Connect with us

San Francisco, CA

Maiocco's 49ers Report Card: Team grades in crushing loss to Bills

Published

on

Maiocco's 49ers Report Card: Team grades in crushing loss to Bills


ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. — These are the cold, hard facts.

The 49ers received another snowball upside their heads — figuratively and, perhaps, literally — when the Buffalo Bills hit them with a 35-10 beatdown at snowy Highmark Stadium.

Their second blowout loss in a row played out in front of a national television audience on Sunday night.

It was the second blowout loss the 49ers absorbed in back-to-back trips to Green Bay and Buffalo — the two coldest-weather locales in the NFL. A week ago, the 49ers lost to the Packers, 38-10.

Advertisement

The 49ers lost back-to-back games by 25 points or more for only the fourth time in franchise history and the first time since 2015 when the Jim Tomsula-coached team was blasted by Pittsburgh (43-18) and Arizona (47-7) in Weeks 2 and 3.

Here is the report card from their Week 13 loss to the Bills:

Rushing offense

The 49ers felt their best chance of winning this game was to run the ball down the throats of a Bills defense that is susceptible on the ground.

San Francisco largely succeeded in that area. Christian McCaffrey gained 53 yards on seven carries before leaving with a potentially season-ending injury to the posterior cruciate ligament in his right knee.

Jordan Mason led the 49ers with 78 yards on 13 carries. Isaac Guerendo added 19 yards and a touchdown on four attempts.

Advertisement

On the negative side, fullback Kyle Juszczyk fumbled at the goal line in the third quarter to prevent the 49ers from closing the gap to a two-score game.

Grade: C-plus

Passing offense

First, the 49ers’ passing game gets credit for not committing any turnovers.

Brock Purdy committed one giveaway when the ball slipped out of his hand as he attempted to throw a pass on the first play of the fourth quarter.

Advertisement

Jauan Jennings had 56 yards receiving on three catches.

Tight end George Kittle caught a 7-yard pass from Purdy on the 49ers’ first offensive play of the game. He did not have another reception the entire game.

Purdy completed 11 of 18 passes for 94 yards with no touchdowns and no interceptions.

Grade: D

Advertisement

Rushing defense

The game turned in the second quarter when the 49ers’ run defense was gashed for James Cook’s 65-yard touchdown run. On that play, linebacker Jalen Graham and safety Ji’Ayir Brown had their chances to stop Cook near the line of scrimmage.

Cooks had 100 yards rushing on nine carries in the first half.

The Bills finished the game with 220 rushing yards on 38 carries for a gaudy 5.8-yard average.

Advertisement

Grade: F

Passing defense

The Bills did not throw too much but they succeeded whenever Josh Allen dropped back to throw.

Allen’s big arm helped him cut through the wind against the 49ers’ short-handed defense.

Allen completed 13 of 17 pass attempts for 148 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions. He had a passer rating of 141.3. Allen was even credited with a touchdown pass to himself when Amari Cooper lateraled the ball back to him after a short third-quarter pass.

The 49ers got only one hit on Allen, and that came from undrafted rookie Evan Anderson in his first start.

Grade: F

Special teams

It’s difficult to place too much blame on kicker Jake Moody, considering the weather conditions.

But he did miss field goals of 45 and 55 yards in the first half.

Advertisement

Deebo Samuel tried to give the 49ers a spark to open the second half with a 60-yard kickoff return. But he also lost a fumble on a kickoff return early in the fourth quarter.

Grade: D

Coaching

The 49ers had the right idea to keep the ball on the ground. But one highly debatable decision that killed the 49ers came when coach Kyle Shanahan put the ball in the hands of a player who had just three carries coming into the game.

Fullback Kyle Juszczyk fumbled on a first-and-goal play from the Buffalo 4-yard line early in the third quarter when Taylor Rapp punched the ball loose.

Granted, Mason was out of the game. But rookie running back Isaac Guerendo, who entered the game with 38 carries this season, should have gotten the call over Juszczyk.

But, clearly, that play call did not cost the 49ers the game. Generally, the 49ers had the right idea from a tactical standpoint. They just did not have the players to compete with the Bills.

Grade: C-minus

Overall

Did you expect anything else?

Advertisement

The 49ers have not been good this season, period. And they were short-handed and going up against one of the best NFL teams.

A botched play from the 49ers’ run defense while Fred Warner was out of the game and a fumble at the goal line were the plays that stood out and prevented them from keeping it close.

The loss drops the 49ers (5-7) another game behind the Seattle Seahawks (7-5) in the NFC West.

Grade: F

Download and follow the 49ers Talk Podcast

Advertisement





Source link

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni

Published

on

San Francisco has a tax plan to save Muni


A parcel tax plan to rescue Muni would charge most homeowners at least $129 annually if voters approve the policy in November.

The finalized tax scheme, which updates a version presented Dec. 8, comes after weeks of negotiations between city officials and transit advocates.

The plan lowers the levels previously proposed for owners of apartment and condo buildings. They would still pay a $249 base tax up to 5,000 square feet of property, but additional square footage would be taxed at 19.5 cents, versus the previous 30 cents. The tax would be capped at $50,000.

The plan also adds provisions limiting how much of the tax can be passed through to tenants in rent-controlled buildings. Owners of rent-controlled properties would be able to pass through up to 50% of the parcel tax on a unit, with a cap of $65 a year.

Advertisement

These changes bring the total estimated annual tax revenue from $187 million to $183 million and earmark 10% for expanding transit service.

What you pay depends on what kind of property you or your landlord owns. There are three tiers: single-family homes, apartment and condo buildings, and commercial properties.

Owners of single-family homes smaller than 3,000 square feet would pay the base tax of $129 per year. Homes between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet would pay the base tax plus an additional 42 cents per square foot, and any home above 5,000 square feet would be taxed at an added $1.99 per square foot.

Source: Jeremy Chen/The Standard

Commercial landlords would face a $799 base tax for buildings up to 5,000 square feet, with per-square-foot rates that scale with the property size, up to a maximum of $400,000.

The finalized plan was presented by Julie Kirschbaum, director of transportation at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, at a board meeting Tuesday.

Advertisement

The plan proposed in December was criticized for failing to set aside funds to increase transit service and not including pass-through restrictions for tenants.

The tax is meant to close SFMTA’s $307 million budget gap, which stems from lagging ridership post-pandemic and the expiration of emergency federal funding. Without additional funding, the agency would be forced to drastically cut service. The parcel tax, a regional sales tax measure, and cost-cutting, would all be needed to close the fiscal gap.

The next steps for the parcel tax are creating draft legislation and launching a signature-gathering campaign to place the measure on the ballot.

Any measure would need review by the city attorney’s office. But all stakeholders have agreed on the tax structure presented Tuesday, according to Emma Hare, an aide to Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose office led negotiations over the tax between advocates and City Hall.

“It’s final,” Hare said. “We just need to write it down.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge

Published

on

Claims in lawsuit against Great Highway park dismissed by San Francisco judge


A San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed claims in a lawsuit against Proposition K, the ballot measure that permanently cleared traffic from the Great Highway to make way for a two-mile park. 

One advocacy group, Friends of Sunset Dunes, said the legal action affirmed Proposition K’s legal standing and called the lawsuit against the park “wasteful.” 

Advertisement

Proposition K passed with more than 54% of the vote in November 2024, but the debate didn’t end there. The Sunset District supervisor was recalled in the aftermath of that vote by residents in the district who argued their streets would be flooded by traffic and that the decision by voters citywide to close a major thoroughfare in their area was out of touch with the local community. 

What they’re saying:

Friends of Sunset Dunes hailed the judge’s decision in the lawsuit, Boschetto vs the City and County of San Francisco, as a victory. 

Advertisement

“After two ballot measures, two lawsuits, three failed appeals, and dozens of hours of public meetings and untold administrative time and cost, this ruling affirms Proposition K’s legal foundation, and affirms the city’s authority to move forward in creating a permanent coastal park to serve future generations of San Franciscans,” the group said in a statement. 

The group added that their volunteers are working to bring the coastal park to life. Meanwhile, “anti-park zealots continue to waste more public resources in their attempt to overturn the will of the people and close Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

“Now that they’ve lost two lawsuits and two elections, we invite them to accept the will of San Franciscans and work with us to make the most of our collective coastal park,” said Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. 

The supervisor for the Sunset District, Alan Wong, doubled down on what he had stated earlier. In a statement on Monday, Wong said he is “prepared to support a ballot initiative to reopen the Great Highway and restore the original compromise.” The compromise he’s referring to is vehicles allowed to drive along the highway on weekdays and a closure to traffic on the weekends. 

Wong, in his statement, added that he’s talked to constituents in his district across the political spectrum and that his values align with the majority of district 4 residents and organizations. 

Advertisement

When he was sworn in last month, Wong indicated he was open to revisiting the issue of reopening the Great Highway to traffic. He also said he voted against Proposition K, which cleared the way and made Sunset Dunes official. 

Engardio’s two-cents

Last September, Joel Engardio was recalled as the Sunset District supervisor in a special election. The primary reason for his ouster was his support of Sunset Dunes, the park which also saw the support of other prominent politicians, including former Mayor London Breed, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and State Senator Scott Wiener. 

Advertisement

Engardio on Monday issued his own statement after the judge dismissed all claims in the lawsuit against Prop. K. 

“It’s time to consider Sunset Dunes settled. Too many people have seen how the park is good for the environment, local businesses, and the physical and mental health of every visitor,” Engardio said. “Future generations will see this as a silly controversy because the park’s benefits far outweigh the fears of traffic jams that never happened. The coast belongs to everyone and it won’t be long before a majority everywhere will embrace the wonderful and magical Sunset Dunes.” 

Advertisement

San FranciscoPoliticsNews



Source link

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco

Published

on

Commentary: Let’s Do Better in 2026 – Streetsblog San Francisco


Editor’s note: special thanks to all our Streetsblog supporters! We fulfilled our 2025 fundraising goals. If you’d like to help us do even more, it’s not too late to donate.

I was on my way to dinner with friends on Christmas Eve when my westbound K Ingleside train was turned back at West Portal without explanation. I waited for the next train. It was turned back too. I asked one of the Muni drivers what was going on, and he said no M Ocean View or K Ingleside trains were running past the station.

I guessed it had something to do with the weather—the rain was coming down in sheets. I realized getting an Uber or Lyft at the station, with everybody else doing the same thing, probably wasn’t going to work. I had a good umbrella and rain coat so I started to walk down West Portal Avenue, ducking under awnings as I looked for a good spot to call a Lyft.

I didn’t get far before I saw why the trains were stopped, as seen in the lead photo.

Advertisement

I don’t know exactly how this blundering driver managed to bottom out his car on the barrier between the tracks. But, for me, it symbolized everything that’s wrong with San Francisco’s auto-uber-alles policies that continue to put the needs of individual drivers above buses and trains full of people. Mayor Lurie reiterated San Francisco’s supposed transit-first policy in his end-of-year directive. But if it’s a transit-first city, why are motorists still prioritized and permitted to drive on busy train tracks in the first place?

Photo of West Portal Ave.’s original configuration, before it was “upgraded” with angled parking and to allow drivers to use the tracks. Photo: Open SF History

Why isn’t the barrier in West Portal positioned to keep drivers from using the tracks, as it was historically? Why do we even have pavement on the tracks? And why haven’t we banned drivers from using West Portal Avenue and Ulloa Street as thoroughfares in the first place, where they regularly interfere with and delay trains?

I should have stopped walking and summoned a Lyft. But being forced by the shitty politics of San Francisco, combined with a shitty driver, to call yet another car, pissed me off. I thought about all the people who got off those trains who can’t afford to call a ride-hail. I thought about the hundreds of people trapped inside trains that were stuck between stations. I continued walking and thinking about all the times I’ve visited Europe and been through similarly busy, vibrant merchant corridors such as West Portal with one major difference: no cars.

Amsterdam. Not saying to turn West Portal into a pedestrian mall necessarily, but it shows what’s possible. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

Yes, even on “car-free” streets in Europe, typically cars and delivery vehicles can still cross and access the shops directly for deliveries. But some streets are just not meant to be a motoring free-for-all. Anybody who doubts that merchants flourish in car-free and car-lite environments should either get a passport, or they should take a look at the merchant receipts after a Sunday Streets event. On the other hand, Papenhausen Hardware, which helped block a safety plan that prioritized transit movements through West Portal, went out of business anyway in 2024.

As I walked in the driving rain, my thoughts drifted to 2024’s tragedy, in which a reckless driver wiped out a family of four when she crashed onto a sidewalk in West Portal. San Francisco had an opportunity to finally implement a transit-first project and prevent a future tragedy by banning most drivers from the tracks and preventing them from using West Portal as a cut through. And yet, a supposedly safe-streets ally, Supervisor Myrna Melgar, aligned with a subset of the merchants in West Portal and sabotaged the project.

Since then, I’m aware of at least one other incident in West Portal where an errant driver went up on the sidewalk and hit a building. Thankfully, there wasn’t a family in the way that time. Either way, West Portal Avenue, and a whole lot of other streets that have hosted horrible tragedies, are still as dangerous as ever thanks to the lack of political commitment and an unwillingness to change.

Advertisement
Another look at the car that blocked Muni on Christmas Eve. Photo: Streetsblog/Rudick

I finally got to my friends’ house, 35 minutes later. They loaned me some dry clothes and put my jeans in the dryer. We had a lovely meal and a great time. My friend drove me to BART for an uneventful trip home (not that BART is always impervious to driver insanity).

In 2026, advocates, allies, and friends, we all need to raise the bar and find a way to make sure politicians follow through on transit first, Vision Zero, and making San Francisco safe. Because the half-assed improvements made in West Portal and elsewhere aren’t enough. And the status quo isn’t working.

On a closely related note, be sure to sign this petition, demanding that SFMTA finish the transit-only lanes on Ocean Avenue.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending