Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jobot

49ers not playing for a tie on MNF

Recommended Posts

I wasn't ordinarily surprised that the 49ers didn't settle for playing for a tie... But IMO it would have made way more sense from a strategic perspective. 

 

Especially after their missed field goal in OT, the clock was winding down and this should have at least been a consideration.  Additionally, Garropolo did not look comfortable and they were without Sanders and Kittle.

 

A tie would have maintained a  2-game lead over Seattle, and rendered their next match up potentially inconsequential for Seattle's ability to overtake the division.

NOW the division essentially will hinge on their next game AT Seattle

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jobot said:

I wasn't ordinarily surprised that the 49ers didn't settle for playing for a tie... But IMO it would have made way more sense from a strategic perspective. 

 

Especially after their missed field goal in OT, the clock was winding down and this should have at least been a consideration.  Additionally, Garropolo did not look comfortable and they were without Sanders and Kittle.

 

A tie would have maintained a  2-game lead over Seattle, and rendered their next match up potentially inconsequential for Seattle's ability to overtake the division.

NOW the division essentially will hinge on their next game AT Seattle

 

 

 

Thought about that too. Maybe should have run on at least one of those downs at the end.

Another thing is, a tie would mean they were still officially "undefeated."

But, kind of a wimpy thing to do though (playing for a tie) - wouldn't want to lose the locker room for being gutless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jobot said:

I wasn't ordinarily surprised that the 49ers didn't settle for playing for a tie... But IMO it would have made way more sense from a strategic perspective. 

 

Especially after their missed field goal in OT, the clock was winding down and this should have at least been a consideration.  Additionally, Garropolo did not look comfortable and they were without Sanders and Kittle.

 

A tie would have maintained a  2-game lead over Seattle, and rendered their next match up potentially inconsequential for Seattle's ability to overtake the division.

NOW the division essentially will hinge on their next game AT Seattle

 

 

SF was totally screwed by the refs on the terrible ball spot that led to the failed FG. The RB clearly got the first down. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL simply doesn't believe in analytics.  A tie keeps you up two games on your nearest rival.  Analytics would have dictated at least one or two runs at that point in OT.  You still have a chance to pull out a win but you ensure that Seattle doesn't have enough time left to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get throwing on first down but once that fails, you absolutely have to run the ball.  If you happen to rip off a first down run you can throw again but in no way can you give Seattle the ball again.  You aren't playing to win the game, you are playing to win the division and home field advantage in the playoffs.  As it is, they simply handed Seattle a half-game in the standings.  That was a huge coaching fail.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioned it in the game thread and discussed it with my friends. Definitely needed to run the ball and go for the tie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

NFL simply doesn't believe in analytics.  A tie keeps you up two games on your nearest rival.  Analytics would have dictated at least one or two runs at that point in OT.  You still have a chance to pull out a win but you ensure that Seattle doesn't have enough time left to do the same.

 

Yup. All the talk about analytics seems just that - talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BuffaloBillies said:

 

Thought about that too. Maybe should have run on at least one of those downs at the end.

Another thing is, a tie would mean they were still officially "undefeated."

But, kind of a wimpy thing to do though (playing for a tie) - wouldn't want to lose the locker room for being gutless.

I don't think you are going to lose a lockeroom that suffered only it's first loss of the season. I would say that going for the win might help increase the lockerooms attitude towards you by showing you have faith in them to get the win instead of just trying to get a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st pete gogolak said:

NFL simply doesn't believe in analytics.  A tie keeps you up two games on your nearest rival.  Analytics would have dictated at least one or two runs at that point in OT.  You still have a chance to pull out a win but you ensure that Seattle doesn't have enough time left to do the same.

 

a tie would have mean

 

SF  8-0-1

SEA  7-2-1

 

that's 1 and a half game up, not two

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That or trust the offense to get the win, which didn’t work. The bigger issue is that Jimmy G looked like hot garbage on a couple clutch drives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

I get throwing on first down but once that fails, you absolutely have to run the ball.  If you happen to rip off a first down run you can throw again but in no way can you give Seattle the ball again.  You aren't playing to win the game, you are playing to win the division and home field advantage in the playoffs.  As it is, they simply handed Seattle a half-game in the standings.  That was a huge coaching fail.

 

Mercury Morris loved what the 49ers did. Here is footage from the lame, annual 'Last Undefeated Team to Fall' champagne-popping celebration at his house...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of ironic that McDermott got criticism for supposedly playing for the tie (in regulation), now the 49ers are getting bashed for NOT going for a tie (in overtime, no less).

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apuszczalowski said:

I don't think you are going to lose a lockeroom that suffered only it's first loss of the season. I would say that going for the win might help increase the lockerooms attitude towards you by showing you have faith in them to get the win instead of just trying to get a tie.

 

Yep. That was my point. I'm sure the guys on the team wanted to go for the win, not settle for a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, row_33 said:

a tie would have mean

 

SF  8-0-1

SEA  7-2-1

 

that's 1 and a half game up, not two

 

Okay, 2-games in the loss column technically, which will even out after Seattle has their bye-week.

2 minutes ago, BuffaloBillies said:

 

Yep. That was my point. I'm sure the guys on the team wanted to go for the win, not settle for a tie.

 

Agreed about the locker room.  But I think it's the coaches job though to be able to take out the emotion of the decision in order to make the smart decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MJS said:

Kind of ironic that McDermott got criticism for supposedly playing for the tie (in regulation), now the 49ers are getting bashed for NOT going for a tie (in overtime, no less).

Bills needed the win to make the playoffs.  Tie gives 49'ers two game edge in loss column.  Totally different circumstances.  If Bills were in same position as 49ers and McDermott was as aggressive as Shanahan, posters would have rightly given McDermott grief.  In that situation, you drain the clock to give yourself some chance of a win while giving your opponent next to no chance for the win.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jobot said:

I wasn't ordinarily surprised that the 49ers didn't settle for playing for a tie... But IMO it would have made way more sense from a strategic perspective. 

 

Especially after their missed field goal in OT, the clock was winding down and this should have at least been a consideration.  Additionally, Garropolo did not look comfortable and they were without Sanders and Kittle.

 

A tie would have maintained a  2-game lead over Seattle, and rendered their next match up potentially inconsequential for Seattle's ability to overtake the division.

NOW the division essentially will hinge on their next game AT Seattle

 

 


 

What I do not get is the fact that the 49ers went 40 yards at the end of regulation in 1:44 and kicked a FG to tie the game and go to overtime - with an aggressive Offensive Head Coach and no one here is calling him Jauron, but the Bills went the exact same distance 40 yards (with the starting point with 1 yard of each other) in 1:27 and tried to kick the same FG to send it to OT as the 49ers, but McDermott gets blasted.

 

The last drive for both the Bills and the 49ers in Regulation was nearly identical- with the Bills doing it better than the 49ers, but the outcomes were different.  McDermott is being called a conservative Defensive HC, while we have threads on how SF did not play for a tie - when they did the exact same thing.

 

 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

Bills needed the win to make the playoffs.  

That's not even remotely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:


 

What I do not get is the fact that the 49ers went 40 yards at the end of regulation in 1:44 and kicked a FG to tie the game and go to overtime - with an aggressive Offensive Head Coach and no one here is calling him Jauron, but the Bills went the exact same distance 40 yards (with the starting point with 1 yard of each other) in 1:27 and tried to kick the same FG to send it to OT as the 49ers, but McDermott gets blasted.

 

The last drive for both the Bills and the 49ers in Regulation was nearly identical- with the Bills doing it better than the 49ers, but the outcomes were different.  McDermott is being called a conservative Defensive HC, while we have threads on how SF did not play for a tie - when they did the exact same thing.

 

 

 

I'm a little less fresh for the exact details as to why people are pissed at McDermott.  IMO, I'm more salty with Hauschka than McDermott.  I wouldn't have confidence in him hitting from 35 yards based on how poorly he hit his two misses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

I'm a little less fresh for the exact details as to why people are pissed at McDermott.  IMO, I'm more salty with Hauschka than McDermott.  I wouldn't have confidence in him hitting from 35 yards based on how poorly he hit his two misses.


 

I hear you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...