49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Has any coach chose to receive in the playoffs? This 50/50 is based on win/loss and not analytics of playoff OT. When you analyze the situation, the team that gets the ball second has a strategic advantage. The two teams this weekend lost that advantage by turning the ball over. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a strategic advantage

You're incorrect. The models existed before there were any results, with the playoff model brought to light after our SB, which was the only time there was a game played under this rule set until this season. Modeling indicates it's 50/50… the results, which are a completely separate piece of evidence… are in line with those models.

Google is free, try using it.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
We literally lost because one of the scenarios popped up. We had to kick a FG without knowing what KC was going to do. We put ourselves in that situation by receiving. It literally affected our game and you guys are celebrating because it didn't affect others

We didn't have to do anything, lol. We chose to kick a field goal. You don't have to be forced to go on 4th down to go on 4th down. It's not an actual advantage to be forced to convert a 4th down. My god.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Has any coach chose to receive in the playoffs? This 50/50 is based on win/loss and not analytics of playoff OT. When you analyze the situation, the team that gets the ball second has a strategic advantage. The two teams this weekend lost that advantage by turning the ball over. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a strategic advantage

You're incorrect. The models existed before there were any results, with the playoff model brought to light after our SB, which was the only time there was a game played under this rule set until this season. Modeling indicates it's 50/50… the results, which are a completely separate piece of evidence… are in line with those models.

Google is free, try using it.

Aren't these models based on win/loss simulation? Again this doesn't tell you what the better strategy is

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

We literally lost because one of the scenarios popped up. We had to kick a FG without knowing what KC was going to do. We put ourselves in that situation by receiving. It literally affected our game and you guys are celebrating because it didn't affect others

We didn't have to do anything, lol. We chose to kick a field goal. You don't have to be forced to go on 4th down to go on 4th down. It's not an actual advantage to be forced to convert a 4th down. My god.

It's not about being forced, it's about knowing if you have to or not. We won the rights to that info with the coin toss, and handed it right over to KC. You saw how much they appreciated it

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
It's not about being forced, it's about knowing if you have to or not. We won the rights to that info with the coin toss, and handed it right over to KC. You saw how much they appreciated it

You are rewording exactly what I said. In practice, knowing what you 'have' to do is the exact thing as being forced to make a decision. Had we had our 4th down on the 2nd possession instead of the first we would have been forced to go for it. That's not an advantage and it's not because of a coin toss decision. It's because we would have failed to stop them on their guaranteed possession, exactly like what happened in reality.

Nothing prevented us from attempting a low percentage 4th down on the 1st drive. Being forced into the decision doesn't make it any better.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Aren't these models based on win/loss simulation? Again this doesn't tell you what the better strategy is

They are not, especially initially. The modeling predicts the results. The results are not the basis of the models, though they will be adjusted based on results going forward.

Step back and think about it. How is an analytical model going to be based on results when there are none? Analytical departments in this context model potential outcomes.

EDIT: I misread your post, and answered based on results, not on simulated results. But that's point of the argument and the analytical modeling. To find out if there is an inherent advantage (ie - a better chance to win the game based on whether you kick or receive).

Originally posted by DrEll:
Forget about on field Kyle, is anyone going to argue against the horrible decision if Kyle bypasses all the available candidates and hands over the DC job to Gus Bradley ? Gus Bradley whose defenses have consistently ranked 20 or worse this decade and bottom half after he left Seattle ?

this might be the kill shot for Kyle as a Niner if he decides to go this route…

Ok now we can talk. This is something that's happening right now.

I agree I think if we just hand the job over to Gus it will be lazy. We have an opportunity to swing for someone better(at least in theory). I understand Bradley was brought in as the backup plan if Saleh left like is happening. But with that in mind we should go after other candidates and I hope the team will look to do that.

Bradley is certainly better and more proven than Sorensen so if he's the fallback option it's not the end of the world but I would hope we're not afraid of fresh ideas and possibly getting better.

My dream is still Schwartz, Raheem Morris is someone I know Kyle has tried to bring in before and I'd love to get him also. I'm sure there are other guys I'm not thinking about.

But I also disagree that this would be a kill shot for Kyle, though I'm sure you've got your fingers crossed. While there are DCs out there who clearly maximize the talent they have and really do a wonderful job of X's and O's in the end it comes down to players on the field for the most part. Let's not forget Saleh was someone most of the fanbase wanted fired after the 2018 season. Suddenly we bring in two top level edge rushers and add Greenlaw to a 2nd year Fred Warner and suddenly we're dominant.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
We literally lost because one of the scenarios popped up. We had to kick a FG without knowing what KC was going to do. We put ourselves in that situation by receiving. It literally affected our game and you guys are celebrating because it didn't affect others

I thought you were moving on...

We put ourselves in that situation by Burford not doing his job. Something he was in position to do because the starter(Feliciano) got injured earlier in the game.

The whole time you've been harping on this being a huge advantage to have 4 downs to work. Each team faced 4th down once on their drives. 49ers elected to kick the FG to go up when faced with a 4th down after Burford blew it on 3rd down on what would've been an easy TD play had he just got in Jones' way.

KC faced 4th and 1, something they would've went for even if they had the ball first.

That's reality and not theoretical. The way that game played out through regulation showed a very possible reality that it could be a 3rd possession to win via FG.

Now can we please move on? Our opinions on the matter will not change what happened.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by genus49:
You don't understand how going from the 29th scoring defense to the 13th scoring defense despite the injuries we had there impacts wins and losses?

Is this a serious question? They retooled their defense for a reason. And yes we all understood Sorensen hire was a mistake and getting Saleh back was a big step in the right direction.

Yet it didn't stop people from claiming this was a rebuild season and the 49ers wouldn't compete regardless of the schedule. Now suddenly it's the schedule and Kyle didn't do any better job of coaching.

Does the same apply for Andy Reid? He's the same coach right? So what happened this season?

Andy avg 12pts and went 0-4 when Mahomes went down. His play calling was nothing special. He didn't lift up that team even though they were still hanging on for a playoff spot.

When Stafford missed significant time back in 2022 McVay went 5-12.

Reid didn't have a good backup QB. Minshew isn't vwery good and then he got hurt. They wer eon their 3rd string QB by ther end of the season. Mahomes isn't easy to replace because of the unusual aspects of hus game. Not many can make plays out of nothing like he does.

When Purdy got injured the Niners had an experienced backup that was a similar type of QB. Not as good and not as agile but similar arm strength and ability to read defenses. We didn't see a drastic dropoff.

They were 6-8 with Mahomes and a top 10 defense.

Not a great year for the Andy Reid is a wizard crowd. At least when Shanahan has gone 6-X it's been due to his QBs and teams being decimated by injury and mediocre or piss poor defenses on top of it.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Has any coach chose to receive in the playoffs? This 50/50 is based on win/loss and not analytics of playoff OT. When you analyze the situation, the team that gets the ball second has a strategic advantage. The two teams this weekend lost that advantage by turning the ball over. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a strategic advantage

You're incorrect. The models existed before there were any results, with the playoff model brought to light after our SB, which was the only time there was a game played under this rule set until this season. Modeling indicates it's 50/50… the results, which are a completely separate piece of evidence… are in line with those models.

Google is free, try using it.

Aren't these models based on win/loss simulation? Again this doesn't tell you what the better strategy is

You are correct. The 50/50 result is based on wins. But it doesn't answer the question "how many coaches that win the toss in OT decide to receive first?". Smokey might cite that there is only a small sample size, but for all practical purposes going forward the answer will always be you defer for the reasons you and I have posted. You defer so that you have the advantage of knowing on the second possession what you need eg 4th and 7 on the fist possession you might punt whereas 4th and 7 second possession you might go for it based on what the other team did.

Smokey is using analytics to justify Kyle's decision. He ls basically saying it doesn't matter whether you kick or receive because the data proves that the likelihood of either team winning is 50/50. But he knows and he's admitted that the best answer is to defer.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by DrEll:
Forget about on field Kyle, is anyone going to argue against the horrible decision if Kyle bypasses all the available candidates and hands over the DC job to Gus Bradley ? Gus Bradley whose defenses have consistently ranked 20 or worse this decade and bottom half after he left Seattle ?

this might be the kill shot for Kyle as a Niner if he decides to go this route…

Ok now we can talk. This is something that's happening right now.

I agree I think if we just hand the job over to Gus it will be lazy. We have an opportunity to swing for someone better(at least in theory). I understand Bradley was brought in as the backup plan if Saleh left like is happening. But with that in mind we should go after other candidates and I hope the team will look to do that.

Bradley is certainly better and more proven than Sorensen so if he's the fallback option it's not the end of the world but I would hope we're not afraid of fresh ideas and possibly getting better.

My dream is still Schwartz, Raheem Morris is someone I know Kyle has tried to bring in before and I'd love to get him also. I'm sure there are other guys I'm not thinking about.

But I also disagree that this would be a kill shot for Kyle, though I'm sure you've got your fingers crossed. While there are DCs out there who clearly maximize the talent they have and really do a wonderful job of X's and O's in the end it comes down to players on the field for the most part. Let's not forget Saleh was someone most of the fanbase wanted fired after the 2018 season. Suddenly we bring in two top level edge rushers and add Greenlaw to a 2nd year Fred Warner and suddenly we're dominant.

Kyle will not part with Gus after one season regardless of results. Wilks was an easy target bc Kyle didn't like him. And Sorenson was not a defensive guy so you could always say we didnt have any one else available since we were looking so late. With Gus, Kyle will give him two seasons at least and that will be his kill shot. And yes, my fingers are double crossed 🤞 🤞

Shanny MUST go, Lynch should stay !!

Shanny ain't winning one here.. the signs are written all over the wall..

Originally posted by DrEll:
Kyle will not part with Gus after one season regardless of results. Wilks was an easy target bc Kyle didn't like him. And Sorenson was not a defensive guy so you could always say we didnt have any one else available since we were looking so late. With Gus, Kyle will give him two seasons at least and that will be his kill shot. And yes, my fingers are double crossed 🤞 🤞

Least you admit you will be rooting for losing going forward. Not that there was much doubt.

Originally posted by DrEll:
You are correct. The 50/50 result is based on wins. But it doesn't answer the question "how many coaches that win the toss in OT decide to receive first?". Smokey might cite that there is only a small sample size, but for all practical purposes going forward the answer will always be you defer for the reasons you and I have posted. You defer so that you have the advantage of knowing on the second possession what you need eg 4th and 7 on the fist possession you might punt whereas 4th and 7 second possession you might go for it based on what the other team did.

Smokey is using analytics to justify Kyle's decision. He ls basically saying it doesn't matter whether you kick or receive because the data proves that the likelihood of either team winning is 50/50. But he knows and he's admitted that the best answer is to defer.

The modeling/analytics indicate it's 50/50, and so do the early results. Two separate things.

The difference between this and your thinking is you are incapable of considering any other factor than having information on 4th down, which isn't truly an advantage and isn't close to the only factor.

To add to the stupidity you keep calling it a decision to defer. It's a decision to kick/receive. Teams defer the decision to kick/receive to the 2nd half at the start of games, lol.

As I mentioned I would have kicked, but it's not simply because we have information on 4th down and would have the pleasure of possibly being forced into a low percentage conversion attempt. It's because both offenses were struggling throughout the game and because of field position considerations in a possible sudden death possession after the opening drive. It's a specific, game-flow, decision tailored to that specific game.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

It's not about being forced, it's about knowing if you have to or not. We won the rights to that info with the coin toss, and handed it right over to KC. You saw how much they appreciated it

You are rewording exactly what I said. In practice, knowing what you 'have' to do is the exact thing as being forced to make a decision. Had we had our 4th down on the 2nd possession instead of the first we would have been forced to go for it. That's not an advantage and it's not because of a coin toss decision. It's because we would have failed to stop them on their guaranteed possession, exactly like what happened in reality.

Nothing prevented us from attempting a low percentage 4th down on the 1st drive. Being forced into the decision doesn't make it any better.

Well actually the game wouldn't have been over when we failed to stop them, and we would have known we needed to use all 4 downs on our possession

When both teams are guaranteed a possession and there's no 10 minute cap, the advantage goes to the team that knows what they need on their guaranteed possession