Kyle Shanahan, stick a fork in him?

[elguapo]

Coach made the decision to roll with jimmy. So thats number one.
Poor tackling etc CAN be coaching.

Those can be poor coaching, but your argument is most definitely reaching. You are trying to cast blame of al on 1 man, 22 guys on the field played the game and failed to do their job

 

[shopson67]

Coach made the decision to roll with jimmy. So thats number one.
Poor tackling etc CAN be coaching.

Do you think the outcome would've been better with Lance? Or if they would have even made the playoffs with Lance?

Regardless, Shanny has made his own dilemma now with Jimmy and Trey. He just had Deebo come out in strong support for Jimmy, with the assumption now that Jimmy is out in favor of Lance (who cost the team 3 firsts). It's funny how the players were blaming the media over the "so-called QB controversy" when it was their own team's FO that put that in play.

 

[shopson67]

Those can be poor coaching, but your argument is most definitely reaching. You are trying to cast blame of al on 1 man, 22 guys on the field played the game and failed to do their job

If the Rams had lost, would the blame not be on McVay?

 

[jayfan]

It is worrisome. What is it about Kyle that his teams are blowing leads in big games? I think he is too conservative. He definitely should've had his team go for it on 4th and 2 to try to take back control of that game.

That was a tough call. I'm usually pretty sure in my mind what I would do is those type of situations, but I wasn't on that play.

That being said, the first play from scrimmage after the punt was the easy INT that Tartt botched. Hard to say punting was the wrong decision.


* However, I was definitely a not fan of the play call on 3rd down.

 

[elguapo]

If the Rams had lost, would the blame not be on McVay?

depends on situation, I look at whole picture. stafford tosses 4 picks and they have 6 turnovers, no not on coaches, calling a bad timeout, bad time management, calling a pass play on the goal line with best running back in nfl, those are bad coaching. failing to adapt to the opponent is bad coaching. having your all world qb doing everything when you are effectively running the ball, but cocky enough to think he can do it all by himself (ala kc), that is bad coaching

 

[calsnowskier]

Shannahan is an above average coach. He may even be elite.

but there is an absolute trend that is developing with teams that he coaches, and it would asinine not to recognize it and analyze it. Maybe it is nothing. But more likely it is some flaw in his process. As complicated as professional football is for even the most experienced experts to understand, there is no way couch-jockeys like us will ever figure it out, but you can damn well be sure we will talk as if we know EXACTLY what the problem/solution is.

This is the way.

 

[Robotech]

Shannahan is an above average coach. He may even be elite.

but there is an absolute trend that is developing with teams that he coaches, and it would asinine not to recognize it and analyze it. Maybe it is nothing. But more likely it is some flaw in his process. As complicated as professional football is for even the most experienced experts to understand, there is no way couch-jockeys like us will ever figure it out, but you can damn well be sure we will talk as if we know EXACTLY what the problem/solution is.

This is the way.

Elite offensive mind, but we see him making conservative game management decisions all the time. That's my biggest issue with him. He usually does not use timeouts at the end of the first half, often content to just let the clock run out and get to half time. When he does have his team go for a score in those situations, he is often settling for FG's. When you don't know how many points you need to win, I think it's a mistake to pass up on scoring opportunities.

And 4th down decisions is something that is changing in the NFL, but unfortunately, I think that Kyle is behind most coaches in that regard.

 

[Robotech]

That was a tough call. I'm usually pretty sure in my mind what I would do is those type of situations, but I wasn't on that play.

That being said, the first play from scrimmage after the punt was the easy INT that Tartt botched. Hard to say punting was the wrong decision.


* However, I was definitely a not fan of the play call on 3rd down.

I just feel like he plays not to lose instead of really going for the win.

 

[elguapo]

I just feel like he plays not to lose instead of really going for the win.

Actually, that is a pretty good way of explaining it. He is unlike other offensive coaches where instead of thinking with their balls, he thinks he does not want to be the reason for the L. Thus ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts

 

[SteelersPride]

Do you think the outcome would've been better with Lance? Or if they would have even made the playoffs with Lance?

Regardless, Shanny has made his own dilemma now with Jimmy and Trey. He just had Deebo come out in strong support for Jimmy, with the assumption now that Jimmy is out in favor of Lance (who cost the team 3 firsts). It's funny how the players were blaming the media over the "so-called QB controversy" when it was their own team's FO that put that in play.

No i dont think the results would be better. But again, kyle put himself in that situation. Jimmys contract is easy to ditch, kyle could of upgraded.

 

[calsnowskier]

No i dont think the results would be better. But again, kyle put himself in that situation. Jimmys contract is easy to ditch, kyle could of upgraded.

With whom?

Making a QB change during a window is very hard to do. He is trying it, but he is paying the price.

I am totally OK with blaming Kyle for the loss. But saying he could have upgraded the QB situation coming into ‘21 just isn’t factual.

 

[SteelersPride]

With whom?

Making a QB change during a window is very hard to do. He is trying it, but he is paying the price.

I am totally OK with blaming Kyle for the loss. But saying he could have upgraded the QB situation coming into ‘21 just isn’t factual.

Even besides lance, he had options, jimmys deal is essentially one year options…he could of passed and got someone else…or made a play for someone. Right off the bat though. Stafford, the rams did.

 

[calsnowskier]

Even besides lance, he had options, jimmys deal is essentially one year options…he could of passed and got someone else…or made a play for someone. Right off the bat though. Stafford, the rams did.

And it cost them a starting QB PLUS 3 firsts. The Niners turned 2 additional picks (it is a misconception that Trey cost them 3 firsts. He cost them 2 firsts as one of them was the actual pick used to take him)

If you want to argue with 20/20 hindsight, fine. Anyone can do that on any decision ever made. And just because the Lambs were able to make that trade with Detroit doesn’t mean the Niners would have been able to pull it off. Maybe the Lions didn’t like Jimmy. Maybe the Lions liked the outlook of Ram picks better than the outlook of Niner picks (or vice versa or any permutation of teams valuing different picks differently).

 

[Tapey]

depends on situation, I look at whole picture. stafford tosses 4 picks and they have 6 turnovers, no not on coaches, calling a bad timeout, bad time management, calling a pass play on the goal line with best running back in nfl, those are bad coaching. failing to adapt to the opponent is bad coaching. having your all world qb doing everything when you are effectively running the ball, but cocky enough to think he can do it all by himself (ala kc), that is bad coaching

Bro why are the Seahawks out here catching strays?

 

[calsnowskier]

Bro why are the Seahawks out here catching strays?

You were just sitting there, enjoying your coffee, minding your own business…

 

[Niner Outlaw]

Even besides lance, he had options, jimmys deal is essentially one year options…he could of passed and got someone else…or made a play for someone. Right off the bat though. Stafford, the rams did.

No, he really didn't have options. When you look at the facts, you'll agree.

The available FA Qbs weren't any better than Jimmy. That's a dead end. So, trading for a QB or drafting a rookie were the only real options they had for an significant upgrade at the position.

Well, the Niners looked into trading for Stafford but we weren't willing to beat the Rams' offer or perhaps the Lions like Goff over Jimmy. Seattle would never trade us Wilson within the division. Before the draft, the Niners tried to trade for Rodgers, but the Packers said no. That really didn't leave much in the way of a significant upgrade other than moving up for a rookie QB (albeit in a good QB year, with the following year's class [2022] looking rather weak).

 

[SteelersPride]

And it cost them a starting QB PLUS 3 firsts. The Niners turned 2 additional picks (it is a misconception that Trey cost them 3 firsts. He cost them 2 firsts as one of them was the actual pick used to take him)

If you want to argue with 20/20 hindsight, fine. Anyone can do that on any decision ever made. And just because the Lambs were able to make that trade with Detroit doesn’t mean the Niners would have been able to pull it off. Maybe the Lions didn’t like Jimmy. Maybe the Lions liked the outlook of Ram picks better than the outlook of Niner picks (or vice versa or any permutation of teams valuing different picks differently).

Honestly, yeah it did cost them that. they're going to the superbowl. IF IF IF they win, who cares what it cost them. Thats just my opinion.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. No there is no guarantee the 49'ers pull it off. I dont disagree with anything you've said quite honestly. I am not attacking you. For me, it's that I think Jimmy is not that good. I never did. He has the most deceiving numbers in all of football. So for me, I think it was a mistake to ever have the intention to go into a season with jimmy g as your qb. Thats making a move for lance, or any other qb aside. But toss in the fact that you had a loaded roster, and you chose to roll with jimmy, thats on kyle. You also decided to take a very very raw young qb. If he takes more time to get up to speed, and he may/likely will(understandably), then they waste another year. I may be in the minority in that thought process. I also don't think kyle trusts jimmy that much and hides him. Which again, goes back to, why are you starting jimmy with a loaded roster.

 

[SteelersPride]

No, he really didn't have options. When you look at the facts, you'll agree.

The available FA Qbs weren't any better than Jimmy. That's a dead end. So, trading for a QB or drafting a rookie were the only real options they had for an significant upgrade at the position.

Well, the Niners looked into trading for Stafford but we weren't willing to beat the Rams' offer or perhaps the Lions like Goff over Jimmy. Seattle would never trade us Wilson within the division. Before the draft, the Niners tried to trade for Rodgers, but the Packers said no. That really didn't leave much in the way of a significant upgrade other than moving up for a rookie QB (albeit in a good QB year, with the following year's class [2022] looking rather weak).

ehhh, guys are available for the right price. If the 49'ers weren't willing to beat the rams offer, thats on your GM or kyle. Cant' tell me this team isnt in the superbowl with stafford at qb.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

ehhh, guys are available for the right price....

LOL, now you're just being ridiculous. "The right price"--smh, it takes a special, not-living-in-the-real-world person to blame a team for refusing to offer a Herschel Walker trade deal. I'm talking about reasonable things in the real world.

 

[SteelersPride]

LOL, now you're just being ridiculous. "The right price"--smh, it takes a special, not-living-in-the-real-world person to blame a team for refusing to offer a Herschel Walker trade deal. I'm talking about reasonable things in the real world.

i didnt say that.....you made the comment that they didnt' wanna match the rams offer perhaps. So yes, guys can be had for the right price. In this case, you know what the price was. IMHO if paying that extra got you to the superbowl, over what you paid for lance, you would take it right?