olyfan63":nd3m3gn6 said:
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. The fans would be furious, the media would be down his throat, and you guys would have had a field day mocking him.
The correct strategy in that position is to split the difference between being hyper-aggressive and hyper-passive to drain clock.
You do what EVERY TEAM does in that situation, and you take the short routes that the defense is giving you to slowly work your way up the field while draining clock before you start taking your shots. That's exactly what he did.
The PROCESS on first down was an underneath route (correct), and the outcome (a batted ball at the line) was bad.
The PROCESS on second down was another underneath route (correct), and the outcome (a dropped pass) was bad.
Now you're at third down and you have to either go for the first or concede the chance to win and pray that Russell Wilson with a minute and fifteen seconds can't get into field goal range whereas Russell Wilson with two minutes can.
Do you wanna make that bet about Russell Wilson? I definitely don't.
Basically, a batted ball and a dropped pass are just crapping out on your dice rolls, even if you're playing the game the right way.
The outcome massively sucked for the 49ers and 49ers fans, but that doesn't mean the strategy was wrong at all.