Why Seattle Should Have Let the 49ers Score

[MidwestHawker]

Kearly nailed it. Letting a team do anything is not in Pete's vocabulary. He feels it sets a bad president for his team's mindset. Same reason he didn't call timeouts in the Rams game.

Yep. And it's this sort of hippie philosophy that is an overall weakness in his coaching.

But he's obviously still a great coach, and at age 63 he's not about to change his way of thinking, so we have to take the bad with the good.

 

[Axx]

the way gus was calling plays i don't think our offensive would have been able to drive the ball (srs)

 

[therealjohncarlson]

I was pissed right after, but I look at it as a learning experience for Pete. Hopefully if a similar thing happens in a game that actually really matters, he will make the right call.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

How bout not letting Kaepernick run for 8 yards and get a first down? How bout not letting Gore gash you for 51 yards? How bout not getting at least 7-8 stupid drive extending penalties?

The defense should have NEVER let themselves get into this situation. Besides, they're way too proud to let SF just score. My guess is there's no way the D would have agreed to this. They always think they can make a play.

 

[MidwestHawker]

How bout not letting Kaepernick run for 8 yards and get a first down? How bout not letting Gore gash you for 51 yards? How bout not getting at least 7-8 stupid drive extending penalties?

The defense should have NEVER let themselves get into this situation. Besides, they're way too proud to let SF just score. My guess is there's no way the D would have agreed to this. They always think they can make a play.

"That's pride f---ng with you. That s--- only hurts; it NEVER helps." -Marcellus Wallace, Pulp Fiction

If the coaches give marching orders then the team had better damn well follow them. And they would. It became common knowledge earlier this season that the D was mad at the defense Bradley called in Atlanta last year, but they still did as they were told.

 

[gargantual]

Kearly nailed it. Letting a team do anything is not in Pete's vocabulary. He feels it sets a bad president for his team's mindset. Same reason he didn't call timeouts in the Rams game.

Yep. And it's this sort of hippie philosophy that is an overall weakness in his coaching.

But he's obviously still a great coach, and at age 63 he's not about to change his way of thinking, so we have to take the bad with the good.

"Hippie philosophy"? Not sure I understand the reference. Pete continuing his smash-mouth, kick them in the teeth, run it down their throats philosophy is a hippie thing? Those hippies that preached ad naseum about peace and love, i.e. PACIFISM? Football, with all its war/military terminology is the antithesis of hippie anything.

Or maybe you meant something else?

 

[MidwestHawker]

Kearly nailed it. Letting a team do anything is not in Pete's vocabulary. He feels it sets a bad president for his team's mindset. Same reason he didn't call timeouts in the Rams game.

Yep. And it's this sort of hippie philosophy that is an overall weakness in his coaching.

But he's obviously still a great coach, and at age 63 he's not about to change his way of thinking, so we have to take the bad with the good.

"Hippie philosophy"? Not sure I understand the reference. Pete continuing his smash-mouth, kick them in the teeth, run it down their throats philosophy is a hippie thing? Those hippies that preached ad naseum about peace and love, i.e. PACIFISM? Football, with all its war/military terminology is the antithesis of hippie anything.

Or maybe you meant something else?

I suppose that "hippie" was probably poor wording; I was attempting to convey that he preaches a feel-good "we can do it, no matter what it is" attitude that isn't always grounded in reality. The "everything is a championship opportunity" thing, while usually good, has obvious downsides if a person is too doctrinaire about it. Football coaching is a chess match, and sometimes offering a gambit is the right thing to do.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

We should have let them score. Fire Bevell.

 

[gargantual]

I suppose that "hippie" was probably poor wording; I was attempting to convey that he preaches a feel-good "we can do it, no matter what it is" attitude that isn't always grounded in reality. The "everything is a championship opportunity" thing, while usually good, has obvious downsides if a person is too doctrinaire about it. Football coaching is a chess match, and sometimes offering a gambit is the right thing to do.

Gotcha.

Umm, what I take out of all this is that Pete DOES have more than a little rigidity to his philosophy, but I think it goes hand in hand with the certainty he preaches. He HAS to keep trying to Win Forever, he has to be smash-mouth and run it down their throats, he has to keep his foot on the gas, or else his message is inconsistent and he loses credibility in the locker room.

Unfortunately it sometimes backfires, like yesterday. It's why I think it was Pete and not Bevel who stubbornly stuck to the run until it was too late, and this hasn't been the first time. We've gotta take the good with the bad, philosophy-wise. Now that the winning engine is all built up and firing at (mostly) it's full potential, it's working pretty great, steamrolling over teams and bringing lots of wins!

I wouldn't trade it for what we've ever had in the past. Sorry Holmy and Ground Chuck, you'll always hold a place dear in my heart, but I want some Lombardi in this hizouse.

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Im sorry but I think the theory that Pete didn't let them score because of his "competition" mantra is a load of you know what, and if thats really why he did what he did he should be really questioned by the media on that one. Which strategy would have let us "compete" to have a better chance of winning the game? Competition doesn't have to be just in short term thinking, like you have tunnel vision for only competing in the here and now. Or else Russell wouldn't have been handed the starting job at the beginning of the season. "Always compete" right? So seriously, why was Russell handed the job at the beginning of the season? (Or most of our starters for that matter) Because competition can be a long term process as well as short term. To me compete means setting yourself up to be dominant in the now as well as in the future. Hence Pete's "Win Forever" book. So that's why Russell and a bunch of other starters were handed the keys this past off-season. Because it gave the team the best chance to compete overall.

Back to the play in question, which strategy gave us the best chance to compete to win the game? Not just in the short, tunnel vision thinking most on here seem to be using, but overall? I think most on here know the clear answer.

To reiterate, to me competition doesn't need to be short term, one play-at-a-time, although it sometimes is. Competing doesn't mean be stubborn and don't be flexible to the situation around you. To me Pete was just stubborn or had a "brain fart" but I really hope it didn't have to do with some misguided vision of what "competing" means.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Oh I completely agree garg. Pete is the best coach we've had. I will always have my little complaints, but none of that should ever be construed as wishing we had someone else.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Im sorry but I think the theory that Pete didn't let them score because of his "competition" mantra is a load of you know what, and if thats really why he did what he did he should be really questioned by the media on that one. Which strategy would have let us "compete" to have a better chance of winning the game? Competition doesn't have to be just in short term thinking, like you have tunnel vision for only competing in the here and now. Or else Russell wouldn't have been handed the starting job at the beginning of the season. "Always compete" right? So seriously, why was Russell handed the job at the beginning of the season? (Or most of our starters for that matter) Because competition can be a long term process as well as short term. To me compete means setting yourself up to be dominant in the now as well as in the future. Hence Pete's "Win Forever" book. So that's why Russell and a bunch of other starters were handed the keys this past off-season. Because it gave the team the best chance to compete overall.

Back to the play in question, which strategy gave us the best chance to compete to win the game? Not just in the short, tunnel vision thinking most on here seem to be using, but overall? I think most on here know the clear answer.

To reiterate, to me competition doesn't need to be short term, one play-at-a-time, although it sometimes is. Competing doesn't mean be stubborn and don't be flexible to the situation around you. To me Pete was just stubborn or had a "brain fart" but I really hope it didn't have to do with some misguided vision of what "competing" means.

He addressed this on Brock and Danny this morning, and while he allowed for the chance that it was a fair question, he did explicitly say that it "wasn't in their philosophy" to let a team score.

 

[Veilside]

Im sorry but I think the theory that Pete didn't let them score because of his "competition" mantra is a load of you know what, and if thats really why he did what he did he should be really questioned by the media on that one. Which strategy would have let us "compete" to have a better chance of winning the game? Competition doesn't have to be just in short term thinking, like you have tunnel vision for only competing in the here and now. Or else Russell wouldn't have been handed the starting job at the beginning of the season. "Always compete" right? So seriously, why was Russell handed the job at the beginning of the season? (Or most of our starters for that matter) Because competition can be a long term process as well as short term. To me compete means setting yourself up to be dominant in the now as well as in the future. Hence Pete's "Win Forever" book. So that's why Russell and a bunch of other starters were handed the keys this past off-season. Because it gave the team the best chance to compete overall.

Back to the play in question, which strategy gave us the best chance to compete to win the game? Not just in the short, tunnel vision thinking most on here seem to be using, but overall? I think most on here know the clear answer.

To reiterate, to me competition doesn't need to be short term, one play-at-a-time, although it sometimes is. Competing doesn't mean be stubborn and don't be flexible to the situation around you. To me Pete was just stubborn or had a "brain fart" but I really hope it didn't have to do with some misguided vision of what "competing" means.

He addressed this on Brock and Danny this morning, and while he allowed for the chance that it was a fair question, he did explicitly say that it "wasn't in their philosophy" to let a team score.

Well I really hope we don't end up in that situation again then, because we took the low percentage route out of pride and the high percentage outcome happened. If anything I hope this makes us use our time outs more wisely in the future.

 

[gargantual]

I didn't say I always agree or that it's always right, but sometimes Pete gets tunnel-vision. It certainly happened to Holmgren at times.

I think we have to take the bad with the good (same thing with the penalties, part 'n parcel with hyper-aggressive players who play through the whistle every play).

Although if anyone is capable of evolution in their approach, it's good ole Petey. He's not nearly as inflexible as a lot of coaches after they develop a winning system.

 

[Crizilla]

the way gus was calling plays i don't think our offensive would have been able to drive the ball (srs)

You mean Bevell?

 

[Sarlacc83]

We should have let them score. Fire Bevell.

Finally, some sanity among all the people who prefer to second guess a no-win situation.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Well I really hope we don't end up in that situation again then, because we took the low percentage route out of pride and the high percentage outcome happened. If anything I hope this makes us use our time outs more wisely in the future.

I agree. But he did likewise in the St. Louis game; we just didn't get burnt by it. He didn't call timeouts at the end of the game when he certainly should have to save us some time, and I really think that it was due to some sort of misguided sense of "not making it look to the defense like he thought they would give up a score."

 

[DavidSeven]

The 49ers would have knelt at the 1. They aren't stupid they knew their best chance to win was to take as much time off the clock as possible.

Not sure why this isn't being emphasized more. It's as if people assume that Jim Harbaugh doesn't understand win probabilities. Did you guys not see Gore fall down in bounds during his big run? Did you not see them run it straight into the pile to do nothing but stop the clock? It was plain as day that they weren't interested in scoring a TD. How do any of you know Gore wouldn't have knelt at the 1? The "let them score" strategy would have cost them even more seconds in that situation. At least defending the play leaves open the chance for a strip.

This is another one of those things that can be argued both ways until the cows come home. Monday morning QBing through and through. It wasn't a mistake, and it wasn't a homerun decision. It was a choice that was made between two ugly options.

 

[gargantual]

We should have let them score. Fire Bevell.

Finally, some sanity among all the people who prefer to second guess a no-win situation.

Should we now start arguing about the proper usage of the word "ironic" ?

 

[Sarlacc83]

We should have let them score. Fire Bevell.

Finally, some sanity among all the people who prefer to second guess a no-win situation.

Should we now start arguing about the proper usage of the word "ironic" ?

Should we start talking about the use of the word sarcasm?