Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
patriotsheatyan

Should Kyle Shanahan have gone for the tie?

Should Kyle Shanahan have gone for the tie with less than two minutes left?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Kyle Shanahan have gone for the tie with less than two minutes left?

    • Yes
      3
    • No
      15
    • He should have cautiously started the drive, then opened it up if they got a first down
      13


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, DirtyDez said:

What was the time exactly and how many TO’s did Seattle have?  If you could’ve guaranteed a tie by running it out I’m sure they would’ve ran on first/second down.

I believe there was 2 minutes left and Seattle had no TOs. I think San Francisco could have kneed it 3 times to run out the clock in theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeotheLion said:

I believe there was 2 minutes left and Seattle had no TOs. I think San Francisco could have kneed it 3 times to run out the clock in theory. 

Pretty much. 

He would have gotten eviscerated, of course. 

I stand by running it on first, draining 40 seconds and going from there. You can get 50 yards in 70 seconds even if you got nothing on the run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have used some time off the clock regardless. They didn't need to milk it, but they should have definitely had much better situational awareness and keep in mind they had a timeout of their own too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Forge said:

Pretty much. 

He would have gotten eviscerated, of course. 

I stand by running it on first, draining 40 seconds and going from there. You can get 50 yards in 70 seconds even if you got nothing on the run

If Jeff Fisher had a 2 game lead in the division I think he would have done the kneel downs while giving the crowd the double bird with his famous ear to ear grin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a term similar to 'prevent defence' but instead characterizes the offensive efforts that maximizes ball protection over risk & efforts to gain chunk yardage

if a team already has the lead.(or a tie)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The short answer is ABSOLUTELY. A tie is more beneficial to the 49ers than the Seahawks. Therefore, it is kinda like a win.

Nobody likes it, everybody thinks it sounds lame or whatever, but YES, their primary concern should have been making sure that the game ended on that drive. Ideally, it's with a shot at the outright win, but if not, oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean going with three straight kneel downs wouldn't have been the answer. But I certainly think the right play is to run on first and maybe even second down (or a screen) and go from there. Hopefully you pick up some yards and can be more aggressive, but at the very least you increase the chances greatly of at least coming out without the loss. You don't play specifically for the tie, you still try and win, but you adjust your line of thinking and playcalling to give yourself the best chance at a win being best case and tie being the worst case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, it was a great game. Period. And all those pressure snap decisions to be made added to the drama, as you can see by this thread where the 20-20 QB's are still sifting through it.

Now, with that said, I read the posts. And I am in agreement with the many that said "you play the game to win". Ok, so a tie would get you something meaningful at the end of the year. That is still not the point. The point:

You play the game to win.

SEE  ^^the point^^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Split the Sticks said:

First of all, it was a great game. Period. And all those pressure snap decisions to be made added to the drama, as you can see by this thread where the 20-20 QB's are still sifting through it.

Now, with that said, I read the posts. And I am in agreement with the many that said "you play the game to win". Ok, so a tie would get you something meaningful at the end of the year. That is still not the point. The point:

You play the game to win.

SEE  ^^the point^^

 

But the ultimate goal is to win a super bowl, and a tie in this instance could make that goal easier to obtain. I'm not saying you forfeit the win and play only for a tie, but a tie most certainly could be beneficial in trying to obtain the ultimate goal, especially when compared to a loss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

 could make that goal easier to obtain.

Ties work both ways, it could just as easily make the goal harder to obtain.
There's far too many games still to go across the NFC and they'll all have an impact on this race

Going for 2 on the opening drive could help win a game. It could also help lose a game. Its just not the smart move at this stage in the season
If there were only 1 game left and only a few variables, then maybe you can make the case. And here's something that doesn't show up on analytics:

Kyle needs to know that JG can handle that moment. And JG needs those reps, just like every young signal caller
Laying up and playing for a tie sends the wrong message to your young QB and undermines his leadership of the team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

What was the time exactly and how many TO’s did Seattle have?  If you could’ve guaranteed a tie by running it out I’m sure they would’ve ran on first/second down.

From memory, we had the ball with 1:49 left in ot and Seattle had 1 time out 

First down, batted pass at the LOS. The pass was to a guy who was wide open beyond the sticks

Second down, dropped pass on what should have been an easy 7 yard completion

Third down, we went for the win on a 40 yard pass down the field. Deebo Samuel beat his man, Garoppolo gave it slightly too much air, and the two handed Griffen brother made a nice play on the ball. 

Kyle said on third down he wasn't going to just run the ball on third and punt because he felt it didn't matter if Wilson had 1:40 or 1m left

I agree 100% with his reasoning. Let's take the shot to win the game in that scenario.

It's not like he did what Frank Reich did and go for it on 4th in his own territory. If Robert Saleh uses a goddamn qb spy on Wilson, we probably tie anyway 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Ties work both ways, it could just as easily make the goal harder to obtain.
There's far too many games still to go across the NFC and they'll all have an impact on this race

Only sure way to make the playoffs is to win your division. Seahawks need to catch up and there are only so many weeks to go. Seahawks needed that win more than the Niners.

It quite literally could not JUST AS EASILY make that goal harder to obtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Forge said:

Added the bolded. 

And no, that's not the same. The weren't gambling a season away on a single drive. If this season goes bad, it's for reasons a lot bigger than this drive. They had an opportunity to win. They had to go 50 yards in slightly less than two minutes lol. The idea of turtling up for a tie is preposterous.

And shanny / Lynch have six year deals with no offset language. They are fine regardless. 

You can debate the calls they made with regards to the plays, but the idea they should have played for a tie in that situation is silly

I mean, there's being "aggressive" as a coach, and then there's being irresponsible.  Maybe i'm still just a lil salty that the Jaguars coaching staff idiotically threw away a potential win...by "gambling".  But i think this whole obsession with "go for the jugular, go for the win always!" has gone way too far.  It's in the same vein as the people who think "throwing on 1st down guarantees success".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a big game like the one we saw on Monday is 1 where you play to win, no questions asked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have gone for atleast 1 run in first 2 downs...if it failed, then just run on 3rd down...that should have basically guaranteed a tie. If it worked, then yeah even better...it would have ended up either as a tie or a win. Instead Kyle went for worst possible options, especially in a match where their passing offense was turning the ball over and making mistakes through out the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×