49ers Head Coach Kyle Shanahan Thread

Who was the dumbass reporter that interviewed Kyle at halftime. The question was about what Kyle thought about Jimmy G and that there were some inaccurate throws. Interview was going well until he said the word inaccurate which was when Kyle's face just went into a dead stare into space.

Kyle's answer: That's football.

Don't think Kyle agreed with homeboy's assessment.

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by WestCoastForever:

The critics in the Walsh and Seifert dynasty years always criticized the team for being a "finesse" team. They were tough enough, but they were smarter than the cavemen they played against. Frankly, a little "finesse" is a welcome relief compared to the boring Chicago tradition the team sought to emulate after coach Mariucci left.

that tough approach did bring us three nfc title games in a row. a super bowl appearance and always brought out the worst in other teams. the walsh teams also were dirty with the leg whips. lol

Look at the talent that team had tho especially on d

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by susweel:

All them injuries just validates that kyle runs a powder puff training camp with not much hitting and bunch of dudes dancing around to music. I expected that was going happen.

...I bet he didn't even practice getting kicked in the facemask.

I bet he didn't lash their hamstrings with bamboo to strengthen them.

Finesse ass 49ers....

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Who was the dumbass reporter that interviewed Kyle at halftime. The question was about what Kyle thought about Jimmy G and that there were some inaccurate throws. Interview was going well until he said the word inaccurate which was when Kyle's face just went into a dead stare into space.

Kyle's answer: That's football.

Don't think Kyle agreed with homeboy's assessment.

That would be good 'ole Dennis O'Donnell - he's the worst. Somehow, he's managed to continue doing such interviews during 49ers preseason games.

Originally posted by mojave45:
I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:
I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:
I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Run a 60's offense? Sure, all the successful ones do.

Having a strong running game isn't the same as just trying to impose your will through sheer physicality with limited acumen at play calling and scheming. When another teams defense is calling plays out in advance, that's caveman football.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:
I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Run a 60's offense? Sure, all the successful ones do.

Having a strong running game isn't the same as just trying to impose your will through sheer physicality with limited acumen at play calling and scheming. When another teams defense is calling plays out in advance, that's caveman football.

You run the ball if you got a bad QB, but in today's NFL elite QB >>>>>> elite RB. You would be nuts to focus more on the run game than your passing game if you have an solid/elite QB. The only teams that still plays 60s football are those without a good QB.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct

Today you have one team that was 50/50 pass vs run. And that team had Bortles as its QB. And only 4 teams that passed less than 54% of the time

Compare that to 2003 where 6 teams passed less than 50% of the time, and 12 teams passed less than 54% of the time. And I'm sure the numbers are even higher in the 90s.

It's a passing league now and you better get a QB that can throw the football at least decently. If you're still still playing 60s football, you might last a year or two as a NFL coach before getting fired. You can't bludgeon anymore in today's NFL lol.

Originally posted by TheGore49er:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Run a 60's offense? Sure, all the successful ones do.

Having a strong running game isn't the same as just trying to impose your will through sheer physicality with limited acumen at play calling and scheming. When another teams defense is calling plays out in advance, that's caveman football.

You run the ball if you got a bad QB, but in today's NFL elite QB >>>>>> elite RB. You would be nuts to focus more on the run game than your passing game if you have an solid/elite QB. The only teams that still plays 60s football are those without a good QB.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct

Today you have one team that was 50/50 pass vs run. And that team had Bortles as its QB. And only 4 teams that passed less than 54% of the time

Compare that to 2003 where 6 teams passed less than 50% of the time, and 12 teams passed less than 54% of the time. And I'm sure the numbers are even higher in the 90s.

It's a passing league now and you better get a QB that can throw the football at least decently. If you're still still playing 60s football, you might last a year or two as a NFL coach before getting fired. You can't bludgeon anymore in today's NFL lol.

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Run a 60's offense? Sure, all the successful ones do.

Having a strong running game isn't the same as just trying to impose your will through sheer physicality with limited acumen at play calling and scheming. When another teams defense is calling plays out in advance, that's caveman football.

I'm talking about having quick success on high turnover in personnel.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by mojave45:

I will take a "finesse" approach and all those Lombardi trophies over a caveman approach with none.

We had some big skilled players on offense during the SB runs. Now, Garcon is our only one.

We haven't finished turning this team around yet either. Anyone thinking this is our year to make a run has blinders on. This was never a two year turn around.

We signed Jet to a big contract. RB is set. We will keep Goodwin, WR2 is set. Can only get bigger at WR1...not much room to get bigger.

I was talking skills. I don't think we are anywhere near where we will be overall next year at this time. When other turn arounds have happened coaches had either skilled players that were poorly coached, or at least some players that fit better under the system they were installing. Here we had neither.When Shanahan took over we didn't have a QB worthy of the title , no ER, our overall oline was playing like dog s**t, our RB couldn't catch a pass, we had what appeared to be one WR,and our entire defense blew chunks. To turn over 40 players in a year is amazing. To get them all on the same page while doing that is a herculean task. Too many people here bought into their own hype. I think we end up doing better by mid season, and that when we take the field next year we have a real look at what the vision is by our FO. But it won't be caveman football, even if it is going to be physical. That's what "finesse" meant when discussing the team play under Walsh. Smart, intelligently designed play calling, not just pounding the rock in a cloud of dust.

Teams do it all the time now.

Run a 60's offense? Sure, all the successful ones do.

Having a strong running game isn't the same as just trying to impose your will through sheer physicality with limited acumen at play calling and scheming. When another teams defense is calling plays out in advance, that's caveman football.

I'm talking about having quick success on high turnover in personnel.

No one, repeat no one I know in the modern era had to do a turn over like this, or ever turned over close to 40 players in a year and was successful at it. Name one.