OT: Should the 49ers consider firing Shanahan for Belichick?

[Rob0729]

If he kicks it to KC, they score, 9ers score, and then KC scores for the win; everyone criticizing him would criticize him for deferring. Losing HC can never win on his decisions. It's a universal rule.

The odds are just far greater that the game would end before the 49ers got the ball back after each team had a possession.

Sure if the game played out the way you described, Shanahan still would have been second guessed just because the 49ers lost that way. But it doesn’t change that he made the best choice based on the odds. The odds are against overtime getting to a third possession.

Shanahan could have felt that both teams had trouble moving the ball and scoring during the game and felt that it was a good chance that neither team would score on each of their first possessions turning the game into sudden death. In his mind there, that would shift the odds. Or he just didn’t understand how the new overtime rules shifts the odds and just approached overtime based on the logic of the standard overtime rules.

 

[Rob0729]

Would have been their second possession, but I get what you’re saying.

It is their second, but it is the third possession of overtime. Each team would have a possession and they would be going on a third possession.

 

[Triumph]

There were 7 fgs kicked in the game (4 by KC). The strategy has to be based on only having to kick a fg for the win. Two chances at a fg to win is the correct call.

Good thing that SF has a young HC who can relate to the players and assure them that leadership did not fail them with poor decisions.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Not saying they should 100% do it.

But if your the owner, would you consider it?

It would definitely send shockwaves throughout the league.

LOL. What? 49ers defense was not the problem. It was the offense inability to close the deal with the game on the line.

Also a couple of bonkers special teams screwups was the difference in this game.

So should they add to offense and fire their special teams coach, probably.

But BB isn't making that offense any better and the 49ers defense was playing at an elite level vs the Chiefs for 99% of the game until overtime.

 

[Triumph]

There were 7 fgs kicked in the game (4 by KC). The strategy has to be based on only having to kick a fg for the win. Two chances at a fg to win is the correct call.

Its all good Yo.

 

[Triumph]

That’s what happens when you let your defense stay on the field for 9mins after throwing passes on all but four plays in the third quarter

SF gave their FB 1 carry all game and back up RB Mitchell 2 carries all game.

Neither player fumbled all 2023 season.

 

[venecol]

Sort of surprised the Marv Levy comparisons haven't started ... that's basically sort of where he's at now at this point.

Probably because Levy was in his mid 60s and Shannahan is only 44. Bill won his 1st SB at 49. He's got plenty of time to get his chip.

 

[Triumph]

I'm left wondering if ANY of the people saying Shanahan sucks and is a loser have had sustained success in their own chosen fields.

The same people that are pointing the finger elsewhere would defend the San Fransico poop maps as progress.

 

[XLIX]

I don't know. You are talking about the third possession in overtime. The odds of getting to a third possession is pretty slim. Under the new rules, you are guaranteed the ball if you have second possession. It is far more likely one team outscores the other team in the first two possessions.

You have no idea whether or not that is true. It is perfectly likely each team scores a FG or no points at all their first possession in OT. College games go to a 2nd overtime all the time (meaning each team scored the same number of points on their first possession).

As I said in the other thread, KC didn't win because they got the ball 2nd. KC won because they executed and SF did not. Period.

 

[Rob0729]

You have no idea whether or not that is true. It is perfectly likely each team scores a FG or no points at all their first possession in OT. College games go to a 2nd overtime all the time (meaning each team scored the same number of points on their first possession).

As I said in the other thread, KC didn't win because they got the ball 2nd. KC won because they executed and SF did not. Period.

The odds are still greatest that one team will score more points than the other on the first two possession. Doesn't mean that the odds are zero that it will go to the third possession. There is still a decent percentage that neither team score more points and go into that third possession or longer, but that doesn't change the fact that it still more likely to end after the second possession.

And with the advantage of the second possession having to know if they need a field goal or TD to win the game or at least keep the game going into sudden death makes having the ball the second possession a big advantage in the first two possessions. The team with the first possession of overtime has to go into the drive trying to get a TD. The team with the second possession may be working for only a field goal if the first team doesn't score.

And if games go into double overtime, that says having the third possession isn't much of an advantage. Odds are that if a game goes into a second overtime each team has possessed the ball at least twice already.

But that brings up the question. What percentage of games in college that continue past each team getting one possession and go into sudden death being decided on the first possession after each team has their first possession? The stats could say that it is far more likely if a winner isn't decided with each team getting their first and required possession that it is far more likely that the game will have multiple more possessions than being decided on that third possession in overtime. If so, there is no advantage to having that possession at all and Shanahan made even a bigger blunder.

 

[XLIX]

The odds are still greatest that one team will score more points than the other on the first two possession.

You have no idea what the odds are that the teams score a different number of points. You are making that claim up out of thin air. This Super Bowl was literally the first time these brand new OT rules have been applied.

And with the advantage of the second possession having to know if they need a field goal or TD to win the game or at least keep the game going into sudden death makes having the ball the second possession a big advantage in the first two possessions. The team with the first possession of overtime has to go into the drive trying to get a TD. The team with the second possession may be working for only a field goal if the first team doesn't score.

And if games go into double overtime, that says having the third possession isn't much of an advantage. Odds are that if a game goes into a second overtime each team has possessed the ball at least twice already.

You're not understanding. "Double overtime" in NCAA doesn't mean merely a 2nd overtime period, like would happen in the NFL if 15:00 ran off the clock.

"Double overtime" in the NCAA means each team had a possession and scored the exact same amount of points, something which happens quite regularly.

But that brings up the question. What percentage of games in college that continue past each team getting one possession and go into sudden death being decided on the first possession after each team has their first possession?

None, because the rules are different. In college, each team is guaranteed an equal amount of possessions no matter how deep they go (after the 2nd possession for each team, it then comes down to 2-point conversions). There is no sudden death in college.

The stats could say that it is far more likely if a winner isn't decided with each team getting their first and required possession that it is far more likely that the game will have multiple more possessions than being decided on that third possession in overtime.

You're just making crap up out of thin air. This is an unprecedented situation. There were no stats regarding what would happen on each team's first possession in this type of situation.

If so, there is no advantage to having that possession at all and Shanahan made even a bigger blunder.

KC won because they executed in the red zone whereas SF did not.

Tell me, if the SF defense held KC to a FG then which team has the advantage at that point now that it is sudden death? The team kicking the ball or the team receiving?

 

[oldrover]

Lol, dumbass, he was forced to pick it up once it hit his player.

Actually, he was not forced to pick it up. He could have just fallen on it instead.

 

[Rob0729]

You have no idea whether or not that is true. It is perfectly likely each team scores a FG or no points at all their first possession in OT. College games go to a 2nd overtime all the time (meaning each team scored the same number of points on their first possession).

As I said in the other thread, KC didn't win because they got the ball 2nd. KC won because they executed and SF did not. Period.

I still bet far more overtime games end before sudden death than go into double overtime. But it the odds are the game ending after the first two possessions verses the odds of it ending on the third possession. Not if it goes into double overtime.

And the coin flip is never the reason why someone loses. I am saying the odds says to kick the ball in overtime. If in the really old overtime rules where the entire overtime is sudden death and you select to kick the ball rather than receive, that wouldn't be why you lost the game if the other team scored on the first drive. It would still be because the other team executed and you didn't.

It is just the 49ers had a better advantage if they kicked off than received because the odds are just greater the game ends after the first two possessions than on the third possession and you would have more knowledge of what you needed having the second possession. You still have to play the game.

 

[XLIX]

I still bet far more overtime games end before sudden death than go into double overtime. But it the odds are the game ending after the first two possessions verses the odds of it ending on the third possession. Not if it goes into double overtime.

And the coin flip is never the reason why someone loses. I am saying the odds says to kick the ball in overtime. If in the really old overtime rules where the entire overtime is sudden death and you select to kick the ball rather than receive, that wouldn't be why you lost the game if the other team scored on the first drive. It would still be because the other team executed and you didn't.

It is just the 49ers had a better advantage if they kicked off than received because the odds are just greater the game ends after the first two possessions than on the third possession and you would have more knowledge of what you needed having the second possession. You still have to play the game.

I asked you a question and you completely ignored it (even though I answered your questions). I will try again:

Tell me, if the SF defense held KC to a FG then which team has the advantage at that point now that it is sudden death? The team kicking the ball or the team receiving?

 

[Rob0729]

I asked you a question and you completely ignored it (even though I answered your questions). I will try again:

Tell me, if the SF defense held KC to a FG then which team has the advantage at that point now that it is sudden death? The team kicking the ball or the team receiving?

Yes, if after the two possessions, both teams have the same score then the advantage would shift from the Chiefs to the 49ers. But at the time of the coin flip, the advantage goes to the team kicking off. But you know what? If the 49ers fail to score on that next possession, the advantage switches back to the Chiefs.

Advantages change all the time in a game. We are talking who has the advantage at the point in time of the coin flip. The 49ers ceded that advantage because there was a good chance that the game would never get to sudden death and that third possession. In fact, that is what happened.

 

[XLIX]

Yes, if after the two possessions, both teams have the same score then the advantage would shift from the Chiefs to the 49ers. But at the time of the coin flip, the advantage goes to the team kicking off. But you know what? If the 49ers fail to score on that next possession, the advantage switches back to the Chiefs.

Advantages change all the time in a game. We are talking who has the advantage at the point in time of the coin flip. The 49ers seeded that advantage because there was a good chance that the game would never get to sudden death and that third possession. In fact, that is what happened.

Like I said: SF lost because they failed to execute, not because of their choice when they won the coin flip. Taking the ball is best strategy because it guarantees you will have at least as many possessions as the other team, but also you could have more.

 

[venecol]

Actually, he was not forced to pick it up. He could have just fallen on it instead.

Same thing. He was forced to control the ball. Ball was bouncing. You don't just fall on a bouncing ball.

 

[oldrover]

Same thing. He was forced to control the ball. Ball was bouncing. You don't just fall on a bouncing ball.

Surprised I have to explain this, but there’s a huge difference in trying to pick up the ball and run, and just plain focusing on recovering a fumble.

 

[venecol]

Surprised I have to explain this, but there’s a huge difference in trying to pick up the ball and run, and just plain focusing on recovering a fumble.

In both cases you have to possess the ball. He never did it because it was bouncing.

 

[venecol]