NFL 2023

[Guy Chamberlin]

27 minutes ago, Madcows said:

Yeah, that was the problem with SF this year, the defense. Never mind the fact that Shanahan has now failed in all three SB appearances in the second half.

 

I know about Shanahan's SB rep, but as the offensive coordinator he staked the Falcons to a 28-3 lead in the third quarter, so the DC should have taken more of that heat. In the first KC/SF Super Bowl, Garappollo could have put it away but missed a wide open receiver for a TD, after which Mahomes did his Mahomes thing. This last Super Bowl never felt like a meltdown or choke, just a classic "last team with the ball" thing that Shanahan could have controlled by deferring in OT, although it's hard to see it playing out much differently. 

 

Most of us Niners fans thought the defense wasn't playing up to its personnel in the second half of the season. They actually played better against the Chiefs, especially in the red zone. But in the fourth quarter Shanahan used a valuable time out because he didn't like the scheme Wilks had called. I don't know how often that kind of thing happens, but in hindsight it might have been the nail in the coffin. 

[Madcows]

44 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I know about Shanahan's SB rep, but as the offensive coordinator he staked the Falcons to a 28-3 lead in the third quarter, so the DC should have taken more of that heat. In the first KC/SF Super Bowl, Garappollo could have put it away but missed a wide open receiver for a TD, after which Mahomes did his Mahomes thing. This last Super Bowl never felt like a meltdown or choke, just a classic "last team with the ball" thing that Shanahan could have controlled by deferring in OT, although it's hard to see it playing out much differently. 

 

Most of us Niners fans thought the defense wasn't playing up to its personnel in the second half of the season. They actually played better against the Chiefs, especially in the red zone. But in the fourth quarter Shanahan used a valuable time out because he didn't like the scheme Wilks had called. I don't know how often that kind of thing happens, but in hindsight it might have been the nail in the coffin. 

 

There's also not riding CMC and throwing what 10 passes in a row with the lead in the second half. Shorten the game while running your all-pro and picking your spots to pass, not throwing so many times. Poor game management by the play caller.  The defense getting a pick in Chiefs territory and doing absolutely nothing with the ball to start the 3rd quarter, with aforementioned poor play calling, and punting again. Key 3rd down late in the game, I believe with the lead, call a pass that was knocked down at the line instead of running the ball and forcing KC to either take a TO or using up more of the clock. The blame for the loss, if you want to blame anyone, isn't anywhere on the defensive side of the ball.  The SF D was top 3-5 all year, gave SF offense short fields and decent field position most of the SB, and they could only muster up 19 points in regulation. I know KC has a great defense as well, but that's what cost the niners the game.

 

As for not living up to their potential the last half of the season, in the last 8 regular season games that mattered, they gave up an average of 17 points (as bit less than 15 if you ignore the 33 the Ravens put up when the offense had at 5 turnovers), and that's against 5 play-off teams. The other outlier was against a divisional opponent where the lead was so big, backups played in the 4th quarter.  Playoffs, they held GB and KC 20 points average in regulation and survived against the #3 offense. But giving up less than 20 in the super bowl, with the second ranked offense in the league should be a W. And would have been a W if it wasn't for Shanahan over thinking it.

 

I'm not buying any of the spin that the defense was the problem.

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Madcows said:

 

There's also not riding CMC and throwing what 10 passes in a row with the lead in the second half. Shorten the game while running your all-pro and picking your spots to pass, not throwing so many times. Poor game management by the play caller.  The defense getting a pick in Chiefs territory and doing absolutely nothing with the ball to start the 3rd quarter, with aforementioned poor play calling, and punting again. Key 3rd down late in the game, I believe with the lead, call a pass that was knocked down at the line instead of running the ball and forcing KC to either take a TO or using up more of the clock. The blame for the loss, if you want to blame anyone, isn't anywhere on the defensive side of the ball.  The SF D was top 3-5 all year, gave SF offense short fields and decent field position most of the SB, and they could only muster up 19 points in regulation. I know KC has a great defense as well, but that's what cost the niners the game.

 

As for not living up to their potential the last half of the season, in the last 8 regular season games that mattered, they gave up an average of 17 points (as bit less than 15 if you ignore the 33 the Ravens put up when the offense had at 5 turnovers), and that's against 5 play-off teams. The other outlier was against a divisional opponent where the lead was so big, backups played in the 4th quarter.  Playoffs, they held GB and KC 20 points average in regulation and survived against the #3 offense. But giving up less than 20 in the super bowl, with the second ranked offense in the league should be a W. And would have been a W if it wasn't for Shanahan over thinking it.

 

I'm not buying any of the spin that the defense was the problem.

 

Well almost every criticism you have of the Niners offensive performance could be leveled at Kansas City in the same game, where the Chiefs had plenty of fits and starts, got little from Pacheco and Kelce, and could not maintain momentum when the Niners gifted them their only touchdown in regulation. Good defense by both sides? Sure. But also a lack of execution by both offenses, which sometimes happens with the Super Bowl yips. Neither team did what they normally do well, and that's not necessarily on playcalling. 

 

McCaffrey had 22 carries and 8 receptions, so it's hard to say they didn't ride CMc, and in fact featured him in their final drive. It really came down to the red zone, where playcalling is at a premium. At the end of the day, San Francisco got a field goal when Kansas City got a touchdown. No surprise that Patrick Mahomes is one play better than Brock Purdy. Kansas City got the defensive line penetration. The Niners did not.

 

Forgetting the Super Bowl, I'm simply telling you that during the course of the season, a lot of Niner fans thought our superstar defense was under-performing, with just enough bend-don't-break games to get away with it. 

[Madcows]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Well almost every criticism you have of the Niners offensive performance could be leveled at Kansas City in the same game, where the Chiefs had plenty of fits and starts, got little from Pacheco and Kelce, and could not maintain momentum when the Niners gifted them their only touchdown in regulation. Good defense by both sides? Sure. But also a lack of execution by both offenses, which sometimes happens with the Super Bowl yips. Neither team did what they normally do well, and that's not necessarily on playcalling. 

 

McCaffrey had 22 carries and 8 receptions, so it's hard to say they didn't ride CMc, and in fact featured him in their final drive. It really came down to the red zone, where playcalling is at a premium. At the end of the day, San Francisco got a field goal when Kansas City got a touchdown. No surprise that Patrick Mahomes is one play better than Brock Purdy. Kansas City got the defensive line penetration. The Niners did not.

 

Forgetting the Super Bowl, I'm simply telling you that during the course of the season, a lot of Niner fans thought our superstar defense was under-performing, with just enough bend-don't-break games to get away with it. 

Kansas City's offense has been mediocre all year. What they did in the SB was typical of their offense, they didn't execute consistently in the regular season and they didn't in the SB . I've seen way more chiefs games than I wanted to this year, they were the model of inconsistency on offense. SF defense did what they needed to do, they held a team to under 20 points and gave their offense plenty of chances to win this game in regulation. Even with KCs defense, there was more than enough talent on SF to win the game going away. Instead Shanahan Shanahaned.

 

And yes, CMC had 30 total touches, and they featured him on the final drives in regulation and OT, which they should have done. He should have had 45ish total touches, Mitchell should have had 10+ touches and worn that Chiefs defense out. The game plan going in should have been get CMC the MVP, keep Mahomes off the field and wear out the defense. Purdy should not have had 35+ attempts. Shanahan had the chance to seal this game early in the second half.  Instead, three straight three and outs to start the second half with 7 of those plays pass attempts. It's not complicated in a one and done game, when you have the lead in the second half, shorten the game; grind it out and wear out the defense. But he over thought it. Failing to even get 5-8 yards after the interception to get in FG range and extend it back to a 2-possession game was sheer offensive stupidity on his part. Calling another pass play after the two-minute warning and not forcing KC to burn their second time out, and in essence eliminate the middle of the field for their game tying drive, is a fireable offense (IMO) by Shanahan.

 

Looking at every drive they had in the SB, the drives that failed, are the drives they went Purdy heavy; the drives that they scored (minus the turnover drive to start the game, but they were easily in scoring range), are drives they featured CMC. Fans can say all they want about the bend don't break, but coming off that week 9 bye, counting the play-offs they went 9-2 (against 8 play-off teams) in games that mattered. The two losses were when the offense ished the bed against the Ravens and Shanahan ished the bed in the SB.  Checking out the entire season, only 4 teams scored more than 20 on them. One bad game defensively all year, where they gave up 30+, but the bend and don't break was the issue, SF fans thinking that are dumb and deserve this L and next year's L when they lose again in the playoffs.  After that, they'll be watching through that closed window wondering what if 

[Cdog923]

KC's problems on offense this year were twofold: trying to fit in pieces at receiver that just didn't work, and Mahomes believing things were solely on his shoulders. The impetus for the Super Bowl run was the loss to the Raiders on Christmas: after that, Reid shortened the rotation at WR (thanks for helping us win a SB last year, Kadarius Toney, but enjoy free agency) and Pat learned that it wasn't all on him to win: he could lean on the best defense he's had while he's been in the league and become much more patient with his reads and throws. 

 

If KC can find a way to keep Chris Jones (verbal contracts are binding in Missouri, yes?) and L'Jarius Sneed, this defense could be even better next year. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

18 hours ago, Madcows said:

Kansas City's offense has been mediocre all year. What they did in the SB was typical of their offense, they didn't execute consistently in the regular season and they didn't in the SB . I've seen way more chiefs games than I wanted to this year, they were the model of inconsistency on offense. SF defense did what they needed to do, they held a team to under 20 points and gave their offense plenty of chances to win this game in regulation. Even with KCs defense, there was more than enough talent on SF to win the game going away. Instead Shanahan Shanahaned.

 

 

I think both Shanahan and Andy Reid watched perfectly good play calls get either less than stellar execution or better defensive adjustments. On the SF Offense's second to last play of the game, Brock Purdy drops back and both Brandon Aiyuk and Juwan Jennings are both open for TDs, but OL Spencer Buford blew his assignment, Chris Jones bulls in untouched, and Purdy has to throw the ball away. That play is getting a lot of the sports talk chatter around here. 

 

If one play goes different, does this become a completely different narrative? Winning changes everything. 

 

Also, there may not be a more run-happy coach in the NFL than Kyle Shanahan. If he gave McCaffrey 30 touches instead of 40, it's because KC had lined up to stop him. 

 

The Niner offense has been an incredible wealth of talent and really fun to watch the last couple years. But the elite defenses: Cleveland, Baltimore, and KC have been able to take them out of their game. 

 

The problem with SF's DC had been a year in the making. The players did not come to his defense. 

[Mavric]

Interesting article on what the overtime coin flip winner should choose:

 

Quote

"We already know what to do from college football. Go second so you can know what you need. Problem solved."

 

This is the argument I saw most often about this decision, and it's just wrong. While there's certainly a benefit to getting the ball second -- let's call this being Team 2 from this point forward -- and knowing what you need, there are two major differences between the NFL's playoff overtime process and college football's. One is field position: The NFL's rule starts each possession with a standard kickoff, while college football overtime begins on the 25-yard line for two possessions before starting on the 3-yard line for the third overtime.

 

The other difference is more significant, and it's the factor Shanahan brought up in making his decision. In college football, teams always get a chance to either match or top the first team's (Team 1) score on their drive, so there's not much thought: Most teams will prefer to be Team 2 and know what they need if they want to win. With that being said, from 2013 to 2021, Team 2 won only 51% of the time in a 243-game sample of college football overtimes, so this isn't a significant advantage.

 

 

If the two NFL teams are tied after they each get one possession with the football, though, Team 1 gets the ball for the third possession of overtime with the opportunity to win by scoring a field goal or touchdown -- without giving the ball back to the opposing team. That's a dramatic advantage! Remember that from 1994 to 2011, when NFL teams were able to win in overtime by kicking a field goal and without needing to give the opposition another possession, teams that won the coin toss won the game nearly 60% of the time. If Team 1 gets to the third possession of overtime, it's essentially playing a game as if it had won the toss under the league's old playoff rules.

 

That 60% number also underestimates Team 1's chances of winning on drive No. 3 of overtime. The NFL was spurred to make the change in part by the improving performance of kickers on long-distance field goals, which has only continued. From 2000 to 2011, kickers hit just over 55% of their field goals in the 50- to 59-yard range. Over the past five seasons, that mark is up to 66.6%. The league has moved up the field position for touchbacks from the 20-yard line to the 25, adding 5 free yards for offenses. With defenses tired after a full game and another possession of overtime, it also should be easier to move the ball. Teams might need only 35 yards on that third drive to get into field goal range for a good kicker.

Make no mistake: Getting the ball third is an enormous advantage if a team can get there. The "if" is the hard part.

 

ESPN

[Mavric]

Quote

That could be the case if there wasn't much of a difference between the two options. When ESPN's Brian Burke built a model to test the new overtime rules in 2022, he found that Team 1 won 50.3% of the time if Team 2 didn't go for 2 after it scored a touchdown. That mark fell to 50.2% if Team 2 always went for 2 after scoring, denying Team 1 an opportunity for a third possession.

 

When Walder took an informal poll of NFL analytics employees after Super Bowl LVIII, the results were split. Four people had their opinion at almost 50-50. Three leaned toward taking the ball first. Three others felt confident they preferred taking the ball second. With all that in mind, it's no surprise that we landed on two teams with two different opinions about what represented optimal strategy with the overtime coin toss.

 

[admo]

I saw that article and heard the media points, but I don't think there was anything wrong with SF taking the ball first.

 

At the end of the day, KC Chris Jones made a HUGE play on defense, and Patrick Mahomes converted 3rd and 4th downs.  The Chiefs had adversity too and won the game.   It was a great ending, even if I was slightly pulling for the 49ers.  

 

Playmakers make the biggest plays.  And that is what happened.

 

Hats off to Pat Mahomes and Chris Jones. 

 

The 49ers also have guys that can make big plays too.  And SF had their chances, right in front of them.

 

I love it when the best plays are made that decide the game.  Kickoff or play defense doesn't change anything IMHO.  

  

[Mavric]

 

[Archy1221]

On 2/15/2024 at 8:50 AM, Cdog923 said:

KC's problems on offense this year were twofold: trying to fit in pieces at receiver that just didn't work, and Mahomes believing things were solely on his shoulders. The impetus for the Super Bowl run was the loss to the Raiders on Christmas: after that, Reid shortened the rotation at WR (thanks for helping us win a SB last year, Kadarius Toney, but enjoy free agency) and Pat learned that it wasn't all on him to win: he could lean on the best defense he's had while he's been in the league and become much more patient with his reads and throws. 

 

If KC can find a way to keep Chris Jones (verbal contracts are binding in Missouri, yes?) and L'Jarius Sneed, this defense could be even better next year. 

Just got around to looking at this thread again and you are definitely right about the Chiefs offense and finally figuring out this year was the year the Defense would be carrying things.  I would that it took Andy along with Pat to figure that out.   
 

While it would be nice if Chris stayed, I’m fine if he ends up going.   He’s a beast rushing the passer but his run game efficiency is towards the bottom and he over the 30 year old threshold.  He is/will be a declining player and it’s usually bad business to make those deals unless it’s very team friendly.  It would certainly help for next year, but could hurt the cap a lot in years 3,4.5.  I really want Sneed to stay, but the team has shown they can develop corners.  If I had to choose between him and Jones to keep, I would choose Sneed I think because of the cap implications.   
 

If letting both walk in order to get a true number one WR, another complement to Rashee and a tackle, I would let both walk to upgrade the offense.  

[BigRedBuster]