49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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.

Has any other coach besides Kyle Shanahan that has won the toss in OT chosen to receive ?

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
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

Lol. That's not the only factor to consider, and it's not really an advantage. You have nothing to support your feeling which is in conflict with both analytical modeling and the early results. Feel free to pretend neither matter.

It's not hard to be objective and understand a decision is not clear cut. That's what happened with me. I had a preference, and I recognize that my preference doesn't actually yield an advantage. Again, thats the entire point of the rule change: to not give an inherent edge to one of the teams via the coin toss. Hopefully you will eventually figure this out.

Originally posted by DrEll:
Has any other coach besides Kyle Shanahan that has won the toss in OT chosen to receive ?

~ 30 percent of the coaches in the 17 games under this rule set. If you read the previous posts you'd see this. If you did your own work, you'd see this.

As I mentioned before, it's the wrong question in the first place. The question is whether kicking or receiving gives you a better chance to win, and you have nothing substantive to support that kicking does.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

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

Lol. That's not the only factor to consider, and it's not really an advantage. You have nothing to support your feeling which is in conflict with both analytical modeling and the early results. Feel free to pretend neither matter.

It's not hard to be objective and understand a decision is not clear cut. That's what happened with me. I had a preference, and I recognize that my preference doesn't actually yield an advantage. Again, thats the entire point of the rule change: to not give an inherent edge to one of the teams via the coin toss. Hopefully you will eventually figure this out.

There's no advantage to knowing if you just need a FG? Completely changes your play calling. Once you're in FG range you just center it and kick. What about a 4th and 7? Wouldn't you want to know if you needed to score or not in that situation? There's a clear advantage to knowing what you need. Is it massive? No, but any good coach would take it, just like Andy planned on doing if he won the toss

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
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

Lol. That's not the only factor to consider, and it's not really an advantage. You have nothing to support your feeling which is in conflict with both analytical modeling and the early results. Feel free to pretend neither matter.

It's not hard to be objective and understand a decision is not clear cut. That's what happened with me. I had a preference, and I recognize that my preference doesn't actually yield an advantage. Again, thats the entire point of the rule change: to not give an inherent edge to one of the teams via the coin toss. Hopefully you will eventually figure this out.

There's no advantage to knowing if you just need a FG? Completely changes your play calling. Once you're in FG range you just center it and kick. What about a 4th and 7? Wouldn't you want to know if you needed to score or not in that situation? There's a clear advantage to knowing what you need. Is it massive? No, but any good coach would take it, just like Andy planned on doing if he won the toss

Save your breath. He's convinced Kyle did the right thing by taking the ball first. You don't need hindsight to know it was the wrong decision. Majority of pundits, fans, announcers called him out on it in real time, and KC players pretty much said as much after the game. But apparently these guys know better…

Originally posted by DrEll:

Save your breath. He's convinced Kyle did the right thing by taking the ball first. You don't need hindsight to know it was the wrong decision. Majority of pundits, fans, announcers called him out on it in real time, and KC players pretty much said as much after the game. But apparently these guys know better…

Yea I just realized he's also using data from the reg season too, which makes it much more of a 50/50 decision with the time cap. In the playoffs every coach (including Andy) knows that you take the ball second

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
There's no advantage to knowing if you just need a FG? Completely changes your play calling. Once you're in FG range you just center it and kick. What about a 4th and 7? Wouldn't you want to know if you needed to score or not in that situation? There's a clear advantage to knowing what you need. Is it massive? No, but any good coach would take it, just like Andy planned on doing if he won the toss

Again, you aren't considering any factor besides 4th down decision making, but you also aren't thinking through the various possibilities which could be presented on 4th down.

For example, let's say the Niners kick their field goal on the first possession and the Chiefs ultimately face a 4th down and 4 from the 49ers 30 yard line. You can kick a field goal and tie the game, and then be at a disadvantage on the following possession in a sudden death situation. They can go for it instead, and face a low percentage do or die play. What is the advantage you gained here, and how would it differentiate from the 4th down decision the 49ers made on their opening possession?

Another example. Let's say the 49ers punt on their first possession, and the Chiefs face a 4th and 2 from their 35 yard line. You can go for it, convert, and be in position to get the game winning score. Or you can kick, and face the same disadvantage of being on defense in a sudden death situation.

There are many possible examples like this. There are very few situations where you will have clarity for a 4th down decision on the 2nd possession. One of the situations is when you HAVE to go on 4th down or lose the game. At best, this can expand your playbook on a 3rd down call. Try not to lose track of the obvious point that being in a have-to-have it 4th down situation is not a good thing! The other is when the first team doesn't score and you can kick a high percentage field goal to win the game.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Yea I just realized he's also using data from the reg season too, which makes it much more of a 50/50 decision with the time cap. In the playoffs every coach (including Andy) knows that you take the ball second

Lol. You can keep blending the modeling and the results if it makes you more comfortable. Neither support your position.

I'll say it again in the hope that it clicks for one of you blockheads. The modeling indicates it's a 50/50 call IN THE PLAYOFFS. Go look for yourself.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

There's no advantage to knowing if you just need a FG? Completely changes your play calling. Once you're in FG range you just center it and kick. What about a 4th and 7? Wouldn't you want to know if you needed to score or not in that situation? There's a clear advantage to knowing what you need. Is it massive? No, but any good coach would take it, just like Andy planned on doing if he won the toss

Again, you aren't considering any factor besides 4th down decision making, but you also aren't thinking through the various possibilities which could be presented on 4th down.

For example, let's say the Niners kick their field goal on the first possession and the Chiefs ultimately face a 4th down and 4 from the 49ers 30 yard line. You can kick a field goal and tie the game, and then be at a disadvantage on the following possession in a sudden death situation. They can go for it instead, and face a low percentage do or die play. What is the advantage you gained here, and how would it differentiate from the 4th down decision the 49ers made on their opening possession?

Another example. Let's say the 49ers punt on their first possession, and the Chiefs face a 4th and 2 from their 35 yard line. You can go for it, convert, and be in position to get the game winning score. Or you can kick, and face the same disadvantage of being on defense in a sudden death situation.

There are many possible examples like this. There are very few situations where you will have clarity for a 4th down decision on the 2nd possession. One of the situations is when you HAVE to go on 4th down or lose the game. At best, this can expand your playbook on a 3rd down call. Try not to lose track of the obvious point that being in a have-to-have it 4th down situation is not a good thing! The other is when the first team doesn't score and you can kick a high percentage field goal to win the game.

I have taken it all into consideration. I'm sure Andy and the coaches who chose to kick did the same. In the end, there's no reason to choose to go first unless you plan on going 4 downs and going for 2. Which is dumb, but doing that would make having the first possession worth it

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Yea I just realized he's also using data from the reg season too, which makes it much more of a 50/50 decision with the time cap. In the playoffs every coach (including Andy) knows that you take the ball second

Lol. You can keep blending the modeling and the results if it makes you more comfortable. Neither support your position.

I'll say it again in the hope that it clicks for one of you blockheads. The modeling indicates it's a 50/50 call IN THE PLAYOFFS. Go look for yourself.

The team that receives could be undefeated and it wouldn't change my opinion. Correlation ≠ causation

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
The team that receives could be undefeated and it wouldn't change my opinion. Correlation ≠ causation

The modeling is not based on results. There's been 3 games under this rule set in the postseason ever. That incredibly small sample would be 66 percent in favor of receiving.

You really don't know how to apply that phrase (correlation/causation).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

The team that receives could be undefeated and it wouldn't change my opinion. Correlation ≠ causation

The modeling is not based on results. There's been 3 games under this rule set in the postseason ever. That incredibly small sample would be 66 percent in favor of receiving.

You really don't know how to apply that phrase (correlation/causation).

66 percent of the wins correlate to receiving. Was receiving the cause of the wins? No. Did it give them a strategic advantage that the kicking team didn't have? No

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
66 percent of the wins correlate to receiving. Was receiving the cause of the win? No. Did it give them a strategic advantage that the kicking team didn't have? No

I'm not arguing that receiving provides an advantage. I'm arguing it's a 50/50 coinflip… that when you consider all factors there's no advantage one way or the other… the entire point of the league instituting this OT system in the first place.

It's your guys' argument that one choice is definitively better than the other.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
66 percent of the wins correlate to receiving. Was receiving the cause of the win? No. Did it give them a strategic advantage that the kicking team didn't have? No

I'm not arguing that receiving provides an advantage. I'm arguing it's a 50/50 coinflip… that when you consider all factors there's no advantage one way or the other… the entire point of the league instituting this OT system in the first place.

It's your guys' argument that one choice is definitively better than the other.

It is lol 😂

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

66 percent of the wins correlate to receiving. Was receiving the cause of the win? No. Did it give them a strategic advantage that the kicking team didn't have? No

I'm not arguing that receiving provides an advantage. I'm arguing it's a 50/50 coinflip… that when you consider all factors there's no advantage one way or the other… the entire point of the league instituting this OT system in the first place.

It's your guys' argument that one choice is definitively better than the other.

In what world is choosing the route that provides no advantage the right decision? As a coach you take the route that provides more possible advantages. I don't care how the other games played out and what the records are, there's no reason to receive