.

Read the next sentence in that quote and stop being an idiot for the love of god.

Again, a possible 3rd possession in a sudden death situation makes the decision s 50/50 coinflip according to statistical analysis. That's not factoring that our defense was just on the field either.

Again Kyle is scheming for a THIRD possession. He wants to score a TD, then expects the Chiefs to score a TD, then wants the third possession to finish it. Please point out where he says he expected his team to get a stop and end the game after they scored. Even with the FG he's still thinking let them get a FG and we'll get the third possession.

Reid had NO intention of a third possession. He was aiming for the kill shot from the start.

Originally posted by DrEll:
Again Kyle is scheming for a THIRD possession. He wants to score a TD, then expects the Chiefs to score a TD, then wants the third possession to finish it. Please point out where he says he expected his team to get a stop and end the game after they scored. Even with the FG he's still thinking let them get a FG and we'll get the third possession.

Reid had NO intention of a third possession. He was aiming for the kill shot from the start.

Just incredibly dishonest. You think Kyle planned on scoring and then allowing the Chiefs to match that score so they could win on the 3rd possession, lol. Just absolutely idiotic.

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

*If* is the operative word there. They weren't trying to manufacture a tie through two overtime possessions.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
Again Kyle is scheming for a THIRD possession. He wants to score a TD, then expects the Chiefs to score a TD, then wants the third possession to finish it. Please point out where he says he expected his team to get a stop and end the game after they scored. Even with the FG he's still thinking let them get a FG and we'll get the third possession.

Reid had NO intention of a third possession. He was aiming for the kill shot from the start.

Just incredibly dishonest. You think Kyle planned on scoring and then allowing the Chiefs to match that score so they could win on the 3rd possession, lol. Just absolutely idiotic.

"It's just something we talked about," Shanahan said. "None of us have a ton of experience with it. But we went through all the analytics and talked to those guys. We just thought it would be better. We wanted the ball third. If both teams matched and scored, we wanted to be the ones who had the chance to go win. Got that field goal, so knew we had to hold them to at least a field goal, and if we did, then we thought it was in our hands after that."

*If* is the operative word there. They weren't trying to manufacture a tie through two overtime possessions.

He expected them to score ! He's saying it blatantly. You're the one adding "possibility" into his quotes. He's taking the ball first because he thinks the Chiefs can score then he'll get the ball back on the third possession to win it. At no point does he point out that he expected to score and put it on his defense to stop them. Just take off the rose colored glasses for a second and read what he's saying. He took the ball first because he expected the Chiefs to match them point for point and his offense could win it on the THIRD possession.

theres a reason why the Chiefs players and the Niners players balked at the decision post game. It was an idiotic thought process on Kyle's part because the Chiefs never intended to take it to a third possession whether we scored a TD or a FG !

Originally posted by DrEll:
He expected them to score ! He's saying it blatantly. You're the one adding "possibility" into his quotes. He's taking the ball first because he thinks the Chiefs can score then he'll get the ball back on the third possession to win it. At no point does he point out that he expected to score and put it on his defense to stop them. Just take off the rose colored glasses for a second and read what he's saying. He took the ball first because he expected the Chiefs to match them point for point and his offense could win it on the THIRD possession.

theres a reason why the Chiefs players and the Niners players balked at the decision post game. It was an idiotic thought process on Kyle's part because the Chiefs never intended to take it to a third possession whether we scored a TD or a FG !

He's acknowledging the possibility. It's not an expectation or a goal. That's clearly implied in the part I quoted. The decision is made with the consideration that a 3rd possession is possible >>>>if<<<< both teams matched and scored (directly from his quote).

The obvious goal was to score 1st and get a stop.

I'm done with this, I can't help your inability to understand a very simple concept.

By the way, the receiving team can completely remove the kicking team's chance to win on the 2nd possession.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
He expected them to score ! He's saying it blatantly. You're the one adding "possibility" into his quotes. He's taking the ball first because he thinks the Chiefs can score then he'll get the ball back on the third possession to win it. At no point does he point out that he expected to score and put it on his defense to stop them. Just take off the rose colored glasses for a second and read what he's saying. He took the ball first because he expected the Chiefs to match them point for point and his offense could win it on the THIRD possession.

theres a reason why the Chiefs players and the Niners players balked at the decision post game. It was an idiotic thought process on Kyle's part because the Chiefs never intended to take it to a third possession whether we scored a TD or a FG !

He's acknowledging the possibility. It's not an expectation or a goal. That's clearly implied in the part I quoted. The decision is made with the consideration that a 3rd possession is possible >>>>if<<<< both teams matched and scored (directly from his quote).

The obvious goal was to score 1st and get a stop.

I'm done with this, I can't help your inability to understand a very simple concept.

I agree man. The spin is too strong with you guys. Head coach talks about 3rd possession (UNHEARD OF IN ANY OTHER INTERVIEW WITH EVERY COACH IN THAT POSITION) and no team has made the same decision since the new OT rules have come into effect, but you guys defend it as the right call. Unbelievable…

Originally posted by DrEll:
I agree man. The spin is too strong with you guys. Head coach talks about 3rd possession (UNHEARD OF IN ANY OTHER INTERVIEW WITH EVERY COACH IN THAT POSITION) and no team has made the same decision since the new OT rules have come into effect, but you guys defend it as the right call. Unbelievable…

One last thing: It is not remotely unheard of. Go and review the statistical analysis behind the decision. Understand that it was such a controversial call, more than one reporter surveyed analytics departments across the league. It is a 50/50 decision from a statistical standpoint, and the hinging factor is the possibility of a 3rd possession. Kyle's quote is right in line with this analysis.

I would have chose to kick in any case. But I'm neither dumb or dishonest enough to read that quote and think the expectation or goal was a 3rd possession.

Originally posted by DrEll:
I agree man. The spin is too strong with you guys. Head coach talks about 3rd possession (UNHEARD OF IN ANY OTHER INTERVIEW WITH EVERY COACH IN THAT POSITION) and no team has made the same decision since the new OT rules have come into effect, but you guys defend it as the right call. Unbelievable…

They dont get it man.

There's zero reason you want the ball first in that situation. Kyle didn't know the rules but won't admit it.

There's three things that can happen if you take the ball second and all are advantageous.

First team doesn't score. Fg wins it going second. Can call play calling however you want.

First team gets a fg. Now you can either play it conservative and go for a tie and play into fg range in 4 down territory, then get conservative, or play the entire drive 4 down territory for the win.

First team gets a touchdown. You have to match

If you go first you have to play it conservative because if you get stopped you have to punt or settle for a fg because the opposing team wins if you give them a short field.

Going second you have a myriad of different ways you can play it. Going first you have to play it like a normal game situation because of the short field fear.

Originally posted by DrEll:
Championship coaches find ways to win. They don't take the ball first in OT playing for a third possession while the guy on the other sideline is planning on playing just two…

So he found a way to convince DJ Moore to stop running thereby causing a pick?

How come he didnt find a way to get point on his first OT posseasion?

This is why you cant be taken seriously. Cant admit the Rams won in spite of McVay poor coaching.

If the 9ers won the same way you'd give all the credit to Saleh.

Originally posted by niner4life21:
I'll ignore the trolling. So you don't think Bears lost because of Johnson failing to take the 3 points multiple times?

Only the 9ers lose because of coaching. No one else. Eagles didnt lose last week because of coaching. Bears didnt. Rams only won because of it.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
They dont get it man.

There's zero reason you want the ball first in that situation. Kyle didn't know the rules but won't admit it.

There's three things that can happen if you take the ball second and all are advantageous.

First team doesn't score. Fg wins it going second. Can call play calling however you want.

First team gets a fg. Now you can either play it conservative and go for a tie and play into fg range in 4 down territory, then get conservative, or play the entire drive 4 down territory for the win.

First team gets a touchdown. You have to match

If you go first you have to play it conservative because if you get stopped you have to punt or settle for a fg because the opposing team wins if you give them a short field.

Going second you have a myriad of different ways you can play it. Going first you have to play it like a normal game situation because of the short field fear.

Lol. Why wouldn't the kicking team have to also consider a short field in their play selection if the 1st team doesn't actually score. They would 100 percent have to just the same as the receiving team as it would be a sudden death scenario on the next possession (ie the 3rd possession).

Your analysis of play selection risk (for lack of better terms), in these possible scenarios, is completely lacking. For some reason you think it's advantageous to be forced to go on 4th downs, or lose the game, rather than have a choice and risk field position and potentially lose the game.