Is It Over Now? Chiefs/Niners SB Thread

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,866
Hartford, CT
I’ll admit that I had no idea the OTs acted as quarters. I was baffled that KC was letting so much clock run until Nance mentioned with like 20 seconds left that it was a quarter system, not the end of the game.
The telecast didn’t do a good job of explaining that - the closest we got was Vinovich saying ‘this is a new game’ before the coin toss, ie, the first OT is the first quarter from a timing perspective. But I doubt many viewers inferred that from Vinovich’s comment, given how many rules are being thrown out there in a 30 second period.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,630
There is not. There is a two-minute break between each new 15-minute session but play picks up from the point of the last play of the previous session.
Partially right, they don't do the full halftime intermission but they treat the end of the 2nd OT like the end of the second quarter. So the start of the 3rd OT would have begun with SF kicking off, since they received to begin the start of OT1.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,198
San Andreas Fault
I’ll admit that I had no idea the OTs acted as quarters. I was baffled that KC was letting so much clock run until Nance mentioned with like 20 seconds left that it was a quarter system, not the end of the game.
End of the game? I mean, what would they do if it were tied after the first OT, declare both teams as super bowl champions? Split the trophy in half? Sorry if this comes across as snark.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,389
Southwestern CT
End of the game? I mean, what would they do if it were tied after the first OT, declare both teams as super bowl champions? Split the trophy in half? Sorry if this comes across as snark.
If it had been the end of the game, SF would have won unless KC scored before the time ran out. Of course, that’s not the rule and KC scored anyway, but that was the point he was making.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Partially right, they don't do the full halftime intermission but they treat the end of the 2nd OT like the end of the second quarter. So the start of the 3rd OT would have begun with SF kicking off, since they received to begin the start of OT1.

Never mind, I reread the rulebook.

But if there is no deferral, as stated above, it does make the Niners choice of going first more defensible, since it would cost them a possession if it went to a third period. Although I still think every team going second still has an advantage, since I think most teams would choose to end the game by going for two after a potentially tying TD against a gassed defense rather than risk sending their gassed defense back out to defend against another scoring drive by their opponent.
 
Last edited:

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,198
San Andreas Fault
So, I wonder if post mortems were held maybe yesterday, or scheduled today by the 49ers, on what went wrong, what they could have done better, smarter re play calling, etc. Or, do they just pack up stuff from their lockers (players) and offices (coaches and GM Lynch, etc.) and head home. Anybody here with any experience in this type of thing. Paraag Marathe, who has a position pretty high up with the 49ers grew up two doors down the street from me, but he's in his own house now of course. Wouldn't bother him. The Chiefs are on to another parade, which I would rather pull my remaining hair out than watch. Will Taylor be there?
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,198
San Andreas Fault
If it had been the end of the game, SF would have won unless KC scored before the time ran out. Of course, that’s not the rule and KC scored anyway, but that was the point he was making.
Got it. I watched the game with all family and my son had to explain that a touchdown on the first drive in OT doesn't win the game, like in the glorious 3-28 game. I wasn't aware that they'd changed the OT rules and I was supposed to be the #1 football head in the room. Losing it. :(
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Belichick—>Mayo
No way. Mayo is unlikely to be as bad as Tomsula, and I’d take 2011-14 Jim Harbaugh over 2020-23 Bill Belichick any day of the week. I had forgotten what a ridiculous own-goal that was.

Though if Kaepernick declines on the same timeline even with a better coach, they would’ve gone sideways for a few years and gotten Harbaugh fired anyway, unless you think Harbaugh is a QB whisperer who would’ve grabbed someone off the scrap heap and turned him into another Alex Smith.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,873
Henderson, NV
I was just thinking this morning that 49ers fans are lowkey some of the most tormented of football fans over the last generation. They haven't won a Super Bowl in 30 years, they've had large stretches of that time when they've stunk terribly, and while they did make it to 3 Super Bowls in that time, they lost each one in excruciating fashion. Oh and their most promising team got blown up because the head coach and the GM couldn't get along well enough to work together and the owner backed the GM.
And fired Baalke two years later after he went through Tomsula and Chip Kelly as head coaches.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
3,184
So, I wonder if post mortems were held maybe yesterday, or scheduled today by the 49ers, on what went wrong, what they could have done better, smarter re play calling, etc. Or, do they just pack up stuff from their lockers (players) and offices (coaches and GM Lynch, etc.) and head home. Anybody here with any experience in this type of thing. Paraag Marathe, who has a position pretty high up with the 49ers grew up two doors down the street from me, but he's in his own house now of course. Wouldn't bother him. The Chiefs are on to another parade, which I would rather pull my remaining hair out than watch. Will Taylor be there?
I'm sure the coaches do something like that. Not worth doing with the players as a group - you have so many changes year to year and they're pretty burned out right now.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,201
I was just thinking this morning that 49ers fans are lowkey some of the most tormented of football fans over the last generation. They haven't won a Super Bowl in 30 years, they've had large stretches of that time when they've stunk terribly, and while they did make it to 3 Super Bowls in that time, they lost each one in excruciating fashion. Oh and their most promising team got blown up because the head coach and the GM couldn't get along well enough to work together and the owner backed the GM.
7 conference title games in 12-13 years and no titles to show for it is brutal. I joke to my Niners friends that the Celtics and Niners are spirit animals.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,591
California. Duh.
I was just thinking this morning that 49ers fans are lowkey some of the most tormented of football fans over the last generation. They haven't won a Super Bowl in 30 years, they've had large stretches of that time when they've stunk terribly, and while they did make it to 3 Super Bowls in that time, they lost each one in excruciating fashion. Oh and their most promising team got blown up because the head coach and the GM couldn't get along well enough to work together and the owner backed the GM.
As a Rams fan that has lived in Northern California since their Super Bowl glory days, and still has to hear from idiot 20-somethings that brag about the 5 rings despite having no memory of any of them, I can't muster up too much sympathy (although I resisted the temptation to talk shit because that was a brutal loss). The local fan base also got 3 World Series titles where just about every break and coin-flip decision went their way in each playoff run, along with 4 Warriors titles. So they aren't exactly Cleveland pre-LeBron here.

Just throwing this out there to make many of us feel old: Half of the Super Bowls ever played have occurred since the 49ers last title.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,490
Is Jim Harbaugh -> Jim Tomsula the biggest downgrade in the history of football coaches? It’s got to be at least in the history of football coach Jims.
Vince Lombardi->Phil Bengtson. Overall, the post-Lombardi period was pretty disastrous for GB, only making the playoffs twice from 1968-1992 until Reggie White and Favre revived the team.
Joe Gibbs-> Richie Petitbon. Petitbon went 4-12 in one season and never coached again, despite having been a well regarded coordinator.
Parcells->Ray Handley. Handley went 14-18 in two seasons and then disappeared from football at age 48.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,978
Silver Spring, MD
FWIW, other twitter posts I've been reading said the KC coaches started going over the playoff OT rules before the start of the playoffs, not in training camp. Which makes a lot more sense.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,617
Panama
No way. Mayo is unlikely to be as bad as Tomsula, and I’d take 2011-14 Jim Harbaugh over 2020-23 Bill Belichick any day of the week. I had forgotten what a ridiculous own-goal that was.

Though if Kaepernick declines on the same timeline even with a better coach, they would’ve gone sideways for a few years and gotten Harbaugh fired anyway, unless you think Harbaugh is a QB whisperer who would’ve grabbed someone off the scrap heap and turned him into another Alex Smith.
If Harbaugh remains that means he got the FO’s backing and I am sure he could have at least built a much better team than the dregs that they had right after he left.

And he could have signed a key FA QB or drafted someone and started over (maybe he drafts Mahomes?).

My theory was that once Jed York got his shiny new stadium the Yorks went back to not giving a shit, but they turned it around by hiring Shanahan and Lynch. Their build was accelerated when they traded for Jimmy G.

All that being said, lots of clips of brutal holding by KC’s OL that were not called. Several people on my Citter feed.

I am on a self imposed NFL media blackout but I do get the occasional IG and Xittr clips (which I can skip at will)
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,739
Washington
So, I wonder if post mortems were held maybe yesterday, or scheduled today by the 49ers, on what went wrong, what they could have done better, smarter re play calling, etc. Or, do they just pack up stuff from their lockers (players) and offices (coaches and GM Lynch, etc.) and head home. Anybody here with any experience in this type of thing. Paraag Marathe, who has a position pretty high up with the 49ers grew up two doors down the street from me, but he's in his own house now of course. Wouldn't bother him. The Chiefs are on to another parade, which I would rather pull my remaining hair out than watch. Will Taylor be there?
This is completely random, but I was reading your post and saw this guy's name and I realized (mainly because it's a very strange name) that he is featured in the book Stay True by Hua Hsu I'm reading, a memoir written by one of Paraag's freshman year roommates at Cal. It has nothing to do with football, but it is a good book (won a Pulitzer).

Just throwing this out there to make many of us feel old: Half of the Super Bowls ever played have occurred since the 49ers last title.
I saw something about this yesterday and I had to look it up because I almost didn't believe it. For all of the shit everyone gives Cowboys fans, it has been even longer for 49ers fans - the caveat being that the 49ers have actually reached the Super Bowl since then.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,117
Imaginationland
I saw something about this yesterday and I had to look it up because I almost didn't believe it. For all of the shit everyone gives Cowboys fans, it has been even longer for 49ers fans - the caveat being that the 49ers have actually reached the Super Bowl since then.
Yeah that's really the rub. The Cowboys haven't even gotten to the conference championship game since their last super bowl, they haven't even been close to a title. The Niners have been to 3 super bowls and 8 conference championships since they lost won it all, huge difference.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,421
Also why you don't kick the FG on 4th and 4 inside the 10. You need the TD.

Out of all the Shanny complaints, I think kicking the FG there was the biggest mistake. You take a 3 point lead against Mahomes and give him 4 downs on each series, you lose.
They'd kept KC out of the end zone all game with the exception of the muffed punt mess. I think it was reasonable to bet on your defense holding them to a FG, and then you only need a FG to win. They called bad D once KC crossed midfield, and the Kelce play on the second to last snap was a killer. Just a lot of things that broke KCs way at the end.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,617
Panama
Also why you don't kick the FG on 4th and 4 inside the 10. You need the TD.

Out of all the Shanny complaints, I think kicking the FG there was the biggest mistake. You take a 3 point lead against Mahomes and give him 4 downs on each series, you lose.
Wait, the game is tied at this point. Go for it, when the defense was playing them well and not make it, the game is over.

I mean I can see the logic of going for it but it’s not a no brainer.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,827
Deep inside Muppet Labs
They'd kept KC out of the end zone all game with the exception of the muffed punt mess. I think it was reasonable to bet on your defense holding them to a FG, and then you only need a FG to win. They called bad D once KC crossed midfield, and the Kelce play on the second to last snap was a killer. Just a lot of things that broke KCs way at the end.
Once Greenlaw went out the defense wasn't the same. Mahomes targeted his backup and went 9 for 9 on him.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,029
New York City
Wait, the game is tied at this point. Go for it, when the defense was playing them well and not make it, the game is over.

I mean I can see the logic of going for it but it’s not a no brainer.
You give Patrick Mahomes 4 downs every series when he needs a TD to win and you lose 100% of the time. Those are the statistics. SF played it safe and gave Mahomes the 4 downs. He used them all to win.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,421
Once Greenlaw went out the defense wasn't the same. Mahomes targeted his backup and went 9 for 9 on him.
The Greenlaw injury was huge, no doubt, but that happened early and SF was competitive on D the rest of the game. Burks is also nowhere near the same player, I will grant you that, and they needed a big play on D (or some better calls) on that last drive. I just don't think Shanahan made any egregiously bad decisions. They were all marginal and could have gone either way.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,117
Imaginationland
They'd kept KC out of the end zone all game with the exception of the muffed punt mess. I think it was reasonable to bet on your defense holding them to a FG, and then you only need a FG to win. They called bad D once KC crossed midfield, and the Kelce play on the second to last snap was a killer. Just a lot of things that broke KCs way at the end.
The bolded, while true, is slightly misleading. KC kicked a field goal at the end of the 4th quarter, but only because they ran out of time, not because of anything SF did. Does anyone doubt that if there was a minute left (instead of 10 seconds) when KC had 1st down on the SF 11 yard line that this would've ended in regulation, with a KC TD? They'd also moved the ball with ease, 133 yards on their last two drives prior to OT (in 23 plays).

I do agree that going for it on 4th down was far from a no-brainer, and definitely not the biggest Shanahan fuck up of the day. Passing the ball twice with 5 yards to go on the KC 35 (the whole world knew they couldn't give the ball back to Mahomes with time for him to drive) was painful to watch.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
4,216
I think so. Seems like 2 shooters in custody and 10 taken to the hospital. No fatalities yet.

EDIT: seeing reports of 1 dead, 9 injured.
Up to 1 dead and 30 injured, now, with 3 in custody. Looks like the rally ended by the old/new train station/public space downtown, which is where the incident happened.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,317
Hingham, MA
In the discussion about kicking the FG in OT, did we ever contrast that to the decision to go for it early in the 4th quarter? I really don't get the aggressiveness in the 4th quarter when you are only behind by 3 points and just went backwards on 3rd down (setting up 4th and 3), and then not going for it in OT.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
In the discussion about kicking the FG in OT, did we ever contrast that to the decision to go for it early in the 4th quarter? I really don't get the aggressiveness in the 4th quarter when you are only behind by 3 points and just went backwards on 3rd down (setting up 4th and 3), and then not going for it in OT.
Never mind, I missed it. It was the 12:46 point.

The only thing I think of is Shanahan might have been more willing to pass on a chance to tie there, because there was enough time remaining to score again to tie or take the lead. But in OT, if he passed up the FG, he was leaving himself open to the Chiefs driving needing only a FG to win. That is one of the downfalls of taking the ball first.

But speaking of going for it, I found an example of how much that notion has changed from years ago when I rewatched Super Bowl XXIII the other day. Early in the third quarter, the Niners faced a fourth and 2 from the Bengals 15 down 6-3 in the game, and Bill Walsh, one of the greatest offensive minds in the game, sent Mike Cofer, who was a pretty shaky kicker, out to attempt a game tying FG rather than trust Joe Montana, Roger Craig, John Taylor, and Jerry Rice to get two yards to extend the drive. Cofer made the kick to tie the game...and then Stanford Jennings returned the ensuing kickoff 93 yards to give the Bengals a 13-6 lead.

Nowadays, the advanced metrics people would roast Walsh for a decision like that.
 
Last edited:

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,140
306, row 14
I can't find that moment in the game script.

But speaking of going for it, I found an example of how much that notion has changed from years ago when I rewatched Super Bowl XXIII the other day. Early in the third quarter, the Niners faced a fourth and 2 from the Bengals 15 down 6-3 in the game, and Bill Walsh, one of the greatest offensive minds in the game, sent Mike Cofer, who was a pretty shaky kicker, out to attempt a game tying FG rather than trust Joe Montana, Roger Craig, John Taylor, and Jerry Rice to get two yards to extend the drive. Cofer made the kick to tie the game...and then Stanford Jennings returned the ensuing kickoff 93 yards to give the Bengals a 13-6 lead.

Nowadays, the advanced metrics people would roast Walsh for a decision like that.
With 12:45 left in the 4th quarter, Shanny went for it on 4th and 3 from the KC 15 down 16-13. Converted on a pass to Kittle, scored the TD a few plays later.

The OT decision was 4th and 4 from the KC 9.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
With 12:45 left in the 4th quarter, Shanny went for it on 4th and 3 from the KC 15 down 16-13. Converted on a pass to Kittle, scored the TD a few plays later.

The OT decision was 4th and 4 from the KC 9.
Thanks, see above. I was editing when you posted.

To repeat: The only thing I can think of is Shanahan might have been more willing to pass on a chance to tie there, because there was enough time remaining to score again to tie or take the lead. But in OT, if he passed up the FG, he was leaving himself open to the Chiefs driving needing only a FG to win. That is one of the downfalls of taking the ball first---it forces you into that sort of "take the points to guard against losing on a FG" mentality. I bet similarly if the Niners had scored a TD, they would have likely kicked the PAT for the same reason.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,317
Hingham, MA
So you guys think the decision came down to being able to get the ball back in regulation, vs. not in OT? I can buy that. Personally I'd have kicked in regulation given that it was 4th and 3 (4th and 1, different story).

Also, this cost me from winning the score change pool, where I had 3-3. So I'm slightly salty.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So you guys think the decision came down to being able to get the ball back in regulation, vs. not in OT? I can buy that. Personally I'd have kicked in regulation given that it was 4th and 3 (4th and 1, different story).

Also, this cost me from winning the score change pool, where I had 3-3. So I'm slightly salty.
What would have been interesting to see is if Reid would have played it with a similar "use all four downs" mentality on the ensuing Chiefs drive if the Niners went for the first down and failed, since then the Chiefs would have been facing a situation in which they could lose on a FG if they gave the ball back to the Niners. Since that drive would have begun inside their own ten, would they have been aggressive going for it on fourth down until they pushed it out at least to their thirty, because a punt from anywhere inside there would likely leave the Niners with a relatively short drive to get into FG range? Or would they punt anyway to protect themselves from setting up the Niners in FG range if they failed in a fourth down attempt? Forcing those decisions onto Reid might be another reason why Shanahan should have gone for it in OT.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,317
Hingham, MA
What would have been interesting to see is if Reid would have played it with a similar "use all four downs" mentality on the ensuing Chiefs drive if the Niners went for the first down and failed, since then the Chiefs would have been facing a situation in which they could lose on a FG if they gave the ball back to the Niners. Since that drive would have begun inside their own ten, would they have been aggressive going for it on fourth down until they pushed it out at least to their thirty, because a punt from anywhere inside there would likely leave the Niners with a relatively short drive to get into FG range? Or would they punt anyway to protect themselves from setting up the Niners in FG range if they failed in a fourth down attempt? Forcing those decisions onto Reid might be another reason why Shanahan should have gone for it in OT.
Interesting points. I can't imagine Reid would have gone for a 4th down inside his own 30 in OT.
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Interesting points. I can't imagine Reid would have gone for a 4th down inside his own 30 in OT.
Me neither. And I also doubt he would have gone for a 4th and 1 from his 34 as he did in OT by necessity in the actual game. At the time, when Shanahan kicked the FG, I thought he really had no choice given the circumstances. Now I'm less sure about that.