Q. Reaction to Brock's touchdown pass, a little fist pump. What was your emotion watching that throw?
KYLE SHANAHAN: I couldn't believe he was throwing it. The zone coverages, guys were so deep, which usually you can check it down right underneath them, get about 12 (yards). Brock thought he could drop it over the guy. A clear view for all of us. It was just a hell of a throw. Perfect touch. Got (it) over, I think it was Diggs. It was a big play that sealed it.
Q. Guts to make that throw? What does it take?
KYLE SHANAHAN: He does that pretty consistently. He's always, always trying to get that one in. Very rarely does he check it down and you tell him he missed the deep one. He looks at it that way. Actually he proved to us while the ball was in the air it was the right decision.
Q. Did you think it was the wrong decision when he let it go?
KYLE SHANAHAN: Yeah, we're all holding our breath as soon as he lets it go. The guy was so deep. Brock has some touch, was able to throw it over him. We took the safety out of there with a route. Knew if he could get (the ball) over him, there's no one else left. He made the throw. I wouldn't have known it until he threw it. Once he threw it, it was obviously there.
tl,dr: KS thought it was the wrong decision (should've taken the check down) and knew immediately (when the ball was in the air) that he was wrong to think Purdy was wrong.
@49ATT
The above videos are auto-populated by an affiliate.
Q. Reaction to Brock's touchdown pass, a little fist pump. What was your emotion watching that throw?
KYLE SHANAHAN: I couldn't believe he was throwing it. The zone coverages, guys were so deep, which usually you can check it down right underneath them, get about 12 (yards). Brock thought he could drop it over the guy. A clear view for all of us. It was just a hell of a throw. Perfect touch. Got (it) over, I think it was Diggs. It was a big play that sealed it.
Q. Guts to make that throw? What does it take?
KYLE SHANAHAN: He does that pretty consistently. He's always, always trying to get that one in. Very rarely does he check it down and you tell him he missed the deep one. He looks at it that way. Actually he proved to us while the ball was in the air it was the right decision.
Q. Did you think it was the wrong decision when he let it go?
KYLE SHANAHAN: Yeah, we're all holding our breath as soon as he lets it go. The guy was so deep. Brock has some touch, was able to throw it over him. We took the safety out of there with a route. Knew if he could get (the ball) over him, there's no one else left. He made the throw. I wouldn't have known it until he threw it. Once he threw it, it was obviously there.
tl,dr: KS thought it was the wrong decision (should've taken the check down) and knew immediately (when the ball was in the air) that he was wrong to think Purdy was wrong.
Originally posted by Furlow:
There is no right or wrong IF the result is positive. Just imagine that Purdy threw an INT on that pass to Aiyuk; do you think Kyle would say it was the "correct" read? Hell no. Kyle was very clear if you just listen and don't have a bias - the right read (for our conservative coach) was the checkdown because it was wide open, we had the lead, it would have moved the chains, it was safe.
Kyle is a conservative minded head coach, weird that you and a few others keep trying to make it sound like he wants to air it out down the field like the 90's Oilers.
Not being Mike Martz doesn't make him conservative. He does want to push the ball down the field in the pass game. What he doesn't want to do is have his QB throw down the field into coverage. I guarantee in film study when he sees what Brock sees instead of just quickly watching from the sideline he will be happy with the decision.
Just like in 2016, if you give him a QB he can trust he will tell him to let it rip.
Kyle's offenses are routinely in the top 5 in rush attempts per game/season. Even in 2016 with the Falcons (Ryan MVP) they were 12th. He wants to run the ball and play defense. That is the definition of "conservative" in football terms. How is this even a debate?
Again, He's happy with the decision because it worked. It's not what's in his "blood" as a coach. It just isn't and never will be. Luckily for us we have the perfect complement for Kyle, a QB with a gunslinger mentality. They are a perfect pair.
Edit: In 2016, the Falcons were 26th in pass attempts. Not exactly "letting it rip" lol.
Bingo. That's as conservative as you'll get in today's passing league.
I remember so many thinking we'd become this pass centric team once we got rid of Jimmy. Haha.
Nope.
Yeah no. Matt Ryan in 2016 had exactly THREE NFL QBs attempt more deep passes than him. Just because it's run heavy doesn't mean it's conservative. The runs set up deep passes. As shown in my previous post, which is what the Falcons did in 2016, and it's what we've done this year, and did with Trey, and did more with Nick, Brian and CJ, but didn't do nearly as much with Jimmy. Due to Jimmy.
And? Nobody is saying you can't be hyper efficient (like Brock) within the lowest passing attempts in a passing league. Which by virtue is a conservative offense.
We have the fewest passing attempts because the score of our games averages out to a just under a two touchdown win. In 2017, when we were losing a lot, we had the 2nd most pass attempts.
His balance is the same in the end whether we're winning or losing (rush/pass ratio). This is his formula and I'm unsure why there still are a few who won't accept that. This is who he is...as a head coach.
You have moved the goal post. Run vs pass balance is NOT the indicator of conservative vs aggressive. The 1999 Rams were 19th in pass attempts. The 2000 Rams were 3rd. Both were EXTREMELY aggressive, maybe the most aggressive offense that has ever existed. AIR YARDS is how you determine how aggressive an offense is. The Greatest Show on Turf threw the ball DOWN THE FIELD. They were WAY more aggressive, than say, the 1981 and 1982 49ers. Yet the 1981 and 1982 49ers threw the ball 9th most and 1st most, respectively. Throwing isn't what's aggressive. Throwing DOWN THE FIELD is what's aggressive.
Kyle's aggressiveness is DIRECTLY—nay, almost EXACTLY—tied to his quarterback. When Jimmy was the QB, we didn't throw down the field. With Brock as the QB, we throw down the field. When Matt Ryan was his QB, he threw down the field.
But what the former Jimmysexuals keep missing is that when Jimmy was the QB, DEEP ROUTES WERE CONSTANTLY CALLED. They just weren't CHOSEN by the quarterback. To explain this, the former Jimmysexuals claimed Kyle told Jimmy not to throw to the open man down the field—an absolutely ridiculous proposition, which strangely STILL is claimed today every once in a while, even though Brock thoroughly disproved that nonsense.
See this is what I'm talking about. It's like you guys think that Kyle calls a play, and then wherever the ball is thrown is attributed to Kyle. Purdy is throwing deep successfully and Jimmy wasn't - "see, Kyle wants to throw deep." You sound like the pundits who give Purdy zero credit and dismiss him as a system QB.
Yet we have Kyle himself talking about holding his breath on a deep pass from Purdy, we have Aiyuk saying that before Purdy clear out routes meant you weren't getting the ball but now they're in play, etc. Plenty of breadcrumbs here to see between the lines and give credit to Purdy for expanding the offense beyond Kyle's design. But okay, it's ALL Kyle. He's playing Madden, and merely needs the physical attributes of the players on the team to be successful. The players aren't making decisions, just acting as Kyle's robots. That about sums up what you're all saying.
Okay, then let's clarify it: Kyle has a brilliant offense that has opportunity to attack the defense at all three levels. The QB makes the decision on where to throw the ball.
However, as to which Kyle prefers, he's said repeatedly he wants the QB to throw to the open deep guy if it's there. Brock does that and then goes beyond that, throwing deep even when it's supposedly NOT there, but his accuracy beats the defense. So, again, on a scale of 1 to 10 on aggressiveness versus conservativeness, I'd put Jimmy at 1 or 2, Kyle and 6 or so, and Brock at 7 or so.
Q. Reaction to Brock's touchdown pass, a little fist pump. What was your emotion watching that throw?
KYLE SHANAHAN: I couldn't believe he was throwing it. The zone coverages, guys were so deep, which usually you can check it down right underneath them, get about 12 (yards). Brock thought he could drop it over the guy. A clear view for all of us. It was just a hell of a throw. Perfect touch. Got (it) over, I think it was Diggs. It was a big play that sealed it.
Q. Guts to make that throw? What does it take?
KYLE SHANAHAN: He does that pretty consistently. He's always, always trying to get that one in. Very rarely does he check it down and you tell him he missed the deep one. He looks at it that way. Actually he proved to us while the ball was in the air it was the right decision.
Q. Did you think it was the wrong decision when he let it go?
KYLE SHANAHAN: Yeah, we're all holding our breath as soon as he lets it go. The guy was so deep. Brock has some touch, was able to throw it over him. We took the safety out of there with a route. Knew if he could get (the ball) over him, there's no one else left. He made the throw. I wouldn't have known it until he threw it. Once he threw it, it was obviously there.
tl,dr: KS thought it was the wrong decision (should've taken the check down) and knew immediately (when the ball was in the air) that he was wrong to think Purdy was wrong.
Originally posted by Furlow:
There is no right or wrong IF the result is positive. Just imagine that Purdy threw an INT on that pass to Aiyuk; do you think Kyle would say it was the "correct" read? Hell no. Kyle was very clear if you just listen and don't have a bias - the right read (for our conservative coach) was the checkdown because it was wide open, we had the lead, it would have moved the chains, it was safe.
Kyle is a conservative minded head coach, weird that you and a few others keep trying to make it sound like he wants to air it out down the field like the 90's Oilers.
Not being Mike Martz doesn't make him conservative. He does want to push the ball down the field in the pass game. What he doesn't want to do is have his QB throw down the field into coverage. I guarantee in film study when he sees what Brock sees instead of just quickly watching from the sideline he will be happy with the decision.
Just like in 2016, if you give him a QB he can trust he will tell him to let it rip.
Kyle's offenses are routinely in the top 5 in rush attempts per game/season. Even in 2016 with the Falcons (Ryan MVP) they were 12th. He wants to run the ball and play defense. That is the definition of "conservative" in football terms. How is this even a debate?
Again, He's happy with the decision because it worked. It's not what's in his "blood" as a coach. It just isn't and never will be. Luckily for us we have the perfect complement for Kyle, a QB with a gunslinger mentality. They are a perfect pair.
Edit: In 2016, the Falcons were 26th in pass attempts. Not exactly "letting it rip" lol.
Bingo. That's as conservative as you'll get in today's passing league.
I remember so many thinking we'd become this pass centric team once we got rid of Jimmy. Haha.
Nope.
Yeah no. Matt Ryan in 2016 had exactly THREE NFL QBs attempt more deep passes than him. Just because it's run heavy doesn't mean it's conservative. The runs set up deep passes. As shown in my previous post, which is what the Falcons did in 2016, and it's what we've done this year, and did with Trey, and did more with Nick, Brian and CJ, but didn't do nearly as much with Jimmy. Due to Jimmy.
And? Nobody is saying you can't be hyper efficient (like Brock) within the lowest passing attempts in a passing league. Which by virtue is a conservative offense.
We have the fewest passing attempts because the score of our games averages out to a just under a two touchdown win. In 2017, when we were losing a lot, we had the 2nd most pass attempts.
See post #36021. Overall as an OC and HC, Kyle has a losing record. So the theory that he's blowing everyone out and that's why he runs so much is false. In 2014 the Browns were 7-9. They ranked 6th in rushing attempts and 26th in passing attempts. In 2018 the Niners were 4-12. They ranked 11th in rushing attempts and 20th in passing attempts. So despite all of that losing, he was still committed to running the ball. Yes, OF COURSE when teams are losing they are going to throw more than run. Hell that's true even when teams are winning, as most teams pass the ball more than they run (even good teams). Very few teams/coaches are as skewed towards the run as Kyle is. I'm stressing the word skewed and emphasizing RELATIVE TO the rest of the league.
Kyle wants to run the football and is as committed to it as any coach in the league. Only Harbaugh in Baltimore is even close and they have Lamar who is an elite running QB. Again, this is not a knock on Kyle.
Are you really going to bring his record as an OC into this? Thats crazy. Kyle has a career record of 66-52 including playoffs where he is 6-3.
Well I was being told by multiple posters that play calling is not dictated by offensive philosophy, only by the score of the game. So yes his record (and scores of those games) is relevant if THAT is the point. Although the argument keeps changing so it might be time for me to check out for a bit.
That's false. What was told to you was that the score has a major influence. Nevertheless, aggressiveness is about whether or not the passes are deep, not run-pass balance. The 1982 49ers led the NFL in pass attempts. The 1999 Rams were 19th. To claim that the 1982 49ers were more aggressive is so astoundingly stupid it's actually insulting.
So let's settle that one question now: which was the more aggressive offense, the 1982 49ers, who lead the NFL in pass attempts—but ran a slow, BALL CONTROL offense, or the 1999 Rams, who are considered among the most aggressive offenses in NFL history who ran an offense that constantly pushed the ball down the field when they threw?
Pretty simple question. Will he answer it?
Probably one of the worst examples I've ever seen on the zone. The Niners in the early 80's with Walsh were completely reinventing the way the game was played. Relative to other teams in 1982, they were absolutely very aggressive. To compare them to a team 17 years in the future is so astoundingly stupid it's actually insulting.
No, they weren't. The narrative EVEN THEN was "the 49ers short passes are long handoffs." The aggressive teams were the Chargers, the Dolphins, etc.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
You have moved the goal post. Run vs pass balance is NOT the indicator of conservative vs aggressive. The 1999 Rams were 19th in pass attempts. The 2000 Rams were 3rd. Both were EXTREMELY aggressive, maybe the most aggressive offense that has ever existed. AIR YARDS is how you determine how aggressive an offense is. The Greatest Show on Turf threw the ball DOWN THE FIELD. They were WAY more aggressive, than say, the 1981 and 1982 49ers. Yet the 1981 and 1982 49ers threw the ball 9th most and 1st most, respectively. Throwing isn't what's aggressive. Throwing DOWN THE FIELD is what's aggressive.
Kyle's aggressiveness is DIRECTLY—nay, almost EXACTLY—tied to his quarterback. When Jimmy was the QB, we didn't throw down the field. With Brock as the QB, we throw down the field. When Matt Ryan was his QB, he threw down the field.
But what the former Jimmysexuals keep missing is that when Jimmy was the QB, DEEP ROUTES WERE CONSTANTLY CALLED. They just weren't CHOSEN by the quarterback. To explain this, the former Jimmysexuals claimed Kyle told Jimmy not to throw to the open man down the field—an absolutely ridiculous proposition, which strangely STILL is claimed today every once in a while, even though Brock thoroughly disproved that nonsense.
I can agree with last two paragraphs, but not the first.
Tying aggressiveness to air yards is not a sound argument.
The reason Rams were called the greatest show on turf wasn't because of how well they threw downfield, it was overall offensive prowess and ability to generate yards and points at a near-historic rate.
Offenses can be and are aggressive without necessarily throwing the ball a lot traveling in the air. Perhaps the biggest comeback in playoff history was generated without throwing much air yards. Only two of a lot of Brady's passes were over twenty yards. Not twenty yards in the air, twenty yards period.
That's with Patriots needing to score a TD on pretty much every drive they were on, and score them fast. And there isn't anyone in the world who would call patriots on those drives "conservative" or not aggressive (well, I hope at least there is no one in their right mind).
Okay did you watch the 1999 through 2001 Rams? The way they put up those points were deep posts, deep ins, deep outs, with some screens, slants and rail routes to Marshal Faulk. I have all three seasons from 1999 through 2001 on disk, almost every game (I tend to collect film of great offenses and defenses because it intrigues me; got all the 49ers Super Bowl winning seasons and several others, of course, but also those Rams, the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2007 Patriots and others). To my eye, they were more aggressive in the depth they threw the ball, and the way they did it, the deep drops, the long developing play-action, then pretty much any team today. No one is running that stuff except—get this—US! (JTO has mentioned some of the seven step drop stuff we do that he hated when he played in Martz' offense).
But they did top that stuff off with screen passes and inside zone runs, and quick hitting shots as well. It was very balanced, but extremely aggressive with the constant deep ins and posts. The seven step drops were a killer for Kurt Warner later on in that run.
Originally posted by NCommand:
And? Nobody is saying you can't be hyper efficient (like Brock) within the lowest passing attempts in a passing league. Which by virtue is a conservative offense.
So if Kyle eliminated 10 runs for screens and swing passes suddenly the offense is more aggressive?
When he's top 5 in passing attempts he will be.
That said, "conservative" may not be a fair word. Kyle is aggressively conservative within the limited passing attempts he chooses to use.
He's about balance and efficiency and calculated shots.
There's nothing wrong with that but let's not act like this is some pass centric offense esp. by today's standards.
Good post. For some reason the troops are getting triggered by the word "conservative" as if it's an insult. We'll use a different word, geezus lol.
Only in the WZ can a team be dead last in passing attempts be spun into some wide open pass centric offense.
As to what happens inside those numbers is a different topic.
The real reason this has triggered a few is because they used to argue having a different QB, we'd become pass centric. I know because we used to predict the run/pass ratios annually. It showed who quickly didn't understand who Kyle was as a HC.
Originally posted by thl408:
So now the number of plays is an indicator of how aggressive an offense is? I disagree so much because so many things affect how many plays an offense runs. There is no stat that measures how aggressive an offense is.
What does the offense try to do in certain game situations - that's how you can tell if the offense is aggressive. I mentioned a couple situations above. 3rd & 12, is the QB throwing a dinky checkdown/screen, or is he asked to take a 7 step drop and throw past the sticks? The answer to that question tells us so much more about an offense as opposed to number of plays, or number of passes.
Interjecting again, as I mentioned in my last post, I think it's possible to be an aggressive play caller in how you attack a defense and still be conservative in terms of clock management.
To me there's no argument that we aren't conservative in terms of clock management. Is that indicative of any kind of problem? Not to me, unless our defense is also going to struggle getting off the field (as was argued last week).
I think you can make an argument that Kyle is aggressive in clock management, but you have to think outside the box. He aggressively tries to wind the clock down, thus limiting the number of offensive plays we get, while also still trying to score. If he just ran out the clock and went to the locker room, I'd consider that conservative. Instead, he tries to both wind down the clock and score, so it's kind of aggressive in its own right, or at least one could make the argument.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I think you can make an argument that Kyle is aggressive in clock management, but you have to think outside the box. He aggressively tries to wind the clock down, thus limiting the number of offensive plays we get, while also still trying to score. If he just ran out the clock and went to the locker room, I'd consider that conservative. Instead, he tries to both wind down the clock and score, so it's kind of aggressive in its own right, or at least one could make the argument.
Originally posted by thl408:
So now the number of plays is an indicator of how aggressive an offense is? I disagree so much because so many things affect how many plays an offense runs. There is no stat that measures how aggressive an offense is.
What does the offense try to do in certain game situations - that's how you can tell if the offense is aggressive. I mentioned a couple situations above. 3rd & 12, is the QB throwing a dinky checkdown/screen, or is he asked to take a 7 step drop and throw past the sticks? The answer to that question tells us so much more about an offense as opposed to number of plays, or number of passes.
Interjecting again, as I mentioned in my last post, I think it's possible to be an aggressive play caller in how you attack a defense and still be conservative in terms of clock management.
To me there's no argument that we aren't conservative in terms of clock management. Is that indicative of any kind of problem? Not to me, unless our defense is also going to struggle getting off the field (as was argued last week).
That too. There was just a whole WZ article on how Kyle plays the clock too.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I think you can make an argument that Kyle is aggressive in clock management, but you have to think outside the box. He aggressively tries to wind the clock down, thus limiting the number of offensive plays we get, while also still trying to score. If he just ran out the clock and went to the locker room, I'd consider that conservative. Instead, he tries to both wind down the clock and score, so it's kind of aggressive in its own right, or at least one could make the argument.
Lol. Elevated thinking.
Seriously though he just wants to lap the other team, and if that's not possible, prevent them from getting a chance. Prevent them from scoring last before the half by any means necessary.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Only in the WZ can a team be dead last in passing attempts be spun into some wide open pass centric offense.
As to what happens inside those numbers is a different topic.
The real reason this has triggered a few is because they used to argue having a different QB, we'd become pass centric. I know because we used to predict the run/pass ratios annually. It showed who quickly didn't understand who Kyle was as a HC.
No one ever argued they'd be pass centric. It was argued they'd be more aggressive. What do you know that's exactly what happened.
