Jimmy G. or Shanahan... Who should shoulder more of the blame?

[anythingispossible]

Defense did not show up

 

[Tom Ace]

The game wasn't definitively out of reach until it was about 40 seconds left to play. All picks matter. You pull your goalie in every playoff game in hockey, even if you're down by 2. 3 even.

The game was definitively out of reach. Throwing the pick there didn't make a difference.

This was SF's game to lose, and they lost it. The defense played well enough through 3 quarters. KC was the comeback kid all through these playoffs, so you know you have to hold them off as long as you can, while continuing to put up points.

So what I'm seeing here is that SF's D and coach lost it. I'd frame it more as Mahomes winning it, but either way, it amounts to about the same.

You think clock management is exclusively the responsibility of the sideline?

Just stop trying to twist things. The coach decided they weren't going to take risks. They were going to let the time wind down and maybe take a shot when it was safe.

Uh huh. You win. He's an "elite" monster.

Man, same old, same old. I didn't say he was an elite monster. He was a good QB.

49ers QB Jimmy Garoppolo misses chance to quiet critics in Super Bowl
How can Kyle Shanahan and Jimmy Garoppolo silence the doubters? Win the Super Bowl. - Niners Nation
Joe Montana defends 'dangerous' Jimmy Garoppolo against criticism
Trent Dilfer vs Jimmy Garoppolo playoff stats

Again, same old, same old. The first three are (potentially) criticisms of Garoppolo. As I said, yes, there are people criticizing him. The last one, the only one that compares him to Dilfer, is a thread from this site, and it's only about his two playoff games to that point.

So, yet again, some people are criticizing him. No one other than you is suggesting he's on a level with Dilfer. That's one of the stupidest things ever said.

Hooray for them. Garoppolo has an NFC championship ring that's just as pretty as a Super Bowl ring. The pr0n-stars'll all be mega-impressed.

I wouldn't put him in the same category with Lamar Jackson, for example. And neither would you.

It's still fun to watch you distract from being wrong. Of course I wouldn't put him on a level with Lamar. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it was a good move to sign him the way the 49ers did. The answer is a resounding yes.

 

[Tom Ace]

Tannehill would be happy with a mid-range, ~$12-15mil contract, maybe even incentive-laden. Signing Henry is a no-brainer, and roster management isn't too difficult now that the Mariota problem goes away.

Tannehill would not be happy at all with $15 mil per season. That would make him something like the 18th highest paid QB. With the numbers he put up this season, he's going to want at least $20 mil, probably more like $25 mil.

SF's Garoppolo problem manifests in a big way after next season, since they have a lot of young, talented players (Samuel, Bosa, etc.) that will need to get locked into the next contract. Paying one guy $24-25mil a year requires a dividend to justify that kind of money.

His $27 mil cap hit isn't that bad. Bosa and Samuel were rookies this year. They both signed for 4 years, so they're locked in through 2022, and the 49ers have an option for Bosa for '23.

It's @Tom Ace's descriptor, from a long time ago.

Only if you're talking about "top 12". I said he was probably going to be top 12, with the potential to be top 8.