super bowl reactions … during & after

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle super bowl reactions … during & after

  • This topic has 60 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 months ago by Avatar photozn.
Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #149375
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

     

    I would stress this key point: always block Chris Jones

    You would think.

    Louis Riddick@LRiddickESPN
    When the #49ers coaches and staff watch this tape back, they are going to be haunted forever. Multiple instances where there is 1 player with a break down and it makes the difference in crunch time that could have changed the entire outcome. 1 player not doing their job. Happened offensively and defensively. #Chiefs made the plays when they needed to conversely. Such a great game.

     

    #149377
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #149378
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #149379
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Nick Wagoner@nwagoner If you want to quibble with Kyle Shanahan’s decision to take the ball first in OT, no problem. Can see both sides of that.

    On that… Shanahan evidently said he wanted the ball third. That he expected to score, then KC to score, then it turns to sudden death. The offense got only 3, and the defense didn’t hold KC to 3, so it didn’t work, but that was the thinking.

    Also, as someone else pointed out, the 9ers defense was gassed. They had been on the field a lot in the 4th quarter, and starting with them on the field may have been a bad idea anyway. Additionally, two guys in the secondary were banged up on the final drive of the 4th, and the 9ers had two scrubs in at that point. Taking the ball first enabled those two secondary guys a little time to shake it off and get ready to go back in.

    Bottom line to me is that the SF defense didn’t keep KC out of the end zone.

     

    #149380
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Zooey,

    I think it was the right decision for the reasons you mentioned, and cuz KC’s defense was gassed, too. Both sides were.

    Glad the 49ers lost, of course. I think it helps the Rams next year, cuz the losing team tends to have a down year. But I begrudgingly have to admit they have a very good team, very good coaches, staff, etc.

    It’s weird that it worked out this way for me, but I’m a diehard SF Giants fan, since the days of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marichal. In baseball, the Dodgers are the bad guys for me, and this year I can’t stand that they’re buying a championship. Not fair!!

    In football and basketball, I flip the script.

    A bit of schadenfreude is also in order due to the crazy-tree folks and their Taylor Swift lunacy. :>)

    #149381
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    9er Nation is demoralized. There may be Recency Bias at work, but consensus is that this was the worst because the expectation was there all season, and they seemed to control the game all the way through. They allowed KC only one TD during regulation, and that was helped substantially by the muffed punt that set them up. Otherwise, they controlled the game.

    The play-by-play guy for the 9ers says that the hour-long bus ride back to Henderson, NV where the teams stayed was like being in a morgue. Nobody said a word the entire trip.

    Next year is the 30th anniversary of the last 49ers SB victory.

    IMO, it hasn’t been long enough.

    #149382
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Oh, and I watched the game via regular, old-school TV. Rabbit ears, etc. Made me feel somewhat virtuous. At least in an immediate sense, it was “free,” and the picture quality was actually better than streaming the game.

    Anyone else wonder about KC’s issues on the sidelines? They seem to have a lot of outbursts between players, or players and coaches. That tends to be the case with losing teams, not contenders for the crown.

    #149383
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    It’s weird that it worked out this way for me, but I’m a diehard SF Giants fan, since the days of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marichal. In baseball, the Dodgers are the bad guys for me, and this year I can’t stand that they’re buying a championship. Not fair!!

    I get the “buying a championship” accusation, but it’s not really true. The Dodgers currently stand at 4th in MLB for homegrown talent (i.e. from their own farm system) on their roster. And the Dodgers did not outbid other teams for Ohtani and Yamamoto. For both players, there were larger offers on the table that they declined in order to sign with LA. Just sayin’.

    JoeMad is also a Giants fan, btw. And maybe OzoneRanger.

    The 9ers may have a down year next year. We can always hope so. It takes a lot out of a team to work their butts off for one goal from July through February, only to have it crumble in seconds. For some guys, hitting the weight room and film study with the same amount of energy might be hard to do. It would be different if you weren’t expected to be there in the first place, but the 9ers had this thing in their reach all season long, and they all believed it was their year. That has to be harder to bounce back from.

    #149384
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Anyone else wonder about KC’s issues on the sidelines? They seem to have a lot of outbursts between players, or players and coaches. That tends to be the case with losing teams, not contenders for the crown.

    On Kelce, I saw someone say that lip readers got him shouting that Reid should put him back in because he had “f*cking calmed down.” If so, then Reid pulled him because he thought Kelce lost his cool, and then Kelce informed him in an unacceptably aggressive way that he was calm.

    #149385
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Good to hear, Zooey. That’s to be expected. Exceptions exist, of course, but the trend is for the losing team in the Super Bowl to decline the following year. And the season is just so long now. Incredibly grueling for the players. It’s actually amazing that KC returned this season.

    And it seems the NFL isn’t finished yet, milking all of this to the max. A game in Brazil, and a likely extension to 18 games on the horizon. Money money money and more money. To hell with the quality of the game and the health of the players, of course.

    I know it sounds like “get off my lawn” stuff, but I really think the game would be a hell of a lot better, more enjoyable, and healthier for the players if they went back to 14 games, no Thursdays, no Sunday nights or Mondays. End the exhibition season entirely, and force every team to plant real grass. No more turf.

    Focus on making Sundays essential, much-watch, etc. And, finally, offer a team-only package for fans, at much, much lower prices than all out-of-market games. I’d plop down a bit to see all the Rams games. I don’t need to watch the other teams . . .

    But don’t do the usual capitalist BS and create artificial scarcity. Offer up the rights to all the networks, streaming services, and so on. Not exclusively. All of them. Give fans the benefits of real competition. It’s supposed to be better than sliced bread, right?

    #149387
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    It’s weird that it worked out this way for me, but I’m a diehard SF Giants fan, since the days of Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Juan Marichal. In baseball, the Dodgers are the bad guys for me, and this year I can’t stand that they’re buying a championship. Not fair!!

    I get the “buying a championship” accusation, but it’s not really true. The Dodgers currently stand at 4th in MLB for homegrown talent (i.e. from their own farm system) on their roster. And the Dodgers did not outbid other teams for Ohtani and Yamamoto. For both players, there were larger offers on the table that they declined in order to sign with LA. Just sayin’. JoeMad is also a Giants fan, btw. And maybe OzoneRanger. The 9ers may have a down year next year. We can always hope so. It takes a lot out of a team to work their butts off for one goal from July through February, only to have it crumble in seconds. For some guys, hitting the weight room and film study with the same amount of energy might be hard to do. It would be different if you weren’t expected to be there in the first place, but the 9ers had this thing in their reach all season long, and they all believed it was their year. That has to be harder to bounce back from.

    Yeah, I have to admit the Dodgers have a very strong farm system, and have for a long time. The Giants can’t really compete with them there, at least not yet. And they were in the running for both Ohtani and Yamamoto too. But they keep losing out on the big names, year after year.

    I can understand it for hitters. Giants stadium isn’t very friendly. But pitchers should want to come to SF. And the Giants have a good track record of getting strong, come-back years from slightly older pitchers . . . but they also tend to sign them to two-year contracts with one year being optional — and then lose them again.

    Anyway, the Dodgers are arguably the best team in baseball going into this season, at least on paper. My Giants are looking like a slightly better than middling team, with a frustratingly long road to hoe, even within that division.

    It is what it is. Hope you and yours are well.

    #149390
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    #149393
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #149394
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    mirriam webster

     

    Dynasty

    1
    a succession of rulers of the same line of descent 
    2

    : a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

     
    Sports Dynasties
    Dynasty has been in use in English for over 600 years, for most of that time referring to a ruling family that maintains power through succession. Around the beginning of the 19th century, the word developed the figurative sense “a group or family that dominates a particular field for generations.” Nowadays, this sense of dynasty is often applied to a sports franchise which has a prolonged run of successful seasons. The sports use appears to have begun in the early 20th century. An article in The Washington Post in 1905 refers to “John T. Brush’s baseball dynasty,” and by 1912 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that “if players were free agents at the end of every two years, baseball dynasties such as those built up by the Cubs, Athletics, Detroits and Giants would not be possible.”
    Dynast and dynasty both descend from the Greek verb dynasthai, which means “to be able” or “to have power.” Dynasty came to prominence in English first; it has been part of our language since at least the 14th century. Dynast took its place in the linguistic family line in the early 1600s, and it has been used to describe sovereigns and other rulers ever since.

    Etymology

    Middle English dynastia, dynastie “power, sovereignty, succession of rulers,” borrowed from Medieval Latin dynastīa, going back to Late Latin, “rule, power,” borrowed from Greek dynasteía “arbitrarily exercised political power, lordship, rule,” from dynástēs “holder of political power, lord, ruler” + -eia y-entry 2 — more at dynast

     

    #149396
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    SF fires their DC.

    w

    v

    #149397
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Lotta talking heads blaming Shanahan for the loss, and crowning Andy Reid as the best ever, etc.

    But, put Mahomes on the 49ers, and how does Reid look, and how does Shanahan look?

     

    w

    v

    #149398
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #149403
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    SF fires their DC. w v

    Brandon Staley is still available for hire.

    #149406
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    Lotta talking heads blaming Shanahan for the loss, and crowning Andy Reid as the best ever, etc. But, put Mahomes on the 49ers, and how does Reid look, and how does Shanahan look? w v

    Put Mahomes with Shanahan and you might end up with Mahomes playing like Trey Lance…..

    SF passed on Mahomes in the draft cuz they put their hopes on Blaine Gabbert.  Thus, they drafted a nobody like Soloman Thomas instead of Mahomes.

    SF should’ve been eliminated both in the divisional and championship rounds this year.

     

     

     

    #149412
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Steve Young thinks the next ten super bowls will be won by quarterbacks who can run.

    #149413
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Steve Young thinks the next ten super bowls will be won by quarterbacks who can run.

    Interesting that Young must consider Stafford to be a running QB. I wouldn’t put him in that category myself.

    #149419
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Steve Young thinks the next ten super bowls will be won by quarterbacks who can run.

    Interesting that Young must consider Stafford to be a running QB. I wouldn’t put him in that category myself.

     

    Yeah, i was a bit surprised Steve Young put things in such black and white terms.   I would have agreed with him, if he had just said something like “with the new rules changes the QB position is more important now, than ever before, and an elite QB who can also run, is more valuable than an elite QB who cant run”.    Or somethin close to that.

    I mean, Brady could still win in this new era.  And Stafford, obviously.  And what is Joe Burrow btw?   Is he a pocket guy, or something else?   Steve Young said you need to have a QB nowadays who can get 60 yards or more, in playoff games.  Is Burrow a 60 yard-guy?

    I think i would agree that maybe its ‘harder’ now for a non-running-QB to win a super bowl, than say, in Trent Dilfer’s day or Kurt Warner’s day.   But i still think it can be done.  I mean Purdy came within a hair of doing it a few days ago.

    Despite the rules changes, i still kinda think its a mistake to limit discussions to whether a particular QB  ‘can win a super bowl.’    Still seems to me, you have to look at what the rest of the team looks like.   If you have the 85 Bears defense, and an all-star cast on offense, then thats one context.   If you have the 97 Rams personnel, then thats a different context.

    Given enough surrounding talent, I would think about half the QBs in the NFL can ‘win the super bowl.’

     

    w

    v

    #149421
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    SF fires their DC. w v

    Somebody had to pay.

    #149424
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator
    wv wrote:

    SF fires their DC. w v

    Somebody had to pay.

    Yeah, I don’t think this is a scapegoat situation. There were some problems between Wilks and Shanahan throughout the season, and they had different philosophies for the defense. Wilks was supposed to embrace Shanahan’s system, but there were times he didn’t do it.

    Shanahan and Lynch overruled Wilks on his gameplan against Seattle, and Shanahan called a timeout in the Super Bowl to overrule a defensive play call at one point. There was also some kind of fiasco at the end of the first half against Minnesota.

    This wasn’t the 49ers throwing somebody under the bus for the loss.

    #149425
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator
    wv wrote:

    SF fires their DC. w v

    Somebody had to pay.

    Yeah, I don’t think this is a scapegoat situation. There were some problems between Wilks and Shanahan throughout the season, and they had different philosophies for the defense. Wilks was supposed to embrace Shanahan’s system, but there were times he didn’t do it. Shanahan and Lynch overruled Wilks on his gameplan against Seattle, and Shanahan called a timeout in the Super Bowl to overrule a defensive play call at one point. There was also some kind of fiasco at the end of the first half against Minnesota. This wasn’t the 49ers throwing somebody under the bus for the loss.

    Well look who comes running to Shanny’s and the 9ers’ defense.  What a surprise.  Not.

    Sorry if I struck a nerve. I know you’re struggling to get over the Super Bowl loss and here I am adding insult to injury.  I’ll try to remember that not everyone is as happy about the 9ers implosion as Rams fans are.

    #149431
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    #149432
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Concerning next season.   So, if i had to pick between the Chiefs, or — the other 31 teams?    ….man, i dunno.   Normally, i would never favor one team over the field, but….the Chiefs look poised for a three-peat.   I mean, they probly wont lose much at all this offseason.  Maybe one guy in the secondary, i think.   And they will probably upgrade their WR corps.

    I guess, I’d still pick the field.   Bills, Bengals, Ravens, Browns, Lions, 49ers, Rams, Packers…

    But, I dunno.

     

    w

    v

     

    #149435
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Late in the interview Orlovsky says some stuff about Stafford.

    #149437
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    RG3 (who played for shanahan) has some interesting things to say, here.

    #149440
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    RG3 (who played for shanahan) has some interesting things to say, here.

    At the end he mentions Stafford too.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 61 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.