RyanC883 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Defer. We have a new D in town, and I want to see what they can do to Brady and the Cheaties.
Koufax Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Statistically and logically deferring is the choice. Plus playing your home opener and having the start of the game excitement, one defensive stop with a loud crowd can really get things moving in the momentum category, and one three and out doesn't take the wind out of your sails. I'm hoping for a flashback to Takeo Spikes first game after his injury to start the 2006 season. If Brady scores a touchdown it is expected, and doesn't really ruin the day, but any sort of stop or turnover can really energize the whole start of the game.
White Linen Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Statistically you'll get more possesions by defering. Still I think the morale part of it outweighs the statistical probaility. You're not taking into account the probability of the morale aspect not working by not being successful with the first possession.
RyanC883 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Statistically and logically deferring is the choice. Plus playing your home opener and having the start of the game excitement, one defensive stop with a loud crowd can really get things moving in the momentum category, and one three and out doesn't take the wind out of your sails. I'm hoping for a flashback to Takeo Spikes first game after his injury to start the 2006 season. If Brady scores a touchdown it is expected, and doesn't really ruin the day, but any sort of stop or turnover can really energize the whole start of the game. I agree with this. NE scores, no effect. We stop them and sack Brady, or better get a TD on D, the place goes crazy. Major momentum shift.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I wonder with rules changing where more kickoffs are now being touched back will change the old thinking?
Mango Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Just win (the coin toss) baby! Wasn't it either Dick Jauron's last year, or JP Losmans last year, we won something like 10 straight coin tosses?
Best Player Available Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Wasn't it either Dick Jauron's last year, or JP Losmans last year, we won something like 10 straight coin tosses? At least we won something that year!
biglukes Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I usually always prefer to defer. Especially in the home opener. The crowd is fired up, the team is fired up. Keep the energy and the noise going strong instead of immediately quieting down for the offense.
dwight in philly Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I agree with this. NE scores, no effect. We stop them and sack Brady, or better get a TD on D, the place goes crazy. Major momentum shift. count me in also, the crowd needs to stay in the game after the initial pre-game intros, letting the D go and hopefully stop them, get T/O, whatever, gets the crowd amped further. taking the ball has obvious advantages, but the crowd effect will subside if we do. we can all analyze , but my concern is having the team feed off the crowd.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Always defer. Rookie QB starting his first game-- no brainier to defer. He's going to come out jittery and prob go 3 and out on his first drive anyway.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Defer. We have a new D in town, and I want to see what they can do to Brady and the Cheaties. I concur let's do defer!!!!!
run dat back Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Don't know about anyone else, but it seemed to me that deferring on the kickoff was ill conceived last year and the years under Gailey. It almost always put us in the hole early, and IMO having the ball in the second half was not enough to justify the strategy. Take the damn ball if we win the toss, attempt to put pressure on the opposing team with a 7 point lead. What say you? I agree. Bills D couldn't stop a check, yet we're giving the ball to the other team for a virtually guaranteed score. By the time we're getting the ball first in the 2nd half, we're down two TDs at least.
Dan Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Always defer. It gives you the opportunity for 2 consecutive possessions, i.e. 2 consecutive scores. Plus it allows you to choose when to have the wind or sun at your back which can be a nice edge. You can get just as much momentum from stopping them on the opening drive and then scoring as you can scoring first, then stopping them. Either way you have to score AND stop them from scoring. So that entire argument is a wash either way. Its not about who wins the first drive. It's about who wins the entire game.
HankBulloughMellencamp Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Always defer. It gives you the opportunity for 2 consecutive possessions, i.e. 2 consecutive scores. Plus it allows you to choose when to have the wind or sun at your back which can be a nice edge. You can get just as much momentum from stopping them on the opening drive and then scoring as you can scoring first, then stopping them. Either way you have to score AND stop them from scoring. So that entire argument is a wash either way. Its not about who wins the first drive. It's about who wins the entire game. Could not agree more. Always defer. The chance for two consecutive possessions is a huge point. The most important possession of the game is the first possession of the 3rd quarter - it sets the tone for the rest of the game. Having the ability to control the ball (or at least punt it and flip field position) is why deferring is always worth it. Football's version of "last ups"
papazoid Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Peyton deferred last night and then threw 7 TD's.....
iinii Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Always take the ball to start the second half, I say. For multiple reasons teams generally do what The Big Cat says!
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Always defer. It gives you the opportunity for 2 consecutive possessions, i.e. 2 consecutive scores. Plus it allows you to choose when to have the wind or sun at your back which can be a nice edge. You can get just as much momentum from stopping them on the opening drive and then scoring as you can scoring first, then stopping them. Either way you have to score AND stop them from scoring. So that entire argument is a wash either way. Its not about who wins the first drive. It's about who wins the entire game. If its windy deferring lets ya choose to have the wind at your back in the fourth quarter, at the Ralph it will backfire cause it swirls so bad in there. I hope we don't miss Lindell...
iinii Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 During my years as a season ticket holder, I lost count of the number of times the visiting team took the 2nd half kickoff and marched down the field and scored while the stands were still half empty. (people still finishing their smoke breaks, waiting in beer lines, ...) That alone may be justifiable reason to always defer. Precisely
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 Even back in the day, I was always one to NOT want to receive. People always thought it was stupid. You should always want the ball to start the 2nd half and get to choose what endzone to defend, this sets your team up for the wind in the 4th. Another thing... ALWAYS put your D on the field first. The D can score too! If its windy deferring lets ya choose to have the wind at your back in the fourth quarter, at the Ralph it will backfire cause it swirls so bad in there. I hope we don't miss Lindell... Unless you got Drew Bledsoe making "executive decisions" @ the last second! ;-)
Recommended Posts