49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

They weren't an all time team, but to say they are the worst of the century is lol and hard cope for Kyle blowing so many SBs

Only team id consider taking the 12 Ravens over is 18 Eagles.

What's hard cope is pretending a 5.5 pt underdog was unbeatable but losing to a dynasty is fireable

You keep hanging your hat on the thought that Vegas and the narrative is always right. That was a perennial contender with the best playoff qb ever (statistically speaking). They could compete with any team including the chiefs

I never said to fire Kyle, but they aren't a dynasty without Kyle. That is partly his own doing

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
You keep hanging your hat on the thought that Vegas and the narrative is always right. That was a perennial contender with the best playoff qb ever (statistically speaking). They could compete with any team including the chiefs

I never said to fire Kyle, but they aren't a dynasty without Kyle. That is partly his own doing

Yet that playoff qb turned into a pumpkin literally the next year. Meanwhile the other guy and his team won another Sb and made 2 others.

When the words Joe Flacco best playoff qb ever is uttered you need to reevaluate your position.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
Yet, despite the analytics, no other team has taken the ball first. Crazy

9-7-1 record for the receiving team my man. 3-0 when it goes beyond 2 possessions. Had Kyle kicked and the team still failed to get a stop and match the score, you'd still be here crying about the decision. At least you'd have some statistical support if that was the case, rather than absolutely nothing now. Just an inability to understand a clear-as-day quote from the coach.

Not about the decision to kick it. I don't think anyone would blame Kyle for kicking it first in overtime. The…PLAY…FOR…THIRD…POSSESSION…does not happen. Kyle is the only one that has been quoted as using that as an explanation for choosing to receive first lol 😂

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

You keep hanging your hat on the thought that Vegas and the narrative is always right. That was a perennial contender with the best playoff qb ever (statistically speaking). They could compete with any team including the chiefs

I never said to fire Kyle, but they aren't a dynasty without Kyle. That is partly his own doing

Yet that playoff qb turned into a pumpkin literally the next year. Meanwhile the other guy and his team won another Sb and made 2 others.

Yea Pat Mahomes is better than Flacco, but the Ravens competed for a long time and didn't need Mahomes. Flacco ended up playing better than Mahomes ever has in the playoffs in 2012 and they got it done that way

Mahomes got picked twice in our first SB. We picked him off in the second one too. Brady threw a pick 6 in the falcons SB. Kyle just can't get it done. My main problem with Kyle is that he's been in 3 SBs and I can point directly to him for losing 2 of them, and I continue to see him trip up on the same details that cost him in the big games

Originally posted by DrEll:
Not about the decision to kick it. I don't think anyone would blame Kyle for kicking it first in overtime. The…PLAY…FOR…THIRD…POSSESSION…does not happen. Kyle is the only one that has been quoted as using that as an explanation for choosing to receive first lol 😂

The quote is there for everyone to see. It's clear what the thought process was, and it wasn't playing for a 3rd possession. It was a decision with a 3rd possession being a possibility, and how advantageous that is for the receiving team… as demonstrated by the 17 games we've seen under this set of rules. I get it, you can't understand a simple concept, or the English language either apparently. Must be rough for you.

I don't understand why these conversations about Kyle so often turn into a comparison of Jim/Kyle. They are both really good coaches, regardless of who someone prefers between the two. Firing Jim was one of the dumbest moves this organization has made and the same would be true if they fired Kyle now.

The head coach was a high quality asset then, just as it is now.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
Not about the decision to kick it. I don't think anyone would blame Kyle for kicking it first in overtime. The…PLAY…FOR…THIRD…POSSESSION…does not happen. Kyle is the only one that has been quoted as using that as an explanation for choosing to receive first lol ????

The quote is there for everyone to see. It's clear what the thought process was, and it wasn't playing for a 3rd possession. It was a decision with a 3rd possession being a possibility, and how advantageous that is for the receiving team… as demonstrated by the 17 games we've seen under this set of rules. I get it, you can't understand a simple concept, or the English language either apparently. Must be rough for you.

There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.

In fact, Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones confirmed the logic postgame, pointing out how his team had prepared for the new overtime rules and that they were going for two if San Francisco scored a touchdown.

"We talked through this for two weeks," Jones said, via the Ringer's Lindsay Jones. "How we was going to give the ball to the opponent; if they scored, we was going for two at the end of the game. We rehearsed it."

Safety Justin Reid revealed to The Ringer that Kansas City had discussed the new overtime rules as far back as training camp, while several 49ers players acknowledged during the postgame interviews that they weren't aware of the new rules.

Additionally, quarterback Patrick Mahomes confirmed that the Chiefs were going to defer had they won the toss in order to know what was needed from the offense ahead of time.

"Yeah we were going to kick if we got it. They let us know what they were going to do, so we can go for it on that fourth down," Mahomes said after the game.

The day after the Super Bowl, Mahomes shared a similar sentiment to his defensive tackle, acknowledging that the Chiefs were certainly going for two, derailing Shanahan's vision of getting a third possession.

The Chiefs were going for the kill shot whether they received first or second. There was no plan for matching scores. They weren't thinking about holding the Chiefs to 7 or 3, then going for the win. This is all Kyle's thought process, that's why even Chiefs players called him out on it.

"They're crazy," Jones said of the 49ers. "Because the overtime rules has changed where both teams get the ball no matter who scores. So, originally, you want to let the other team get the ball, stop them, holding (to) three, so you know what you got. Or if you stop them, they punt it, then all you have to do is kick three."

Tell me Chris Jones doesn't know what he's talking about, but Kyle does

Originally posted by DrEll:
There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.

In fact, Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones confirmed the logic postgame, pointing out how his team had prepared for the new overtime rules and that they were going for two if San Francisco scored a touchdown.

"We talked through this for two weeks," Jones said, via the Ringer's Lindsay Jones. "How we was going to give the ball to the opponent; if they scored, we was going for two at the end of the game. We rehearsed it."

Safety Justin Reid revealed to The Ringer that Kansas City had discussed the new overtime rules as far back as training camp, while several 49ers players acknowledged during the postgame interviews that they weren't aware of the new rules.

Additionally, quarterback Patrick Mahomes confirmed that the Chiefs were going to defer had they won the toss in order to know what was needed from the offense ahead of time.

"Yeah we were going to kick if we got it. They let us know what they were going to do, so we can go for it on that fourth down," Mahomes said after the game.

The day after the Super Bowl, Mahomes shared a similar sentiment to his defensive tackle, acknowledging that the Chiefs were certainly going for two, derailing Shanahan's vision of getting a third possession.

The Chiefs were going for the kill shot whether they received first or second. There was no plan for matching scores. They weren't thinking about holding the Chiefs to 7 or 3, then going for the win. This is all Kyle's thought process, that's why even Chiefs players called him out on it.

"They're crazy," Jones said of the 49ers. "Because the overtime rules has changed where both teams get the ball no matter who scores. So, originally, you want to let the other team get the ball, stop them, holding (to) three, so you know what you got. Or if you stop them, they punt it, then all you have to do is kick three."

Tell me Chris Jones doesn't know what he's talking about, but Kyle does

They weren't guaranteed to score a TD. They weren't guaranteed to score anything at all, just like us. That allows for the possibility of a 3rd possession. The receiving team can even force a 3rd possession, as a worst case scenario, with their decision making in the first possession.

Their plan was to go for two IF we scored a TD, IF we kicked a PAT, and IF they scored a TD on the second possession.

A 3rd possession is a possibility regardless of what each team's goals are. What an absolute dolt.

Lol. Beat the f**k out of this dead horse.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I don't understand why these conversations about Kyle so often turn into a comparison of Jim/Kyle. They are both really good coaches, regardless of who someone prefers between the two. Firing Jim was one of the dumbest moves this organization has made and the same would be true if they fired Kyle now.

The head coach was a high quality asset then, just as it is now.

Because losing to the Ravens was far worse than losing to a dynasty. Trying to spin anything else is ridiculous and shows a bias.

The Chiefs are only a dynasty because of Kyle but no one could beat the Ravens is an insane position not grounded in any sort of reality.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.

In fact, Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones confirmed the logic postgame, pointing out how his team had prepared for the new overtime rules and that they were going for two if San Francisco scored a touchdown.

"We talked through this for two weeks," Jones said, via the Ringer's Lindsay Jones. "How we was going to give the ball to the opponent; if they scored, we was going for two at the end of the game. We rehearsed it."

Safety Justin Reid revealed to The Ringer that Kansas City had discussed the new overtime rules as far back as training camp, while several 49ers players acknowledged during the postgame interviews that they weren't aware of the new rules.

Additionally, quarterback Patrick Mahomes confirmed that the Chiefs were going to defer had they won the toss in order to know what was needed from the offense ahead of time.

"Yeah we were going to kick if we got it. They let us know what they were going to do, so we can go for it on that fourth down," Mahomes said after the game.

The day after the Super Bowl, Mahomes shared a similar sentiment to his defensive tackle, acknowledging that the Chiefs were certainly going for two, derailing Shanahan's vision of getting a third possession.

The Chiefs were going for the kill shot whether they received first or second. There was no plan for matching scores. They weren't thinking about holding the Chiefs to 7 or 3, then going for the win. This is all Kyle's thought process, that's why even Chiefs players called him out on it.

"They're crazy," Jones said of the 49ers. "Because the overtime rules has changed where both teams get the ball no matter who scores. So, originally, you want to let the other team get the ball, stop them, holding (to) three, so you know what you got. Or if you stop them, they punt it, then all you have to do is kick three."

Tell me Chris Jones doesn't know what he's talking about, but Kyle does

They weren't guaranteed to score a TD. They weren't guaranteed to score anything at all, just like us. That allows for the possibility of a 3rd possession. The receiving team can even force a 3rd possession, as a worst case scenario, with their decision making in the first possession.

Their plan was to go for two IF we scored a TD, IF we kicked a PAT, and IF they scored a TD on the second possession.

A 3rd possession is a possibility regardless of what each team's goals are. What an absolute dolt.

Well duh captain obvious. Of course IF the other team scores you get the ball on the third possession. But who strategizes with that mentality ?

The guy across the aisle is trying to finish it in two possessions, our guy is planning for a possible third. As opposed to kicking it then trying to finish it on his OWN SECOND POSSESSION. The sad part is even if Kyle had kicked it and the Chiefs score a TD he probably still goes for a tie instead of trying to win it at the end.

what a dope of a coach. hilarious you guys keep defending his antics 😂. everyone and their mother has deferred to kick off since the new rule came into effect and here we are saying the ONE guy that did the opposite made the right decision…

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Because losing to the Ravens was far worse than losing to a dynasty. Trying to spin anything else is ridiculous and shows a bias.

The Chiefs are only a dynasty because of Kyle but no one could beat the Ravens is an insane position not grounded in any sort of reality.

Every one of these points is worthless, both ways. It's a generic comparison free of any real analysis of what happened in the games.

The Chiefs and Ravens were both worthy champions for specific and different reasons. We were on the losing end of those games for specific and different reasons. There is no point in drawing a line between 6* different teams across a decade.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
Lol. Beat the f**k out of this dead horse.

Have to as they have nothing else to bring to table.

Originally posted by DrEll:
There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.

In fact, Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones confirmed the logic postgame, pointing out how his team had prepared for the new overtime rules and that they were going for two if San Francisco scored a touchdown.

"We talked through this for two weeks," Jones said, via the Ringer's Lindsay Jones. "How we was going to give the ball to the opponent; if they scored, we was going for two at the end of the game. We rehearsed it."

Safety Justin Reid revealed to The Ringer that Kansas City had discussed the new overtime rules as far back as training camp, while several 49ers players acknowledged during the postgame interviews that they weren't aware of the new rules.

Additionally, quarterback Patrick Mahomes confirmed that the Chiefs were going to defer had they won the toss in order to know what was needed from the offense ahead of time.

"Yeah we were going to kick if we got it. They let us know what they were going to do, so we can go for it on that fourth down," Mahomes said after the game.

The day after the Super Bowl, Mahomes shared a similar sentiment to his defensive tackle, acknowledging that the Chiefs were certainly going for two, derailing Shanahan's vision of getting a third possession.

The Chiefs were going for the kill shot whether they received first or second. There was no plan for matching scores. They weren't thinking about holding the Chiefs to 7 or 3, then going for the win. This is all Kyle's thought process, that's why even Chiefs players called him out on it.

"They're crazy," Jones said of the 49ers. "Because the overtime rules has changed where both teams get the ball no matter who scores. So, originally, you want to let the other team get the ball, stop them, holding (to) three, so you know what you got. Or if you stop them, they punt it, then all you have to do is kick three."

Tell me Chris Jones doesn't know what he's talking about, but Kyle does

Originally posted by DrEll:
Well duh captain obvious. Of course IF the other team scores you get the ball on the third possession. But who strategizes with that mentality ?

The guy across the aisle is trying to finish it in two possessions, our guy is planning for a possible third. As opposed to kicking it then trying to finish it on his OWN SECOND POSSESSION. The sad part is even if Kyle had kicked it and the Chiefs score a TD he probably still goes for a tie instead of trying to win it at the end.

what a dope of a coach. hilarious you guys keep defending his antics ????. everyone and their mother has deferred to kick off since the new rule came into effect and here we are saying the ONE guy that did the opposite made the right decision…

'There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.'

From this to calling someone 'captain obvious' for pointing out that it is flat out incorrect. Dolt gonna dolt.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
'There was NO possibility of a third possession. I don't know why you keep harping on that.'

From this to calling someone 'captain obvious' for pointing out that it is flat out incorrect. Dolt gonna dolt.

You dont buy that if the 9ers forced a 4th and 12 on the 30 that Andy Reid is 100% going for it?