Chiefer Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 3 minutes ago, Jameson_Neat said: Is it enough to make that much of a difference against a guy like 15? I don't think it's some egregious mistake on its own, but taking the ball, driving down to the 9 and kicking a FG is a bit deflating IMO. Maybe I watch too much Dan Campbell. Dan Campbell goes for it in OT for sure 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 35 minutes ago, Soggust said: 49ers seem to disagree with you, but I guess we know now who was right =p But in all seriousness, I think it's just easy to say in hindsight. If Kyle kicks and the defense gets sliced up immediately I think there is a different narrative today. The difference to me is, even if the defenses gets sliced up right away, your offense has a chance to respond. First drive, you might punt, or settle for the FG, or the XP, because you don't know what you need. Going second, you know what it takes to win. We knew we couldn't punt, so we didn't. San Fran didn't know they couldn't afford the FG, so they took the FG. That knowledge is so important to how you play that sequence. And I get the sudden death angle, but in going for having an advantage on the third drive, you're betting on a drive that might not (and did not) ever come. KC had the advantage on the second drive, which was guaranteed. Honestly not that different to how you want the ball under old OT circumstances, because the first drive is the only drive you know will happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Romo brought this up - if you're the 2nd team (and the first team scored somehow) you know you'll always have that 4th down to get the 10 yards needed. There is an advantage there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 2 minutes ago, Chiefer said: Dan Campbell goes for it in OT for sure Campbell gives Mahomes one more shot at the end zone in regulation, too. I don't understand that decision by Reid at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefer Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 1 minute ago, Jameson_Neat said: Campbell gives Mahomes one more shot at the end zone in regulation, too. I don't understand that decision by Reid at all. Well that’s a big reason why Reid won and Campbell lost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramxel Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 This is just a pattern of wasted oportunities for the 49ers, I feel. People dunked on Dan Campbell in the NFCCG, but this is what happens when you play not to loose vs the best QB/coach combo of today. Chifes were outplayed for almost 3 quarters, but were never finished off. This game script is not a good recipe to beat Mahomes, especially if you keep giving his team the last possession... at the end of the half, to end regulation and in OT... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Yeah you take the ball 2nd in the new rules. I also feel like in OT, that 3rd down and 4 the Niners squandered because they ran the fake jet sweep to CMC was just an abysmal play call that solidified them kicking the FG instead of potentially going for it. Kicking a FG in OT against Patrick Mahomes has to be one of the all-time worst decisions you can make as a coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 4 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: The difference to me is, even if the defenses gets sliced up right away, your offense has a chance to respond. First drive, you might punt, or settle for the FG, or the XP, because you don't know what you need. Going second, you know what it takes to win. We knew we couldn't punt, so we didn't. San Fran didn't know they couldn't afford the FG, so they took the FG. That knowledge is so important to how you play that sequence. And I get the sudden death angle, but in going for having an advantage on the third drive, you're betting on a drive that might not (and did not) ever come. KC had the advantage on the second drive, which was guaranteed. Honestly not that different to how you want the ball under old OT circumstances, because the first drive is the only drive you know will happen. So getting the ball 3rd (in event of FG+FG), is a hypothetical advantage, because it might not ever come to fruition. But the Chiefs had a legitimate advantage in knowing they needed at least a FG and TD to win, despite the fact they never encountered a situation where they had to make a decision based on that information? Again, maybe you could say SF had a disadvantage more than Chiefs had an advantage, but I think between the D being tired, Shanahan having a young QB he likely didn't want to lean on to win the game Mahomes style, and his record being down in clutch situations - I think we are grasping at straws to rationalize a genuinely close game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Just now, Soggust said: So getting the ball 3rd (in event of FG+FG), is a hypothetical advantage, because it might not ever come to fruition. But the Chiefs had a legitimate advantage in knowing they needed at least a FG and TD to win, despite the fact they never encountered a situation where they had to make a decision based on that information? Again, maybe you could say SF had a disadvantage more than Chiefs had an advantage, but I think between the D being tired, Shanahan having a young QB he likely didn't want to lean on to win the game Mahomes style, and his record being down in clutch situations - I think we are grasping at straws to rationalize a genuinely close game. They did encounter a situation where that decision mattered, though. We had 4th and 1 from our own 34. Since San Fran scored, there's no decision there. We had to go for it. If we have the ball first and we encounter that same down at that same point in the field, you can't tell me Andy isn't thinking of punting and playing defense. I don't know what the call would've been, since 1 yard is a bit more enticing than like, 4th and 4. But that choice goes away because we got the ball second and had to score. And just to be clear, there's no hindsight, here. I posted in the GDT the second they took the ball that I did not understand the decision. There's just now real world examples to point to. It was a bad choice at the time it was made, and in retrospect. Also, you point out Shanahan not wanting to lean on his young QB to win the game, and I also think that's part of the problem. I get it, Purdy is young and still flawed and still learning. You gotta trust the guy who got you there, though. My other issue with Shanahan's game management was not using timeouts and going for points at the end of the first half, and I think that came from that same kind of logic, not wanting to put more on Purdy than was necessary, when he should've trusted his QB to not screw it up and given him a chance to get some more points. Would rather go down trusting my guys than being afraid of them messing it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramxel Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 (edited) Also, I think taking the ball 1st makes you much less aggressive in the pursuit of that TD. It's much more of a dilemma to face, going for the TD vs settling for the FG. I think Kyle's playcall reflected that conservative approach, that was already pretty conservative throughout the game. Edited February 12 by kramxel 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Just remember the Eagles were aggressive against the Pats and won because of it. You go for the kill against GOATs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 I get the argument that you'd want the ball first in the actual sudden death, and I get the argument that you'd want to give your defense a rest as they were running uphill on ice in the back half of that game. So I'm not going to say that it's "wrong" to take the ball first. But I'm a take the ball second guy with the new rules. You can cancel out the sudden death third possession by simply going for 2 (if you have the balls for it). So I'd rather have the knowledge of what I need. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggust Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 2 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: They did encounter a situation where that decision mattered, though. We had 4th and 1 from our own 34. Since San Fran scored, there's no decision there. We had to go for it. If we have the ball first and we encounter that same down at that same point in the field, you can't tell me Andy isn't thinking of punting and playing defense. I don't know what the call would've been, since 1 yard is a bit more enticing than like, 4th and 4. But that choice goes away because we got the ball second and had to score. I don't understand and non-sarcastically I might just be missing something here - If the idea is you might be content taking the points and playing defense by punting if you don't know what you need, then certainly you are considering tying the game in the same scenario when you NEED a tie to continue the game? Like, I don't agree Andy is EVER punting there or taking a FG, but certainly he would be more inclined to take a shot at the FG when he needs the points. I truly, 100%, believe that Andy is going for it on 4th and 1 in that spot, regardless of who got ball first. 6 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Also, you point out Shanahan not wanting to lean on his young QB to win the game, and I also think that's part of the problem. I get it, Purdy is young and still flawed and still learning. You gotta trust the guy who got you there, though. My other issue with Shanahan's game management was not using timeouts and going for points at the end of the first half, and I think that came from that same kind of logic, not wanting to put more on Purdy than was necessary, when he should've trusted his QB to not screw it up and given him a chance to get some more points. Would rather go down trusting my guys than being afraid of them messing it up. This, I actually don't necessarily disagree with. But if you think your guy is better playing from ahead without the pressure, then setting your QB and defense up in the best position to succeed makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 2 minutes ago, Soggust said: I don't understand and non-sarcastically I might just be missing something here - If the idea is you might be content taking the points and playing defense by punting if you don't know what you need, then certainly you are considering tying the game in the same scenario when you NEED a tie to continue the game? Like, I don't agree Andy is EVER punting there or taking a FG, but certainly he would be more inclined to take a shot at the FG when he needs the points. I truly, 100%, believe that Andy is going for it on 4th and 1 in that spot, regardless of who got ball first. This, I actually don't necessarily disagree with. But if you think your guy is better playing from ahead without the pressure, then setting your QB and defense up in the best position to succeed makes sense to me. Like I said, maybe he does. But it's not a choice when you know you need that field goal. That's the thing, you can make the wrong choice when you have the ball on that first possession. Shanahan kicking the FG became the wrong choice, because he didn't know he needed a TD. If you flip those two drives, he goes for it on 4th because he knows he has to. We had to go for it on 4th because we knew we needed points. It's easier to make the right decision when you have more information. Even if it was a 1% chance Andy might have punted in that scenario on drive #1, it's a 0% chance on drive #2. That information is valuable. And like, just to be blunt here, this is something college football has figured out for like ages, with their weird overtime setup. You always want the ball second in CFB because then you know what you need to do by the time you get the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Again, won't say that the other option is wrong and maybe this is mostly just a personality thing....but yeah, still a second possession guy and pretty confidently lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.