Eagles-Chiefs Super Bowl Hype Thread
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
SF had two plays after Philadelphia went up 14-7 at 1:36. First play was a gain of 11 yards to the 36 (not a sack, as you say; it’s easy enough to check), second play Johnson dropped the snap. They had all three time outs in their pocket and they had Robbie Gould. If they had actually taken a sack the first play, then maybe running out the clock would have been the way to go, but with three time outs and ~35 yards needed every coach would have tried to get points. (After all, their first play had gained 11 yards, and they had gotten a TD on their preceding drive.) Johnson dropping the snap wasn't on Shanahan. An interception, say, you could put on Shanahan, but not a bobbled snap.
Eagles 31-7 49ers (Jan 29, 2023) Play-by-Play - ESPN
Play-by-play action for the Philadelphia Eagles vs. San Francisco 49ers NFL game from January 29, 2023 on ESPN.
www.espn.com
Last edited:
I didn’t say the first play was a sack. For brevity I went right to the next play which was a sack n a fumble on the same play(yes he didn’t catch the ball, which may have caused the fumble idk, but either way he was getting sacked)SF had two plays after Philadelphia went up 14-7 at 1:36. First play was a gain of 11 yards to the 36 (not a sack, as you say; it’s easy enough to check), second play Johnson dropped the snap. They had all three time outs in their pocket and they had Robbie Gould. If they had actually taken a sack the first play, then maybe running out the clock would have been the way to go, but with three time outs and ~35 yards needed every coach would have tried to get points. (After all, their first play had gained 11 yards, and they had gotten a TD on their preceding drive.) Johnson dropping the snap wasn't on Shanahan. An interception, say, you could put on Shanahan, but not a bobbled snap.
Eagles 31-7 49ers (Jan 29, 2023) Play-by-Play - ESPN
Play-by-play action for the Philadelphia Eagles vs. San Francisco 49ers NFL game from January 29, 2023 on ESPN.
But I am of the opinion it was a mistake by the 9 ers to attack and try to score in that situation, a hurry up with your last string QB running it. But you are correct every coach might try. That’s why in the game thread I said the eagles would be up 14-7, 21-7 by half when the score was 7-7 and about 2 mins to play. Because I figured the Eagles would score a TD, the 9 ers will try to go hurry up, they would mess it up, the Eagles get the ball back and score again
Let’s face it the smart coach would have been happy w 14-7 knowing they get the ball to start the half playing w your last string QB. That wasn’t Steve Young out there
“He didn’t catch the ball, which may have caused the fumble.” Okay. I’ll drop it.
good because if he did catch it 97 (Hargrave) was going to sack him, imo....
but none of this is the point, SF, imo, with their last string QB, should have sat on the ball and gone into half time 14-7.
At least he's not an all knowing genius that doesn't know everything. Because that could split the fabric of reality and end the world. Dodged a bullet there.
Using context, IF the 49ers had an unproductive first down then your scenario makes sense. But what actually happened is that the 49ers immediately got a first down on the very first play of the drive. That changes the equation, because now the chance to at least get a field goal out of the drive is significantly increased. Thus, the gear shifted from running out the clock to being aggressive. No problem if your opinion differs, but it isn't poor coaching, it is just a different degree of aggressiveness than you would choose to use based on the successful first-play of the drive. The announcers even reinforced this concept at the time, that the strategy would depend upon the how the drive starts.
fwiw If ANY team developed their gameplan around a professional QB being unable to catch a routine snap, then you might just as well forfeit the game before it starts imho.
If you want to attack Shanahan, it would seem more effective to cite the apparent lack of defensive discipline (countless avoidable penalties), or you could question why he didn't run the wildcat when everyone in the building knew that the 49ers couldn't pass, despite the 2 score + deficit. Despite the fact that the wildcat is typically ineffective at the NFL level because a one-dimensional attack is easier to predict and defend, at least that way they would have been able to use an extra blocker.
Yeah, and if Johnson had held onto the next snap and gotten sacked, reassess.Using context, IF the 49ers had an unproductive first down then your scenario makes sense. But what actually happened is that the 49ers immediately got a first down on the very first play of the drive. That changes the equation, because now the chance to at least get a field goal out of the drive is significantly increased. Thus, the gear shifted from running out the clock to being aggressive. No problem if your opinion differs, but it isn't poor coaching, it is just a different degree of aggressiveness than you would choose to use based on the successful first-play of the drive. The announcers even reinforced this concept at the time, that the strategy would depend upon the how the drive starts.
fwiw If ANY team developed their gameplan around a professional QB being unable to catch a routine snap, then you might just as well forfeit the game before it starts imho.
If you want to attack Shanahan, it would seem more effective to cite the apparent lack of defensive discipline (countless avoidable penalties), or you could question why he didn't run the wildcat when everyone in the building knew that the 49ers couldn't pass, despite the 2 score + deficit. Despite the fact that the wildcat is typically ineffective at the NFL level because a one-dimensional attack is easier to predict and defend, at least that way they would have been able to use an extra blocker.
you are correct my opinion differs, with Eagles pass rush, and knowing the 9ers were more likely to throw than run in that situation, couple play the new Don Ho at QB it was not, imo the time to get aggressive.Using context, IF the 49ers had an unproductive first down then your scenario makes sense. But what actually happened is that the 49ers immediately got a first down on the very first play of the drive. That changes the equation, because now the chance to at least get a field goal out of the drive is significantly increased. Thus, the gear shifted from running out the clock to being aggressive. No problem if your opinion differs, but it isn't poor coaching, it is just a different degree of aggressiveness than you would choose to use based on the successful first-play of the drive. The announcers even reinforced this concept at the time, that the strategy would depend upon the how the drive starts.
fwiw If ANY team developed their gameplan around a professional QB being unable to catch a routine snap, then you might just as well forfeit the game before it starts imho.
If you want to attack Shanahan, it would seem more effective to cite the apparent lack of defensive discipline (countless avoidable penalties), or you could question why he didn't run the wildcat when everyone in the building knew that the 49ers couldn't pass, despite the 2 score + deficit. Despite the fact that the wildcat is typically ineffective at the NFL level because a one-dimensional attack is easier to predict and defend, at least that way they would have been able to use an extra blocker.
You could attack Shanahan for not having 3 QB's up like the Bengals did, considering the situration.
probably, thats the way they do in in the pros, but he could still throw better than Purdy or Don Ho.
Last edited:
well they could have used Christian McCaffery as a QB, or they could have traded for Lane Johnson, he played QB in JC.
Don’t know why they don’t allow a team to pick someone up, I thought they did that with the kickers all the time. It had been weeks and weeks and the team is a step away from the super bowl.
OTOH they do allow them to pick someone up (not a half time though) you can dress as many QBs as you want for a game, there is not limit. There are street FA QB's not on anyones roster, or you can swipe one from the practice squad if they are not protected, but then thay have to be active.
Yeah, because the Eagles LEGALLY knocked their asses out of the game.
LOL I have some good friends!! They have gone on cruises, and randomly met Donna Kelce, Travis and Jason mom. My friends reached out to Donna, and now I have individually autographed photos of Travis and Jason!!! I'll put them up in the man cave, though I am not sure what to do with Travis!!! Ebay?? kidding
Last edited:
Eagles need to sign a new punter before Feb 12th. Kern is God awful terrible and will give KC a field position advantage on near every punt exchange. I hope Roseman is working the phones to find one.
3 days ago, Siposs said he was ready and could have punted in the NFCCG.
Injured Aussie punter Arryn Siposs declares he’s ready for Super Bowl, hopes to join Jordan Mailata
Punter ‘ready to go’ but faces nervous wait in bid to make it two Aussies in Super Bowl
www.foxsports.com.au
LOL the Eagles wont be punting in the Superbowl!!!
Eagles ain't going to need to punt in the Super Bowl. Every drive will end in a score. MARK IT DOWN!!!!
269 total yards, 3.8 yards per play, and 4 punts against SF. Just putting that out here. Philadelphia fans better hope the Eagles O that shows up in the Super Bowl is the one that NYG saw two weeks ago. Eagles had three punts in that Giants game.
and 31 points!! 4 touchdowns on the ground!! and a roughing the punter call as well!! brought in the riot squad with about 7 minutes to go!!! I'll take it!! Jim one day you'll learn the game isnt about stats.
Get unlimited access today.