Ruminations on the 49ers Game.

[BlueTalon]

I was thinking SF might do a couple run plays in the mix, just to avoid leaving too much time for Russell if they have to punt.

God no.

This is the problem with using hindsight to argue that outcome trumps process.

If you're the head coach of an 8-0 team in OT playing the second place team in the division and you've played a hard fought game and your players have seen a bunch of their teammates go down to injury how do you stare them in the face after the game after going for the tie instead of the win?

If he had played for the tie instead of the win in that situation it would have been a media bloodbath.

I saw this point being made over and over ad nauseam over at webzone, and for the life of me I can't figure out why you guys make that leap of logic. Having one of those three plays be a run play does NOT equate to playing for a tie.

You had almost two full minutes and a time out. Priority 1A would be to score and win, priority 1B would be to burn enough clock to keep the ball away from Wilson. You run a running play -- you obviously try to gain yardage, but if you don't, it's no different than an incomplete pass, except now you're burning clock. Thirty seconds or so later, you run your next (pass) play, and continue from there. That's playing for the win, but doing it smart.

Believe me, I was overjoyed to see you guys pass three times in a row. If the same situation ever presents itself, I hope you do it again.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I was thinking SF might do a couple run plays in the mix, just to avoid leaving too much time for Russell if they have to punt.

God no.

This is the problem with using hindsight to argue that outcome trumps process.

If you're the head coach of an 8-0 team in OT playing the second place team in the division and you've played a hard fought game and your players have seen a bunch of their teammates go down to injury how do you stare them in the face after the game after going for the tie instead of the win?

If he had played for the tie instead of the win in that situation it would have been a media bloodbath.

I saw this point being made over and over ad nauseam over at webzone, and for the life of me I can't figure out why you guys make that leap of logic. Having one of those three plays be a run play does NOT equate to playing for a tie.

You had almost two full minutes and a time out. Priority 1A would be to score and win, priority 1B would be to burn enough clock to keep the ball away from Wilson. You run a running play -- you obviously try to gain yardage, but if you don't, it's no different than an incomplete pass, except now you're burning clock. Thirty seconds or so later, you run your next (pass) play, and continue from there. That's playing for the win, but doing it smart.

Believe me, I was overjoyed to see you guys pass three times in a row. If the same situation ever presents itself, I hope you do it again.

Bingo, it’s not an either or situation as some make it out to be. You can try to get the win (Best case scenario) AND also make sure the other team has no time left to march down the field (and win) and the game ends in a tie if you fail to score (2nd best scenario). It’s basic clock management 101.

Unfortunately some have their agendas and ego’s tied to said agendas to admit their team’s coach could have managed that game better.

I thank KS for that victory due to bad clock management.
.....and to be perfectly honest Pete Carroll struggles with clock management as well, as do a lot of coaches.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

.....and to be perfectly honest Pete Carroll struggles with clock management as well, as do a lot of coaches.

Andy Reid doesn't think you're correct........... :lol: