49ers trading up to #3 pick with Dolphins.

[Marvin49]

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does.

You realize SF had more injuries in 2019 as well ? In 2019 Seattle adjusted games lost was 56.5 (rank 9) . Sf was 95.8 (rank 27) . I’d argue that you guys would have never won the OT game in SF if it wasn’t for injuries

We would have 3 more Super Bowl wins if not for injuries, what's your point, you are not excusive in would of could of instances.

Manual doesn't get hurt we win against Pittsburgh, our line isn't injured and we beat Chicago in the Division and win the Super Bowl, Avril and Lake, Bennett and Sherman as well as Kam not injured we beat the Patriots going away and the worst play in Super Bowl History doesn't happen.

...and yet I'M called the homer. :roll:

 

[Marvin49]

Always excuses with the Niners. To hear them talk its just plain bad luck they haven't won the last 20 superbowls in a row. A truly delusional fan base.

Not even remotely close to true.

The 49ers SUCKED. For YEARS. Erickson, Nolan, Singletary, Tomsula, Kelly....TERRIBLE teams. It wasn't bad luck, it was bad coaching and bad GMs.

There is only one person in this thread who claims injuries cost them 3 rings. HINT: It isn't a Niner fan.

 

[Marvin49]

...and Pete Carroll had 2 in his first 6 seasons.

Context is everything.

These are not contextually similar situations. First, Shanahan hasn't been a HC for 6 years, so you're cherry-picking. Second, Pete Carroll coached 3 separate teams in his first 6 seasons. Two of which were complete rebuilds.

A fair comparison would either compare their first 4 seasons or compare their first 4 seasons with the same team.

Shanahan: 29 wins - 35 losses: 3 playoff games, 2 playoff wins.

Carroll first 4: 33 wins - 31 losses: 3 playoff games, 1 playoff win.

Carroll first 4 w/Seahawks: 38 wins - 26 losses: 7 playoff games, 4 playoff wins, SB Champion.

Just for perspective, for Shanahan to statistically match Carroll's first 6 seasons with Seattle, he'd have to go two straight seasons with one loss and win a Superbowl.

Well, for even more clarity, by year 4, Carroll had also already been fired. Twice.

As for Shanahan, he had two rebuild years. In one year, he went 5-0 when he got Garoppolo to close the season. The following year Garoppolo was injured in week 3.

Then they went to the Super Bowl in year 3.

Then last years ridiculous year of injuries, including Garoppolo again.

You guys make out like 2019 was some kind of aberration. No. It took a few years to turn over the roster, they got to the Super Bowl, and then they had one of the worst injury seasons ever.

If Shanahan and the Niners suck this year, then you might have a point, but until then...really not.

BTW...why is the standard "with Seattle"? Was he not a HC in NY and NE? Seems like cherry picking to me. He got to the Super Bowl after being an NFL head coach for EIGHT seasons, plus 10 or so more in college.

Shanahan has been a HC for 4 years. That's it. In his FIRST job as a HC, he turned entire roster over and took the team to a SB.

Now he had one bad year since in injury hell and all of the sudden you are like "he's had only one good year". LOL.

Please.

Not sure how Carroll being fired is relevant to him having a better record. The Jets fired him because the owner did not like his coaching style. The Patriots fired him after 2 playoff appearances and no losing seasons. Belicheck went 5-11 with roughly the same roster a year later.

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does it mean anything? No. It's just my opinion. However, facts matter, and as it currently stands, 2019 was, in fact, an aberration for the 49ers under Shanahan.

Furthermore, you are the one who brought Pete up. So, you might want to reread what I wrote, I did not specify Seattle as a standard. I gave you Pete's first 4 seasons as a HC and his first 4 seasons with one team because that would be a more applicable comparison. You know, because Shanahan only has 4 seasons with one team.

Lastly, if you are going to use quotes, make sure you address the specific person who said it. I haven't made a commentary on Shanahan's ability that was Fade. I think Shanahan is a good coach, but I don't understand how Niners fans can constantly deny reality while insisting that they are the ones being logical. The only thing we know for certain is what happened. The rest is in your head.

I guess my question would be what is the reality that you claim I'm denying while insisting I'm being logical?

RE Shanahan, I'm not saying he's the best coach in the NFL or close to it. I don't think we know how good he is yet. That's yet to be determined. What seems to be clear tho is that fans of rival teams REALLY don't like the praise that is heaped on him by the media.

 

[TAB420]

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does.

You realize SF had more injuries in 2019 as well ? In 2019 Seattle adjusted games lost was 56.5 (rank 9) . Sf was 95.8 (rank 27) . I’d argue that you guys would have never won the OT game in SF if it wasn’t for injuries

We would have 3 more Super Bowl wins if not for injuries, what's your point, you are not excusive in would of could of instances.

Manual doesn't get hurt we win against Pittsburgh, our line isn't injured and we beat Chicago in the Division and win the Super Bowl, Avril and Lake, Bennett and Sherman as well as Kam not injured we beat the Patriots going away and the worst play in Super Bowl History doesn't happen.

...and yet I'M called the homer. :roll:

That was meant as sarcasm, come on Marvin.

 

[knownone]

These are not contextually similar situations. First, Shanahan hasn't been a HC for 6 years, so you're cherry-picking. Second, Pete Carroll coached 3 separate teams in his first 6 seasons. Two of which were complete rebuilds.

A fair comparison would either compare their first 4 seasons or compare their first 4 seasons with the same team.

Shanahan: 29 wins - 35 losses: 3 playoff games, 2 playoff wins.

Carroll first 4: 33 wins - 31 losses: 3 playoff games, 1 playoff win.

Carroll first 4 w/Seahawks: 38 wins - 26 losses: 7 playoff games, 4 playoff wins, SB Champion.

Just for perspective, for Shanahan to statistically match Carroll's first 6 seasons with Seattle, he'd have to go two straight seasons with one loss and win a Superbowl.

Well, for even more clarity, by year 4, Carroll had also already been fired. Twice.

As for Shanahan, he had two rebuild years. In one year, he went 5-0 when he got Garoppolo to close the season. The following year Garoppolo was injured in week 3.

Then they went to the Super Bowl in year 3.

Then last years ridiculous year of injuries, including Garoppolo again.

You guys make out like 2019 was some kind of aberration. No. It took a few years to turn over the roster, they got to the Super Bowl, and then they had one of the worst injury seasons ever.

If Shanahan and the Niners suck this year, then you might have a point, but until then...really not.

BTW...why is the standard "with Seattle"? Was he not a HC in NY and NE? Seems like cherry picking to me. He got to the Super Bowl after being an NFL head coach for EIGHT seasons, plus 10 or so more in college.

Shanahan has been a HC for 4 years. That's it. In his FIRST job as a HC, he turned entire roster over and took the team to a SB.

Now he had one bad year since in injury hell and all of the sudden you are like "he's had only one good year". LOL.

Please.

Not sure how Carroll being fired is relevant to him having a better record. The Jets fired him because the owner did not like his coaching style. The Patriots fired him after 2 playoff appearances and no losing seasons. Belicheck went 5-11 with roughly the same roster a year later.

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does it mean anything? No. It's just my opinion. However, facts matter, and as it currently stands, 2019 was, in fact, an aberration for the 49ers under Shanahan.

Furthermore, you are the one who brought Pete up. So, you might want to reread what I wrote, I did not specify Seattle as a standard. I gave you Pete's first 4 seasons as a HC and his first 4 seasons with one team because that would be a more applicable comparison. You know, because Shanahan only has 4 seasons with one team.

Lastly, if you are going to use quotes, make sure you address the specific person who said it. I haven't made a commentary on Shanahan's ability that was Fade. I think Shanahan is a good coach, but I don't understand how Niners fans can constantly deny reality while insisting that they are the ones being logical. The only thing we know for certain is what happened. The rest is in your head.

I guess my question would be what is the reality that you claim I'm denying while insisting I'm being logical?

RE Shanahan, I'm not saying he's the best coach in the NFL or close to it. I don't think we know how good he is yet. That's yet to be determined. What seems to be clear tho is that fans of rival teams REALLY don't like the praise that is heaped on him by the media.

My last comment was about most Niners fans, not necessarily you. In that case, denying reality is the underlying assumption that you know what would have happened in previous seasons if it wasn't for injuries. So if you wanted to say, "we're are better than our record because of the volume of injuries we suffered," I'm cool with that. However, if you say, "we would have been a playoff team or won x amount of games if it wasn't for injuries," you're living in fantasy land. Not because it is not possible, but because it's completely subjective.

For example, Tampa had the fewest games lost to injuries last season, while Seattle had the 7th most injuries. If I followed the logic of some of the Niners fans in this thread, Seattle would have gone undefeated and won the Superbowl if they had the injury luck of Tampa Bay. Is that a logical conclusion? No. It's silly and based almost entirely on my belief in the team rather than anything in reality. Does that make sense?

I would argue that most people don't care about the praise Shanahan gets. From my perspective, he's objectively the 3rd best coach in the division, so the fact that he gets so much praise is more confusing than it is a matter of taste. In contrast, I understand why McVay gets praise. He's 43-21 in 4 seasons while having a fringe top 15 QB during that stretch. To make a case for Shanahan, you basically have to rationalize 3 bad seasons.

 

[Marvin49]

Well, for even more clarity, by year 4, Carroll had also already been fired. Twice.

As for Shanahan, he had two rebuild years. In one year, he went 5-0 when he got Garoppolo to close the season. The following year Garoppolo was injured in week 3.

Then they went to the Super Bowl in year 3.

Then last years ridiculous year of injuries, including Garoppolo again.

You guys make out like 2019 was some kind of aberration. No. It took a few years to turn over the roster, they got to the Super Bowl, and then they had one of the worst injury seasons ever.

If Shanahan and the Niners suck this year, then you might have a point, but until then...really not.

BTW...why is the standard "with Seattle"? Was he not a HC in NY and NE? Seems like cherry picking to me. He got to the Super Bowl after being an NFL head coach for EIGHT seasons, plus 10 or so more in college.

Shanahan has been a HC for 4 years. That's it. In his FIRST job as a HC, he turned entire roster over and took the team to a SB.

Now he had one bad year since in injury hell and all of the sudden you are like "he's had only one good year". LOL.

Please.

Not sure how Carroll being fired is relevant to him having a better record. The Jets fired him because the owner did not like his coaching style. The Patriots fired him after 2 playoff appearances and no losing seasons. Belicheck went 5-11 with roughly the same roster a year later.

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does it mean anything? No. It's just my opinion. However, facts matter, and as it currently stands, 2019 was, in fact, an aberration for the 49ers under Shanahan.

Furthermore, you are the one who brought Pete up. So, you might want to reread what I wrote, I did not specify Seattle as a standard. I gave you Pete's first 4 seasons as a HC and his first 4 seasons with one team because that would be a more applicable comparison. You know, because Shanahan only has 4 seasons with one team.

Lastly, if you are going to use quotes, make sure you address the specific person who said it. I haven't made a commentary on Shanahan's ability that was Fade. I think Shanahan is a good coach, but I don't understand how Niners fans can constantly deny reality while insisting that they are the ones being logical. The only thing we know for certain is what happened. The rest is in your head.

I guess my question would be what is the reality that you claim I'm denying while insisting I'm being logical?

RE Shanahan, I'm not saying he's the best coach in the NFL or close to it. I don't think we know how good he is yet. That's yet to be determined. What seems to be clear tho is that fans of rival teams REALLY don't like the praise that is heaped on him by the media.

My last comment was about most Niners fans, not necessarily you. In that case, denying reality is the underlying assumption that you know what would have happened in previous seasons if it wasn't for injuries. So if you wanted to say, "we're are better than our record because of the volume of injuries we suffered," I'm cool with that. However, if you say, "we would have been a playoff team or won x amount of games if it wasn't for injuries," you're living in fantasy land. Not because it is not possible, but because it's completely subjective.

For example, Tampa had the fewest games lost to injuries last season, while Seattle had the 7th most injuries. If I followed the logic of some of the Niners fans in this thread, Seattle would have gone undefeated and won the Superbowl if they had the injury luck of Tampa Bay. Is that a logical conclusion? No. It's silly and based almost entirely on my belief in the team rather than anything in reality. Does that make sense?

I would argue that most people don't care about the praise Shanahan gets. From my perspective, he's objectively the 3rd best coach in the division, so the fact that he gets so much praise is more confusing than it is a matter of taste. In contrast, I understand why McVay gets praise. He's 43-21 in 4 seasons while having a fringe top 15 QB during that stretch. To make a case for Shanahan, you basically have to rationalize 3 bad seasons.

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

More injuries for the niners, karma for them being bitches.

 

[Marvin49]

More injuries for the niners, karma for them being b!@ch.

...ok...I'll bite...

...karma for...what exactly?

 

[TAB420]

That was already explained Marvin...being b!@ches. LOL I for one, never wish injury on any team. Talk about a great way to get kicked in the head by karma.

 

[Ramfan128]

Not sure how Carroll being fired is relevant to him having a better record. The Jets fired him because the owner did not like his coaching style. The Patriots fired him after 2 playoff appearances and no losing seasons. Belicheck went 5-11 with roughly the same roster a year later.

Shanahan has 3 losing seasons. You can rationalize them any way you want. Personally, I think if Seattle didn't get derailed by injuries, we'd have won the division in 2019, and you'd never have made the Superbowl. Does it mean anything? No. It's just my opinion. However, facts matter, and as it currently stands, 2019 was, in fact, an aberration for the 49ers under Shanahan.

Furthermore, you are the one who brought Pete up. So, you might want to reread what I wrote, I did not specify Seattle as a standard. I gave you Pete's first 4 seasons as a HC and his first 4 seasons with one team because that would be a more applicable comparison. You know, because Shanahan only has 4 seasons with one team.

Lastly, if you are going to use quotes, make sure you address the specific person who said it. I haven't made a commentary on Shanahan's ability that was Fade. I think Shanahan is a good coach, but I don't understand how Niners fans can constantly deny reality while insisting that they are the ones being logical. The only thing we know for certain is what happened. The rest is in your head.

I guess my question would be what is the reality that you claim I'm denying while insisting I'm being logical?

RE Shanahan, I'm not saying he's the best coach in the NFL or close to it. I don't think we know how good he is yet. That's yet to be determined. What seems to be clear tho is that fans of rival teams REALLY don't like the praise that is heaped on him by the media.

My last comment was about most Niners fans, not necessarily you. In that case, denying reality is the underlying assumption that you know what would have happened in previous seasons if it wasn't for injuries. So if you wanted to say, "we're are better than our record because of the volume of injuries we suffered," I'm cool with that. However, if you say, "we would have been a playoff team or won x amount of games if it wasn't for injuries," you're living in fantasy land. Not because it is not possible, but because it's completely subjective.

For example, Tampa had the fewest games lost to injuries last season, while Seattle had the 7th most injuries. If I followed the logic of some of the Niners fans in this thread, Seattle would have gone undefeated and won the Superbowl if they had the injury luck of Tampa Bay. Is that a logical conclusion? No. It's silly and based almost entirely on my belief in the team rather than anything in reality. Does that make sense?

I would argue that most people don't care about the praise Shanahan gets. From my perspective, he's objectively the 3rd best coach in the division, so the fact that he gets so much praise is more confusing than it is a matter of taste. In contrast, I understand why McVay gets praise. He's 43-21 in 4 seasons while having a fringe top 15 QB during that stretch. To make a case for Shanahan, you basically have to rationalize 3 bad seasons.

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

McVay acquired Whitworth and Watkins (and since Shanahan and McVay became head coaches the same year, Shanahan could have gone after them himself), and Gurley was coming off one of the worst RB seasons in league history. Just for some clarification there.

I'll give you AD obviously.

I wouldn't trade McVay for Shanahan, but I do see why he's well regarded. Simple as the record with Jimmy.

The injuries have been had for so long that it's no longer just bad luck - several of the players had injury histories and then something else has to be going on. So that should be baked into Shanahan evaluation going forward and he knows that, hence the trade up for a QB.

 

[knownone]

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

I've heard that one a lot, but it seems to ignore the fact that Shanahan inherited Armstead, Buckner, Ward, Staley, etc. It's also worth noting that the Niners have picked high in the draft every season of Shanahan's career, and only once was it not the result of a poor season. If you compare the natural draft value of teams in the NFC West over the past 4 years, you'd quickly realize how much of an advantage Shanahan has had over McVay and Carroll.

You seem to make the case that you can't judge a coach based on his team's injuries, but that argument should go both ways. It should be met with an equal amount of skepticism when people claim Shanahan is a great coach.

Furthermore, I would ask, if the Niners have another injury-ravaged season and win 4-7 games, will you give Shanahan a pass? This being my main argument against Kyle and Lynch. How many coaches and GMs can have 4 losing seasons in 5 years and not be on the hot seat. This is a possibility, and it boggles my mind.

 

[Marvin49]

I guess my question would be what is the reality that you claim I'm denying while insisting I'm being logical?

RE Shanahan, I'm not saying he's the best coach in the NFL or close to it. I don't think we know how good he is yet. That's yet to be determined. What seems to be clear tho is that fans of rival teams REALLY don't like the praise that is heaped on him by the media.

My last comment was about most Niners fans, not necessarily you. In that case, denying reality is the underlying assumption that you know what would have happened in previous seasons if it wasn't for injuries. So if you wanted to say, "we're are better than our record because of the volume of injuries we suffered," I'm cool with that. However, if you say, "we would have been a playoff team or won x amount of games if it wasn't for injuries," you're living in fantasy land. Not because it is not possible, but because it's completely subjective.

For example, Tampa had the fewest games lost to injuries last season, while Seattle had the 7th most injuries. If I followed the logic of some of the Niners fans in this thread, Seattle would have gone undefeated and won the Superbowl if they had the injury luck of Tampa Bay. Is that a logical conclusion? No. It's silly and based almost entirely on my belief in the team rather than anything in reality. Does that make sense?

I would argue that most people don't care about the praise Shanahan gets. From my perspective, he's objectively the 3rd best coach in the division, so the fact that he gets so much praise is more confusing than it is a matter of taste. In contrast, I understand why McVay gets praise. He's 43-21 in 4 seasons while having a fringe top 15 QB during that stretch. To make a case for Shanahan, you basically have to rationalize 3 bad seasons.

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

McVay acquired Whitworth and Watkins (and since Shanahan and McVay became head coaches the same year, Shanahan could have gone after them himself), and Gurley was coming off one of the worst RB seasons in league history. Just for some clarification there.

I'll give you AD obviously.

I wouldn't trade McVay for Shanahan, but I do see why he's well regarded. Simple as the record with Jimmy.

The injuries have been had for so long that it's no longer just bad luck - several of the players had injury histories and then something else has to be going on. So that should be baked into Shanahan evaluation going forward and he knows that, hence the trade up for a QB.

Yes he did, but that's not the point. The point is that his record includes those players on the roster. I'm not attacking McVay here BTW. I'm just saying the circumstances are different.

I don't buy the injury history thing. Many of them had zero injury history before joining the 49ers. They even fired and replaced their entire training staff.

Say what you want about Goff, but he was at LEAST serviceable. The same CANNOT be said of Beathard and Mullens.

When Shanahan has HAD a serviceable QB, he's 24-9 and has a SB appearance. Its not about just injuries on the team. Its injuries at QB specifically. Its the reason I never thought Jimmy would be traded. They wanted TWO QBs at least this year so that they are insulated from injury at that position.

I mean seriously...what do you guys think happens if Wilson or Stafford go down to an ACL in week 3? You think the team is all hunky dory? You think if the team tanks after that you aren't using that as a reason the season was lost when writing the story of this season?

Come on now.

 

[Marvin49]

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

I've heard that one a lot, but it seems to ignore the fact that Shanahan inherited Armstead, Buckner, Ward, Staley, etc. It's also worth noting that the Niners have picked high in the draft every season of Shanahan's career, and only once was it not the result of a poor season. If you compare the natural draft value of teams in the NFC West over the past 4 years, you'd quickly realize how much of an advantage Shanahan has had over McVay and Carroll.

You seem to make the case that you can't judge a coach based on his team's injuries, but that argument should go both ways. It should be met with an equal amount of skepticism when people claim Shanahan is a great coach.

Furthermore, I would ask, if the Niners have another injury-ravaged season and win 4-7 games, will you give Shanahan a pass? This being my main argument against Kyle and Lynch. How many coaches and GMs can have 4 losing seasons in 5 years and not be on the hot seat. This is a possibility, and it boggles my mind.

On that first paragraph...I'm not sure what point you think you are making there.

It was some of those picks that turned them into an NFC Champion.

I won't even comment on the last paragraph as you are essentially just handing the 49ers another losing season and charging it to Shanahan. Lets like, see what happens. LOL.

 

[Ramfan128]

My last comment was about most Niners fans, not necessarily you. In that case, denying reality is the underlying assumption that you know what would have happened in previous seasons if it wasn't for injuries. So if you wanted to say, "we're are better than our record because of the volume of injuries we suffered," I'm cool with that. However, if you say, "we would have been a playoff team or won x amount of games if it wasn't for injuries," you're living in fantasy land. Not because it is not possible, but because it's completely subjective.

For example, Tampa had the fewest games lost to injuries last season, while Seattle had the 7th most injuries. If I followed the logic of some of the Niners fans in this thread, Seattle would have gone undefeated and won the Superbowl if they had the injury luck of Tampa Bay. Is that a logical conclusion? No. It's silly and based almost entirely on my belief in the team rather than anything in reality. Does that make sense?

I would argue that most people don't care about the praise Shanahan gets. From my perspective, he's objectively the 3rd best coach in the division, so the fact that he gets so much praise is more confusing than it is a matter of taste. In contrast, I understand why McVay gets praise. He's 43-21 in 4 seasons while having a fringe top 15 QB during that stretch. To make a case for Shanahan, you basically have to rationalize 3 bad seasons.

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

McVay acquired Whitworth and Watkins (and since Shanahan and McVay became head coaches the same year, Shanahan could have gone after them himself), and Gurley was coming off one of the worst RB seasons in league history. Just for some clarification there.

I'll give you AD obviously.

I wouldn't trade McVay for Shanahan, but I do see why he's well regarded. Simple as the record with Jimmy.

The injuries have been had for so long that it's no longer just bad luck - several of the players had injury histories and then something else has to be going on. So that should be baked into Shanahan evaluation going forward and he knows that, hence the trade up for a QB.

Yes he did, but that's not the point. The point is that his record includes those players on the roster. I'm not attacking McVay here BTW. I'm just saying the circumstances are different.

I don't buy the injury history thing. Many of them had zero injury history before joining the 49ers. They even fired and replaced their entire training staff.

Say what you want about Goff, but he was at LEAST serviceable. The same CANNOT be said of Beathard and Mullens.

When Shanahan has HAD a serviceable QB, he's 24-9 and has a SB appearance. Its not about just injuries on the team. Its injuries at QB specifically. Its the reason I never thought Jimmy would be traded. They wanted TWO QBs at least this year so that they are insulated from injury at that position.

I mean seriously...what do you guys think happens if Wilson or Stafford go down to an ACL in week 3? You think the team is all hunky dory? You think if the team tanks after that you aren't using that as a reason the season was lost when writing the story of this season?

Come on now.

Depends on what argument you were trying to make. I read it as "McVay inherited better players" as that's been a popular 49er fan take on the situations. If you were just talking about them being available, sure. But he didn't inherit Whitworth or Watkins. He went out and got them.

Garrapolo, Bosa, Kwon Alexander and Sherman all suffered injuries a year or two before coming to SF (Bosa at Ohio State, where he decided to sit the rest of the season to prep for the draft). Verrett had one of the crazier injury histories. Some of those injuries were random, but there is some history with those guys.

If Stafford goes down were still winning 7-10 games. You saw Goff first hand twice last year be the worst football player on the field.

Even in games where he put up numbers like against Tampa, a lot of it was YAC and his two INTs turned what should have been a blowout win to a close game. We likely win 10 games and beat Seattle in the playoffs with almost any QB last year. So while Stafford going down certainly eliminates us from being Super Bowl contenders, were still a fringe playoff team without him. For reference, the Bears made the playoffs last year and we're better than them at every facet of the game - losing Stafford, we would still be better than the Trubisky/Foles led Bears that were the 7 seed last year.

Goff's air yards were near the bottom of the league. He was unbelievably bad last year and when you consider that the OL, run game, WRs and defense were all good - I push back on the notion that he is even serviceable.

 

[Marvin49]

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

McVay acquired Whitworth and Watkins (and since Shanahan and McVay became head coaches the same year, Shanahan could have gone after them himself), and Gurley was coming off one of the worst RB seasons in league history. Just for some clarification there.

I'll give you AD obviously.

I wouldn't trade McVay for Shanahan, but I do see why he's well regarded. Simple as the record with Jimmy.

The injuries have been had for so long that it's no longer just bad luck - several of the players had injury histories and then something else has to be going on. So that should be baked into Shanahan evaluation going forward and he knows that, hence the trade up for a QB.

Yes he did, but that's not the point. The point is that his record includes those players on the roster. I'm not attacking McVay here BTW. I'm just saying the circumstances are different.

I don't buy the injury history thing. Many of them had zero injury history before joining the 49ers. They even fired and replaced their entire training staff.

Say what you want about Goff, but he was at LEAST serviceable. The same CANNOT be said of Beathard and Mullens.

When Shanahan has HAD a serviceable QB, he's 24-9 and has a SB appearance. Its not about just injuries on the team. Its injuries at QB specifically. Its the reason I never thought Jimmy would be traded. They wanted TWO QBs at least this year so that they are insulated from injury at that position.

I mean seriously...what do you guys think happens if Wilson or Stafford go down to an ACL in week 3? You think the team is all hunky dory? You think if the team tanks after that you aren't using that as a reason the season was lost when writing the story of this season?

Come on now.

Depends on what argument you were trying to make. I read it as "McVay inherited better players" as that's been a popular 49er fan take on the situations. If you were just talking about them being available, sure. But he didn't inherit Whitworth or Watkins. He went out and got them.

Garrapolo, Bosa, Kwon Alexander and Sherman all suffered injuries a year or two before coming to SF (Bosa at Ohio State, where he decided to sit the rest of the season to prep for the draft). Verrett had one of the crazier injury histories. Some of those injuries were random, but there is some history with those guys.

If Stafford goes down were still winning 7-10 games. You saw Goff first hand twice last year be the worst football player on the field.

Even in games where he put up numbers like against Tampa, a lot of it was YAC and his two INTs turned what should have been a blowout win to a close game. We likely win 10 games and beat Seattle in the playoffs with almost any QB last year. So while Stafford going down certainly eliminates us from being Super Bowl contenders, were still a fringe playoff team without him. For reference, the Bears made the playoffs last year and we're better than them at every facet of the game - losing Stafford, we would still be better than the Trubisky/Foles led Bears that were the 7 seed last year.

Goff's air yards were near the bottom of the league. He was unbelievably bad last year and when you consider that the OL, run game, WRs and defense were all good - I push back on the notion that he is even serviceable.

I can’t believe if defending Goff….but here goes…lol.

I’m not really arguing that Goff is good. I’m just are going that he’s much better than Beathard and Mullens.

RE Watkins or Whitfield, all I’m saying is that those guys were on the roster when McVay was coaching. How they got there is irrelevant. I’m simply talking about pieces of that team were in place by the time McVay started playing games that counted. That’s it.

Why am I making that point? It’s pertinent if you are going to compare records. The argument isn’t about recruitment.

Look…49ers were completely rebuilt in this first few years. Staley, Ward, Armstead and Buckner remained. Now it’s just Ward and Armstead.

You said one thing tho I completely disagree with. If you think Stafford goes down for the year and you are still winning 10 games, I think you are dreaming. Take it from someone who saw his team in the SB when the WB was healthy (and a QB who is probably the 4th best in the division) and the team completely tank without him.

Finally tho…I’m not really trying to argue Shanahan/McVay. I like them both quite a bit. I’m just saying the situations for them were different. You may hate Goff, but I’d take him in a heartbeat over Hoyer/Beathard/Mullens.

 

[knownone]

I'd argue that McVay had Gurley, Watkins, Whitworth, and Donald staring in year one, but it ain't worth arguing about. Even Goff...while not great was at least serviceable. Shanahan is like 24-9 when he had his QB and most on here wouldn't say he wasn't any better than Goff.

I digress tho. Not really gonna argue that one.

As for what would have happened if X, well of course. Nobody knows what would have happened...but it is reasonable to assume that a team that loses their starting QB in 2 of three seasons will struggle and their record will suffer. That's a HUGE reason I was so sure the 49ers would keep Jimmy. They have seen 2 of three seasons effectively end on QB injuries and they weren't going to be in that position this year.

When I say that this last season was abysmal due to injuries, the next line there is not "otherwise they win the Super Bowl no doubt". The next line is that you simply can't judge the HC for a struggling season when SOOO many starting, high profile players missed significant time. I mean...the 49ers have OWNED the Packers for the past few years. This year was just ludicrous. On top of ALL of the injuries, there was a Covid outbreak in the WR room so they were playing like their 5th and 6th WRs with a backup QB in that game.

No, we don't know what WOULD have happened were that not the case, but its reasonable to assume the outcome would be somewhat different. As such, I for one am not going to hold Shanahans feet to the fire on that. Last year to me was a mulligan. If they really struggle THIS year...THEN I might have some concerns.

I've heard that one a lot, but it seems to ignore the fact that Shanahan inherited Armstead, Buckner, Ward, Staley, etc. It's also worth noting that the Niners have picked high in the draft every season of Shanahan's career, and only once was it not the result of a poor season. If you compare the natural draft value of teams in the NFC West over the past 4 years, you'd quickly realize how much of an advantage Shanahan has had over McVay and Carroll.

You seem to make the case that you can't judge a coach based on his team's injuries, but that argument should go both ways. It should be met with an equal amount of skepticism when people claim Shanahan is a great coach.

Furthermore, I would ask, if the Niners have another injury-ravaged season and win 4-7 games, will you give Shanahan a pass? This being my main argument against Kyle and Lynch. How many coaches and GMs can have 4 losing seasons in 5 years and not be on the hot seat. This is a possibility, and it boggles my mind.

On that first paragraph...I'm not sure what point you think you are making there.

It was some of those picks that turned them into an NFC Champion.

I won't even comment on the last paragraph as you are essentially just handing the 49ers another losing season and charging it to Shanahan. Lets like, see what happens. LOL.

I'll do my best to keep the conversation on your level.

You are talking about the players McVay had in year one while ignoring the players Shanahan had. The rest is of that paragraph is a comparative analysis based on your initial premise (your first paragraph of the preceding post).

Yes. Those players helped you become the NFC Champion, but should we credit the opportunity to draft Bosa to Shanahan's coaching ability? Lol. Sorry, I'll avoid using any more rhetorical devices since they seem to fly over your head.

My last paragraph is known as a hypothetical, in which a question is prefaced with the conditional conjunction 'if'. So what are you really saying? That you essentially didn't read what I wrote or that you can't comprehend the distinction being made?

 

[Ramfan128]

McVay acquired Whitworth and Watkins (and since Shanahan and McVay became head coaches the same year, Shanahan could have gone after them himself), and Gurley was coming off one of the worst RB seasons in league history. Just for some clarification there.

I'll give you AD obviously.

I wouldn't trade McVay for Shanahan, but I do see why he's well regarded. Simple as the record with Jimmy.

The injuries have been had for so long that it's no longer just bad luck - several of the players had injury histories and then something else has to be going on. So that should be baked into Shanahan evaluation going forward and he knows that, hence the trade up for a QB.

Yes he did, but that's not the point. The point is that his record includes those players on the roster. I'm not attacking McVay here BTW. I'm just saying the circumstances are different.

I don't buy the injury history thing. Many of them had zero injury history before joining the 49ers. They even fired and replaced their entire training staff.

Say what you want about Goff, but he was at LEAST serviceable. The same CANNOT be said of Beathard and Mullens.

When Shanahan has HAD a serviceable QB, he's 24-9 and has a SB appearance. Its not about just injuries on the team. Its injuries at QB specifically. Its the reason I never thought Jimmy would be traded. They wanted TWO QBs at least this year so that they are insulated from injury at that position.

I mean seriously...what do you guys think happens if Wilson or Stafford go down to an ACL in week 3? You think the team is all hunky dory? You think if the team tanks after that you aren't using that as a reason the season was lost when writing the story of this season?

Come on now.

Depends on what argument you were trying to make. I read it as "McVay inherited better players" as that's been a popular 49er fan take on the situations. If you were just talking about them being available, sure. But he didn't inherit Whitworth or Watkins. He went out and got them.

Garrapolo, Bosa, Kwon Alexander and Sherman all suffered injuries a year or two before coming to SF (Bosa at Ohio State, where he decided to sit the rest of the season to prep for the draft). Verrett had one of the crazier injury histories. Some of those injuries were random, but there is some history with those guys.

If Stafford goes down were still winning 7-10 games. You saw Goff first hand twice last year be the worst football player on the field.

Even in games where he put up numbers like against Tampa, a lot of it was YAC and his two INTs turned what should have been a blowout win to a close game. We likely win 10 games and beat Seattle in the playoffs with almost any QB last year. So while Stafford going down certainly eliminates us from being Super Bowl contenders, were still a fringe playoff team without him. For reference, the Bears made the playoffs last year and we're better than them at every facet of the game - losing Stafford, we would still be better than the Trubisky/Foles led Bears that were the 7 seed last year.

Goff's air yards were near the bottom of the league. He was unbelievably bad last year and when you consider that the OL, run game, WRs and defense were all good - I push back on the notion that he is even serviceable.

I can’t believe if defending Goff….but here goes…lol.

I’m not really arguing that Goff is good. I’m just are going that he’s much better than Beathard and Mullens.

RE Watkins or Whitfield, all I’m saying is that those guys were on the roster when McVay was coaching. How they got there is irrelevant. I’m simply talking about pieces of that team were in place by the time McVay started playing games that counted. That’s it.

Why am I making that point? It’s pertinent if you are going to compare records. The argument isn’t about recruitment.

Look…49ers were completely rebuilt in this first few years. Staley, Ward, Armstead and Buckner remained. Now it’s just Ward and Armstead.

You said one thing tho I completely disagree with. If you think Stafford goes down for the year and you are still winning 10 games, I think you are dreaming. Take it from someone who saw his team in the SB when the WB was healthy (and a QB who is probably the 4th best in the division) and the team completely tank without him.

Finally tho…I’m not really trying to argue Shanahan/McVay. I like them both quite a bit. I’m just saying the situations for them were different. You may hate Goff, but I’d take him in a heartbeat over Hoyer/Beathard/Mullens.

I just don't like the narrative that McVay had so much more to work with. But I like them both too and I think Shanahan is a better offensive mind, worse head coach.

Yea so you either A. Didn't watch the Rams last year or B. Are thinking last year was an aberration for Goff.

Last year the Rams were better than the Niners on defense, at WR, possibly OL, and RB factoring in Mosterts injuries. We were better at everything. So how did we lose to the Niners? First time, fine - just one of those games. But the second game? Mullens was a better QB than Jared Goff.

Goff singlehandedly sunk us against the Dolphins and 49ers last year - as in, if we just ran the ball the entire time both games and didn't drop back once we may have won both. He was awful in the first Niner game, and was awful in the Seattle loss, throwing what should be in the running for worst INT in NFL history. He was also bad against the Jets.

On the flip side, there really isn't a game he won for us. His stats looking good are mostly because we threw so many passes around the line of scrimmage. Both Kupp and Woods were top 6 I believe in YAC.

Goff was ready to go against Seattle in the playoffs - he started Wolford anyways. Would have started him against GB too if he hadn't gotten hurt.

Mullens was absolutely better than Goff last year.

The year prior he was almost as bad. In almost every loss he was the culprit. Even in games that he seemed to play well, he would make an unforgivable play that cost the game. 2019 week 16 game against the Niners is a great example. Threw the ball directly to Fred Warner for a pick 6.



Saw an article that had Goff as the worst QB in the NFL last year when using presnap motion - harder to read a defense when they're in the middle of adjusting when you snap the ball.

Dude can't read a defense and despite having the best roster for a QB last year, held the team back all season. He played well against GB, but that doesn't excuse how awful he was the last two years.

I think you're equating Goff with the guy who had a top 5 OL, top RB, and top WR group in 2017 and 2018 who also had the element of little tape on McVay. Everything said in the last few years is probably true. Everything. Helping him read defenses, needing perfect circumstances, etc. He didn't have that in 2019 and it broke him. McVay started getting on him and it shook his confidence.

There aren't many QBs who were worse than Goff last year. You'd have to watch every Rams game to see beyond the stat sheet.

Put Mullens on the Rams last year with our health, we probably win 11-12 games. Be interested to see teams records in NFL history with the number one defense, a top 10 run game and top 5 in sacks allowed. I'd imagine most won more than 10 games.

 

[94Smith]

I don't know about that. Mullens would be executing the offense fine and then have a bone headed turnover. Perhaps the better offensive line would prevent a lot of the strip[ sack fumbles he had though. Mullens was a huge disappointment for the 49ers last year given how the team performed with him starting when Jimmy went down with his ACL. I think the team thought they were secure there but quickly learned they were not.

That's why this offseason priorities were back up QB (whether that is Lance or Garoppolo) and offensive line with Mack , our second round Guard, and resigning Trent Williams.

I do think the 49ers have the most question marks going into this season. It will be interesting to see how good the Rams can be with Stafford. They have a Superbowl capable roster this year if things go their way. I think the Seahawks have a lot of questions still on defense and we have a lot of questions still at quarterback, health and defensive losses since the superbowl season.

If I had to rank the division this year I would rank 1) Rams 2a) Seahawks 2b) 49ers 3) Cards but realistically any of the teams has a chance at the division

 

[Ramfan128]

I don't know about that. Mullens would be executing the offense fine and then have a bone headed turnover. Perhaps the better offensive line would prevent a lot of the strip[ sack fumbles he had though. Mullens was a huge disappointment for the 49ers last year given how the team performed with him starting when Jimmy went down with his ACL. I think the team thought they were secure there but quickly learned they were not.

That's why this offseason priorities were back up QB (whether that is Lance or Garoppolo) and offensive line with Mack , our second round Guard, and resigning Trent Williams.

I do think the 49ers have the most question marks going into this season. It will be interesting to see how good the Rams can be with Stafford. They have a Superbowl capable roster this year if things go their way. I think the Seahawks have a lot of questions still on defense and we have a lot of questions still at quarterback, health and defensive losses since the superbowl season.

If I had to rank the division this year I would rank 1) Rams 2a) Seahawks 2b) 49ers 3) Cards but realistically any of the teams has a chance at the division

Totally fair. From my perspective, Goff cost us a Super Bowl this year. Everything else was there. So I am admittedly biased. And if you just look at stats, it looks like Goff is better.

I just know that a big chunk of his stats are due to WRs and McVays scheme - and factoring in injuries, Goff had a significantly better supporting cast than Mullens did and honestly I wouldn't want either QB.



Completely agree with your order too - although I do not think Arizona can win the division. They may not finish last if one of the other three have injury issues - but they're not going all three.

And I think all three teams are a lot better than last year. I would be shocked if there weren't at least three playoff teams from the West and I think it's the best division in NFL history. Going to be absolutely bonkers this year.

 

[94Smith]

Yep I saw a prediction the other day that the Rams were going to win the division and the three wildcards were going to be the Seahawks, Niners and Cards. That would be insane!